Jesus to the Renaissance - Day 3

Good evening, everybody. Nice to see you on this third evening of this lecture series. I hope that you're well. So, let's welcome up William for another evening of lectures. Thank you very much. It's nice to see you all here, just looking at all the faces on the different screens. Something I forgot to mention this week is that, as I often say at the beginning of a workshop, I don't expect you to believe everything I'm saying. This is just a lot of things that I'm thinking about myself. Every time I teach a workshop or teach material, it always comes out differently because my own understanding is always developing and evolving, hopefully getting better and clearer. This is part of my own journey, really. For me, it's been great to have so many people wanting to join me on this journey. It's just a lot of stuff to think about, really. I'm not expecting you to agree with everything. As I always say to people, if you believe everything I say at the end of the workshop, I'll be really disappointed because, at the end of the day, we have to try and figure these things out for ourselves. I'm just trying to provide a bit of perspective, a bit of knowledge, and a few other facts, different ways of looking at things, so that you can think about these things for yourselves.

We were talking about Paul on Monday and Tuesday, and some of you were asking, well, if it hadn't been for Paul, where's Paul's place in God's providence? Obviously, Paul had this profound encounter and experience with Jesus, and he formed a very deep relationship with Jesus. But at the same time, as we'll look at a bit later, there are problematic relationships with the church in Jerusalem, with the close disciples of Jesus who knew Jesus personally. Some of you say, well, if it hadn't been for Paul, who would have reached out to the Gentiles? We know about Paul basically because of the Acts of the Apostles, which was supposed to be written by Luke, who was Paul's companion as he went on his travels. Paul asked him to make a record, and so he wrote up the story of Paul's travels. He also wrote things basically from Paul's point of view, including Paul's view of the development of Christianity, the church, and the relationship with the apostles back in Jerusalem. Of course, we have Paul's letters to the cities and communities that he founded, but the other disciples I just mentioned also went out as missionaries. The only problem is we don't have as clear a record of them as we do of Paul. That's why, in my opinion, Paul gets disproportionately important significance. If you were there in the first century, you'd see all these different disciples going around doing amazing things, but what they were doing wasn't necessarily recorded in the way that Paul's work was recorded.

One always needs to bear this in mind: just because something hasn't been written about doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's the same with us. Father asked us all to write our own autobiography, and if we want our descendants and the world to know about what we did when we went pioneering or whatever it was we did, then we need to leave a record behind. Otherwise, we won't feature in the historical record. For example, Peter was often referred to not by the name Peter but by the name Cephas in the book of Acts. He went to Antioch and became the patriarch there for about seven years. He also went to Corinth, places where Paul was working as well. He encountered Paul a couple of times and had clashes with him, and that was a developing relationship. He later went as a missionary to Rome, where he was martyred. Then there was Thomas, often called Doubting Thomas. After the resurrection, he went as a missionary to Kerala in India, and the church he founded there still exists today. They recognise him as the founder. He's also supposed to have gone to China and possibly Indonesia before being martyred in Madras.

James, often thought of as the brother or cousin of Jesus, became the leader of the Jerusalem community after Jesus' death and was the first bishop of Jerusalem. He was martyred in Jerusalem under the instigation of the high priest. Philip, one of the disciples of Jesus, went as a missionary to Armenia, which is thought to be one of the oldest churches in the world. He was martyred at Hierapolis in Greece. Andrew, another disciple, was a missionary to the Greeks and is thought to have gone to Russia and Poland before being martyred in Patras, Greece. Simon the Zealot, often called the Zealot, became the second bishop of Jerusalem after James and went as a missionary to Egypt, Persia, and Armenia, where he was later martyred in Lebanon. James the Greater, the son of Zebedee, is supposed to have gone on to Spain but returned to Judea, where he was executed by King Herod Agrippa. His remains are thought to be buried in a place in northern Spain where many Christians go on pilgrimage every year.

John the Apostle went to Ephesus and Patmos, where he is supposed to have written the Gospel of John, the Book of Revelation, and some letters. Bartholomew is said to have ended his ministry in India and Armenia, where he was martyred. Jude, supposed to be the brother of Jesus, authored the letter of Jude and was a missionary to Samaria, Syria, Libya, and Mesopotamia before being martyred in Lebanon. Matthias was a missionary in Judea and was martyred in Georgia, which has one of the oldest churches in the world. Matthew stayed in Jerusalem. Philip, a deacon like Stephen, was a missionary to Samaria, where he encountered someone called Simon the Magician, who was one of the early Gnostics. He converted him and later witnessed to an Ethiopian diplomat who became a Christian and founded the church in Ethiopia. Philip is supposed to have gone to Gaul and possibly to Britain. Joseph of Arimathea, supposed to be Jesus' uncle, approached Pilate to ask if he could bury Jesus in his tomb. This suggests that Joseph may have been a relative of Jesus, as only family members had the authority to bury someone. Early church tradition holds that he took Jesus to Britain, specifically Glastonbury, where many legends exist.

These are some examples of how the church in Jerusalem and the early Christians spread out and witnessed all over the world. Paul is the one whose journeys are most well known because they were written down in the Book of Acts. He went on three journeys and returned to Jerusalem three times: the first time very early after his conversion, the second time for the Jewish council, and the third time when he got into trouble and was taken to Rome, where he may have been martyred. In the early days, there was a conflict between the Christians who believed in Jesus and the Jews. This is from the Book of Acts: certain individuals came down from Judea, teaching the brothers that unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them. They were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and elders. This is supposed to be what's called the Council of Jerusalem in 48 A.D., described in Acts as quite a large meeting with many apostles and others present. When Paul writes about this event in his letter to the Galatians, the impression is given that he only met with a small group, basically what he calls the pillars of the church: Peter, James, and John. The question was, on what authority was Paul doing all this work, and did Gentile converts have to observe the Mosaic Law? This was the real issue: how do Gentile converts fit in?

During this meeting at the Council of Jerusalem, some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said it is necessary for them to be circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses. These were Pharisees who accepted Jesus. Many Pharisees believed in Jesus, while the opposition predominantly came from the high priests and the Sadducees. These Pharisees said that if Gentiles were going to convert, they needed to become Jews, which meant they needed to be circumcised and observe kosher laws. This raised another issue about what to do with the Gentile converts regarding dietary laws. In one of his letters to the Corinthians, Paul addressed this issue. He told the Gentile converts to eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any questions on the ground of conscience, for the earth and its fullness are the Lord's. If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you're disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any questions on the ground of conscience. For Orthodox Jews, of course, you can't just eat any meat; it has to be slaughtered in a particular way and be unblemished. Paul, however, was saying to go to the meat market and not ask if the meat is kosher. Just eat it if you like it because God created everything, and we shouldn't make that kind of distinction anymore. If an unbeliever invites you for a meal, just eat what is served. This became a controversy at the Council of Jerusalem over the issue of circumcision. Then Peter stood up and spoke.

He said to them, "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us. In cleansing their hearts by faith, he made no distinction between them and us." Paul is referring to an earlier event in the Book of Acts, where Peter was invited to the house of Cornelius, a Roman centurion who wanted to hear about the gospel. Paul was in a quandary about whether he should go there or not, concerned about the kind of food he might be served. He slept on it, and in the night, he had a dream with a vision of Jesus presenting various kinds of food. Jesus said to him in the vision, "You can eat anything; don't make any distinction between different kinds of food." On that basis, he went into Cornelius's house, shared the gospel, and Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, was born again, and was baptised.

Peter then started preaching to the Gentiles and had a shocking experience. The Gentiles were convicted by the Holy Spirit; their hearts were touched, and they experienced repentance and rebirth. They were filled with the Holy Spirit even though they were not Jews, did not observe the Mosaic Law, and were not circumcised. This was a spiritual reality that raised questions about how to explain it. Good theology is not abstract; it reflects upon experience. It is about recognising how God is working, even when it is shocking and unexpected. If one dismisses this as not being God's work, they must find a way to explain it and make sense of it. Theology should be grounded in experience; if it is merely abstract, it becomes dogmatic and fails to relate to or explain real experiences.

Paul was bearing witness and testifying to what happened, reminding the Pharisees and the Jews who believed in Jesus about the way God was working in this new dispensation. They had a long discussion, and eventually, James, as the head of the church, listened to the entire debate. He came to a conclusion, stating, "I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God. We shouldn't burden them with being circumcised or following kosher laws. Instead, we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from whatever has been strangled, and from blood." This list of rules may seem peculiar, but it indicates that they do not have to observe all the Mosaic laws, which number over six hundred, but only a certain number of them.

The basis for these rules can be found in a Jewish commentary on this episode. The authorities in Jerusalem insisted upon circumcision as a condition for Gentiles wishing to join the church. However, it was agreed that acceptance of the Noahide laws—regarding the avoidance of idolatry, fornication, and the eating of flesh cut from a living animal—should be demanded of those wanting to enter the church. Rabbi M. D. N. provided his opinion that the original intention of Jesus and especially of Paul was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah while allowing the Jews to follow the Mosaic Law. This explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.

The Jewish vision was never that everyone should become a Jew. The Jews were to be a holy nation, a kingdom of priests, living according to a higher standard of holiness. This was to help them develop a deeper relationship with God and bear witness to the rest of humanity about the oneness of God and living a moral life. The moral laws that the Jews were to testify to were the seven laws of Noah. According to Jewish thought, one does not need to become a Jew to have a place in the world to come; one only needs to observe the laws of Noah, which are universal laws.

The seven laws given at the time of Noah, following the flood, were part of a covenant made with Noah and all his descendants. These laws include not worshipping idols, not cursing God, not committing murder, not committing adultery or sexual immorality, not stealing, not eating flesh from a living animal, and establishing courts of justice. This framework aims to create a decent, moral, and peaceful society. It is not an ideal society but a bare minimum for creating a good moral and civilised society. Family is important, and the laws prevent people from realising the third blessing. The emphasis on animal welfare is also significant, as in the past, there were no fridges to keep meat fresh, leading to cruel practices.

The Jewish mission is not primarily about salvation or where one goes in the spiritual world. The Jewish vision, as articulated by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, was for the Israelites to create a moral society. This society would respect human dignity, administer law impartially, and ensure no one was destitute or abandoned. It requires a land, an economy, and a society where the Shekinah, or the presence of God, can be brought into shared spaces. This vision is very this-worldly, focusing on creating a model of a good, peaceful, and just society. When entering the land of Canaan, Moses instructed that when approaching a town to attack, they should offer terms of peace. This was not about genocide but about regime change, requiring the Canaanites to accept the Noahide laws and live morally without necessarily becoming Jews or observing all the Mosaic laws.

The emphasis on idolatry represents a clash of worldviews. The biblical worldview posits that there is only one God worthy of worship, leading to radical egalitarianism. All human beings are descended from Adam, making them sons and daughters of God, and thus every individual has inherent value. This view establishes an absolute and universal morality, encapsulated in the seven laws of Noah. Idol worship is seen as fake and leads to hierarchical societies where individuals are sacrificed for the sake of worshipping leaders. The biblical vision is egalitarian, contrasting sharply with the practices of idol worship, which often included child sacrifice and moral relativism. Therefore, when God instructed the Israelites to destroy idols and not worship other gods, it was a call for regime change and a shift in ideology, demanding acknowledgment of the one true God.

Sacrifice them, they'll invite you, and you'll eat their sacrifices. That's connected to what Paul is talking about. If we see how this worked out in practice, Joshua sent three proclamations to the Canaanites in the land of Israel prior to the Israelites' entry into the land. They were waiting there before they crossed the River Jordan for 40 days. Everybody knew they were coming; the people of Jericho knew they were coming. They had heard all about what God had done to the Egyptians. Joshua sent emissaries to all the towns to proclaim to the Canaanites what was going to happen, saying whoever wished to leave the land should leave, whoever wished to make peace should make peace, and whoever wished to wage war should do so. They gave them a choice, and the Gergashites emigrated because they believed the Holy One that the land of Israel rightly belonged to the Israelite people, and they went to Africa.

If you remember the story in Jericho, when the spies went there, Rahab the prostitute hid them. She said, 'We have heard what God has done to the Egyptians. We know the God of Israel is the true God, and I believe in the God of Israel. I want to transfer my loyalty from the king of Jericho to the King of Israel.' That's what happened. Everybody knew about these things, and the people of Gibeon, which was one particular town, made peace with Israel. They were allowed to carry on living there, the Gibeonites. However, 31 kings decided they weren't going to make this kind of peace treaty and observe these kinds of laws because they wanted to be like demigods or minor gods; they were just dictators. It wasn't a nice place; these Canaanite tribes were all run by dictators, and people were treated really badly under dictatorship. God wanted to create a different kind of society in Canaan. If the Canaanites wanted to participate in creating that model society, they could do so without becoming Jews, but they had to dismantle their political structures of idolatry and dictatorship and observe laws where justice applied equally to everybody. Just because you're the king doesn't mean you can go around robbing and murdering people.

So, that was the basis of what James said to Paul. He said, basically, that's fine; all the Gentiles who come to receive the Holy Spirit and be born again can all have a place in the world to come, or in Paul's language, they can all be saved. But they have to observe the laws of Noah. Those laws or rules that James gave out weren't arbitrary. Most Christians wonder why there are such strange rules; actually, there was a basis that goes all the way back to the time of Noah. James, as a traditional Orthodox Jew, was just saying, 'Okay, God is working here with the Gentiles according to Orthodox Jewish law. They need to observe the seven laws of Noah, then they can have a place in the world to come; they can also be saved.' So that's what you need to do, Paul. They don't need to be circumcised; they don't need to observe the kosher rules. That's enough. That was the Council of Jerusalem, and those are the seven laws.

The question is, does the Christian Church after that recognise the authority of that? The reality is, the Christian Church didn't observe the seven laws of Noah. Even animal welfare—when was that practised in the last 2000 years in Europe? Only recently has animal welfare become an issue. So, let's have a look at comparing Paul's teaching with what was being taught by James. If you remember, Paul said, as I mentioned before, he is trying to go behind Moses, trying to find a way of rooting his community in something beyond Moses, because Moses brought the Mosaic Law, which was for the people of Israel. He is trying to find something much more general, more universal. He bypasses Moses and goes back to Abraham. That sounds understandable from an Orthodox Jewish perspective.

What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? For if Abraham is justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. What does the scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. We know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, and we come to believe in Christ Jesus so we might be justified by faith in Christ, not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. Paul is wrestling with this whole issue; some of the people he is preaching to are Jews, some are Hellenized Jews, some are God-fearers—Gentiles who are attracted to the synagogue—and some are outright Gentiles. It's a very mixed group of people he is witnessing to, and he is trying to wrestle with how to guide these different groups. Should they all observe the same thing, or should the Jews continue observing the Mosaic Law?

If they should, then what about the Hellenized Jews? What about the God-fearers? It's quite complicated. When one reads Paul, one has to realise the people he is writing his letters to are particular congregations with specific demographic backgrounds in terms of where they have come from in their own spirituality and spiritual life. He is trying to reposition that. He doesn't want to have works because then he thinks they have to observe all the Mosaic Law. So he says Abraham is justified by faith, not by works. In other words, just by believing in Jesus, you are justified by faith in Christ. It becomes very easy to reach the point where you are justified by faith in Christ and not by doing the works of the law. In that case, you don't need to observe the law. There is a strand within Christianity that calls itself antinomian; they say, 'We are justified by faith in Jesus, not by observing the law. Therefore, we don't need to observe the law.' Paul is also wrestling with other people who interpret him in that way. They say, 'Oh, we believe in Jesus; therefore, we don't need to observe the law.' Not only do we not need to observe the law of circumcision, but we don't even need to observe the laws of sexual morality either. It's a huge struggle trying to work his way through this and come up with some clear teaching that is going to work.

When you read the letter of James, you can see what he is doing. He has obviously heard about Paul's teaching and is not happy with it. He writes a letter to the church with his view of how things are and how they are supposed to be understood. He says, 'What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works?' Here, he is speaking to the people who are taking Paul literally. In Galatians, Paul says, 'Can faith save you?' Paul says yes, but if a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat your fill,' and you do not supply their bodily needs, what good is that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. In other words, you may believe in Jesus, you may be born again, you may be filled with the Holy Spirit, but if you don't do anything, what value is that? Your faith is dead. That is the teaching of Jesus. Jesus said in a parable to separate the sheep and the goats; the sheep who go to heaven are the ones who do good deeds, who feed the naked, who clothe the naked, who visit the sick, and who visit those in prison. The ones who go to hell, who do believe in Jesus, are the ones who don't do any of these good things.

James says, 'You believe that God is one; you do well. You have good beliefs; you believe the right thing.' But then James says, 'Even the demons believe and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?' He is challenging them; even Satan believes in God. Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus, the scripture was fulfilled that says Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned as righteousness. Abraham believed in God, but if God had said to Abraham, 'Sacrifice your son, your only son, as a burnt offering,' and Abraham had said no, what then? Abraham would continue to believe that God existed and believed in God, but he would have no works in that sense, no faith in that sense, and he was called a friend of God. That's one of the most extraordinary things; Abraham is called a friend of God. Only two people in the Bible are called friends of God: Abraham and Moses. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. This is the debate between Pauline theology and the theology of the Jews who believed in Jesus, who in that sense are presenting the authentic teachings of Jesus. I would say Paul is not presenting the authentic teaching of Jesus; I would say that's where he becomes influenced by Gnostic ideas, which focus on belief rather than action.

In the early days of this spiritual community, they are trying to make sense of these discussions that Paul is having with James. They are very similar to the discussions we have as well. We think about what we need to do to receive the blessing. The conditions for receiving the blessing 30 years ago were incredibly strict; now they are much less strict. At the same time, the conditions for our second generation receiving the blessing are quite strict, whereas for others they aren't. It's a similar kind of discussion that we ought to be having, trying to make sense of these things. Why is it that anybody can turn up to the blessing in a stadium of 50,000 people and get blessed, whereas I might need to fulfil all these conditions? It's a very similar kind of thing, trying to make sense of what it means to be a central blessed family, like an Orthodox Jew, part of the core tradition, as opposed to a non-central blessed family. In other words, you're a blessed family, but you may be a Buddhist or something else. At the end of the day, just like Peter said, he recognised the Holy Spirit is working here. You can't say God isn't blessing these people; you can't say these people aren't receiving the Holy Spirit because from his very eyes and experience he knew they were receiving the Holy Spirit.

A couple of years ago, I went to Cambodia. I was very fortunate to go there and do some teaching. I attended quite a few blessings, and almost every day there would be a blessing of 430 couples. I helped to develop a few educational materials, but those people who were there had no Christian foundation at all, no biblical foundation—mostly Buddhists, or you might say worshipping all kinds of animists and ancestor worship. I thought it was really interesting; all these couples were coming along, receiving the blessing, going through the ceremony, taking the holy wine, doing the stick ceremony, and receiving the blessing. I was thinking, 'This is amazing, but is it making any difference in their lives?' I was very fortunate to attend a meeting in a village of people who had been to the blessing a couple of months before. Some of the people from there came along, and the missionary I was with asked, 'How has it been since you participated in the blessing?' It was really interesting listening to these people, mostly women but there were men as well, talking about how something had changed inside their hearts, how something had changed inside their marriages, how something had changed inside their families, and how something had changed in the relationships their children had with their friends. All I could say was, 'That is the work of the Holy Spirit.' You could say it works in that sense, and that's the same sort of thing I would say Peter had. 'Okay, this is happening; you can't pretend it's not happening. You can't say these people haven't done a seven-day fast or fulfilled all these conditions, therefore they're not qualified.' The reality is they go, they participate, they meet minimal conditions, and they experience the blessing. They experience God working in their lives, in their marriages, in their sexual relationships, and in their families. This is really interesting; God is working there. It's not just about the numbers; it's about actually God being present and working in this way. There was some conflict between the early church; I can't really call it the early church because they were basically just Jews who believed in Jesus. They weren't a separate community.

The early followers of Jesus were regarded as a Jewish sect because they were all Jews. Jesus, the Jew, and his disciples were all Jews who believed in him as the Messiah. However, they encountered significant opposition from the high priest, who was not a religious leader but represented the political authorities appointed by the Romans. His role was to monitor any potential uprisings, and he believed that by killing Jesus, he could end the movement. Despite this, the movement continued to grow, leading to further tensions within the Jewish community in Jerusalem.

Within this community, there was considerable controversy between those who supported the Jesus movement and those who opposed it. Some were curious to see how the situation would unfold, while others actively persecuted the followers of Jesus. Paul, for instance, spoke in synagogues for extended periods but was often expelled for his teachings, particularly regarding circumcision and dietary laws. This division among the Jews highlighted the differing beliefs about Jesus' role as the Messiah, especially in light of his crucifixion, which many argued contradicted the messianic vision of bringing peace and defeating Israel's enemies.

The main contention revolved around the belief that if Jesus was the Messiah, how could he have been killed? The Jews who did not believe in Jesus maintained that he failed to fulfil the messianic role, as there had been no peace on Earth since his death. They pointed to the prophecies in Isaiah, which spoke of nations not waging war against one another. In contrast, those who believed in Jesus argued that his death was part of God's plan, a view that was reinforced by their encounters with the resurrected Jesus. They believed that the crucifixion was necessary for the salvation of humanity, leading to a significant theological debate within the Jewish community.

The believers in Jesus pointed to over 300 prophecies from the Hebrew Bible that they claimed Jesus fulfilled. They argued that the crucifixion was not an unexpected failure but rather a divine necessity. This perspective was further developed in the Gospels, particularly in Matthew, which contains numerous references to Old Testament prophecies. The Gospel writers aimed to persuade their fellow Jews that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, despite his crucifixion. They used the Hebrew Scriptures as their primary source of authority, as the New Testament had not yet been established.

However, this raises questions about the motivations of the Gospel writers. Did they present Jesus' life in a way that conformed to the prophecies, or did the events unfold as they were recorded? This ambiguity lies at the heart of Christian theology and its relationship with Judaism. The early Christians faced a paradox: if the crucifixion was part of God's will, why were the Jews accused of rejecting the Messiah? This question has led to centuries of anti-Semitism, culminating in tragic events such as the Holocaust.

As Jews today read the New Testament, they often feel that their scriptures have been appropriated and misinterpreted. While the early Christians were indeed Jews, the later Christian interpretation of these texts has led to significant theological disputes. The Divine Principle, for example, also uses Hebrew Bible verses as proof texts, sometimes altering their meanings to fit a particular narrative. This practice mirrors how early Christians interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures to support their beliefs about Jesus.

The conflict between Jews and Romans escalated dramatically during the first Jewish revolt against Roman rule. The Roman occupation was harsh, leading to widespread resentment among the Jewish population. This tension culminated in violent uprisings, resulting in severe reprisals from the Romans, including the plundering of the Temple and the execution of thousands of Jews. The internal strife among the Jews further complicated the situation, leading to the eventual destruction of the Temple and the loss of their sacred treasures, which were taken to Rome to fund its reconstruction.

The siege of Masada became a symbol of Jewish resistance, where a group of freedom fighters chose death over surrender. This act of defiance robbed the Romans of their anticipated victory parade of captured Jews. The treasures from the Temple were used to enhance the glory of Rome, with the Colosseum and other monuments built from the wealth taken from Jerusalem. This historical narrative serves as a poignant reminder of the complex and often tragic relationship between Jews and the Roman Empire.

The Jewish-Roman War had profound implications for the Jewish community, particularly for those who believed in Jesus. The Christian Jews were pacifists, as Jesus advocated for civil disobedience and love for one's enemies. He sought to prevent rebellion against the Roman authorities, understanding that such an uprising would lead to inevitable slaughter. The Romans were the most powerful military force of the ancient world, and Jesus believed that a peaceful, non-violent resolution was the only viable option. Consequently, the Christian Jews left Jerusalem for a place called Pella, while those who remained accused them of betrayal, claiming they had failed to stand with their fellow Jews against the Romans. This division created a deep rift and embittered feelings between the two groups, marking a traumatic period for the Jewish people.

The destruction of the Temple was particularly traumatic, as it meant the end of sacrificial worship, which was central to Jewish religious life. The Sadducees and chief priests, who were responsible for the Temple, were effectively wiped out, leading to a profound sense of loss. The Jewish self-understanding at this time was that their exile from the land was a consequence of their sins. This perspective was transformed by Christian Jews into an accusation: 'On account of your sins, you are exiled from your land.' This shift in narrative contributed to the othering of Jews by Christians, who often pointed to the failings of the Jewish people in the Hebrew Bible as justification for their beliefs. The Jews themselves acknowledged their sins as the reason for their suffering, but the Christian interpretation painted them in a negative light.

The Christian Jews attempted to witness to their fellow Jews who did not believe in Jesus, but they faced significant resistance. The accusation that the Jews had failed to accept Jesus was retroactively applied to their history. This narrative persists today, as evidenced by experiences of Jewish children who encounter the painful accusation from Christian peers that they 'killed Jesus.' This trauma within the Jewish community raises questions about how to cope with such historical grievances, especially following the destruction of the Temple. In response, a group of surviving Pharisees gathered at a place called Jamnia, where they began to redefine Judaism in the absence of the Temple, ultimately laying the groundwork for what would become modern Judaism.

At Jamnia, discussions led to the issuance of a curse against heretics, which was generally understood to refer to Christians. This was particularly directed at those who believed in the divinity of Jesus, a concept that was unacceptable from both Jewish and Islamic perspectives. The belief that a human could be divine contradicted the fundamental tenets of monotheism. The arguments surrounding Jesus' identity—whether he was the Messiah or divine—created a significant divide between Jews who accepted Jesus and those who did not. The claim of Jesus' divinity was seen as a departure from traditional Jewish beliefs, leading to intense theological disputes.

The conflict over identity continued, with Christian Jews asserting that they were the true heirs of Abraham's blessing, while traditional Jews maintained their claim to this heritage. This rivalry intensified the already embittered relationship between the two groups. The assertion by Christian Jews that they represented the 'new Israel' contrasted sharply with the traditional view of the 'old Israel,' which they deemed as having failed. This theological and identity crisis was compounded by the historical trauma of the destruction of Jerusalem, which left deep emotional scars on the Jewish community.

Following the destruction of Jerusalem, another Jewish revolt occurred, led by a figure named Bar Kokhba, who was proclaimed the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva. Despite initial successes against Roman forces, the revolt ultimately failed, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews and the destruction of numerous villages. The aftermath saw the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem, which was rebuilt as a pagan city, and the renaming of Judea to Palestina. This period marked the beginning of a long Jewish diaspora, with communities spreading across North Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. The trauma of these events continues to resonate within Jewish history and identity.

In reflecting on these historical events, it is important to consider the lessons they offer, particularly in relation to our own spiritual communities. The destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent challenges faced by the Jewish people serve as a reminder of the complexities of faith, identity, and resilience in the face of adversity. As we navigate our own spiritual journeys, we may find parallels in the struggles of the past, prompting us to explore how we respond when our expectations are not met.