Why it did not have to be

Why it should not have been (Loosely based on John Howard Yoder's "It Did not Have to Be" In: The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited 2003 ISBN 0 334 02904 X The standard position can be summarized as follows: 1. Jews expected a victorious Messiah King and they've not understand that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the suffering servant. 2. When Jews identified the revelation of God with the characteristics of second Temple Judaism: a. The temple ritual and the priesthood provided a means for atonement for unwitting sins b. The Torah as read by the legalistic rabbis was the definition of pious and moral behavior c. The covenant was meant for Israel alone and for those who by a lawful procedure and search into the covenant d. The land of Israel was God's holy land e. A national state of Israel was required by God 3. the Pharisees and the Sadducees conspired to kill Jesus. They also persecuted the church out of hatred for the Messiah. 4. Jews and Christians are opposed with regard to the divinity of Christ. 5. The subjection and suffering of Israel is a response to their betrayal and the murder of Christ 6. A theology of grace replaces a theology of law. The church replaces the synagogue The common historical reading is wrong: 1. In the first century there was no single normative Judaism and no single normative Christianity that cooked be engaged in a single clear controversy. Jews, messianic Jews and messianic non-Jews could not be distinguished along clear-cut lines, of the sort that appeared in hindsight in the reconstruction of the conflict. The common historical reading is wrong: 2. The teachings of Jesus but also those of St. Paul are completely harmonious with the larger context of Jewish faith, including the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. And that holds true also for the conflicts between Jesus and his disciples on the one hand and representatives of other schools of thought within Judaism: they are family rows on common soil. The common historical reading is wrong: 3. The teachings of which it is said that they may a sharp division between Judaism and Christianity were not experienced as controversial in the first century and then they were certainly not present in the shape that they received after the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. There was no well-defined doctrine of the Trinity and the recognition of Jesus' particular status was not yet considered to be non-Jewish. The common historical reading is wrong: 4. The apostle Paul never ventured beyond the limits of Judaism. We get that impression only when his letters has been reinterpreted in the context of Catholicism. The Torah and Judaism in his letters were understood as expressions of that Catholicism. The external and meritorious works of the church - means to acquire atonement - were identified with the "works of the law" in Paul. Nobody was able to understand what mizvot were within Judaism. The common historical reading is wrong: 5. Christianity is not simply defined by the twofold No! that it heard from the synagogue. The first attacked Jesus status as the Messiah, and the second attacked the shape of the Church as a community of Jews and non-Jews. Despite that importance difference Christianity. as a whole can be defined as a Judaism. The kingdom of heaven, the expectation of the Messiah, the image of God as creator and moral lawgiver, the moral teachings itself, the concept of the people of God, the role of the Holy Spirit - all of these are notions from the rich treasury of Second Temple Judaism. The common historical reading is wrong: 6. The schism between the church and synagogue can be defined with greater accuracy by pointing to two stages. A. in the era of the Apologues of the second century the Church is focusing more and more on a pagan population and uses Greek philosophy to express her message. B. in the fourth century the Constantine merger of church and state removes any reason for a dialogue with Judaism. After all around the Council of Constantinople in 381 Christianity becomes the single religion in Europe. Justin Martyr (135 AD) He was born at Flavia Neapolis. According to church tradition Justin suffered martyrdom at Rome under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (between 162 and 168). Justin called himself a Samaritan, but his father and grandfather were probably Greek or Roman, and he was brought up a pagan. It seems that St Justin had property, studied philosophy, converted to Christianity, and devoted the rest of his life to teaching what he considered the true philosophy, still wearing his philosopher's gown to indicate that he had attained the truth. He probably traveled widely and ultimately settled in Rome as a Christian teacher. It is evident, therefore, that they did not relinquish the truth, but with all boldness preached to the Jews and Greeks. To the Jews, indeed, [they proclaimed] that the Jesus who was crucified by them was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, and that He has received from His Father an eternal kingdom in Israel, as I have pointed out; but to the Greeks they preached one God, who made all things, and Jesus Christ His Son. (Discourse to the Greeks p. 868) Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving His Word, but imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by Himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them.”  The effects of the schism 1. Both communities suffered from their separateness in the second and fourth century. The Jewish community in exile became vulnerable, and the Christian community got paganised. The effects of the schism 2. Because of the schism a theological climate could persist in the church that contributed to the Holocaust. The effects of the schism 3. Without the schism, the synagogue could have fulfilled its original mission as the nucleus of an open Abrahamitic community. The effects of the schism 4. Without the schism, the church could have avoided its triumphal seizure of power and then the imperial church of the Middle Ages would not have existed. Summary We can now reach the conclusion: In the schism between Judaism and Christianity did not have to be, because: 1. They were not divided sociologically. 2. Their teachings were almost indistinguishable to an outsider. 3. The fourth century theological controversy didn't exist yet. 4. The 16th century controversy didn't exist yet 5. The mutual rejection wasn't sufficient for separation 6. The second and fourth century controversies were not widespread The schism was harmful because: Both communities were affected negatively by it. Without the imperial Church and the Holocaust might have been avoided.