'^ tlllu^'fa^ni'relatloni which distinguish the Christian home.
The chie, .""'^'t^t^ul^'onT. "clu'^i" ™1' w'TiXhe* 7^^ the Church «■" ""^i '" Hnw the C »rch"^The cx«l relation
I C^orre^lti^ .^Ct^ St. i^'th'erbyral:!, bolie, in Chn.
430
CHUKCH
CHUKCH
mode him free (e.g. he Bays of himself, ' not being myself under [the principle ofj law,* 1 Co 9'^). But he rated far above this abstract claim to freedom, the love which he owed to his * brethren in the flesh,' and so to the Jew he became as a Jew, and obsen'ed the commands of the law {e.g. Ac 13"^ 2018 21« 2817), although he recognized that a man could be saved, not by the works of the law, but only by faith ; cf. Gal 21^. Ae regards the Gentile, however, the apostle of the Gentiles fought for tile freedom which he thought the Jew should abstain from claiming. His position, that the Gentile should be free from circumcision and the law, was confirmed by the con- ference at Jerus., and at the same time the further question of daily intercourse between Jew and Gentile was also settled. It was assumed, as a matter of course, that the two should Jiix freely and without restraint ; but to lessen the oflence which this intercourse would give to Jewish instinctSj the Gentile was required to abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled. (These prohibitions were possibly conceived as * concrete indications of a pure and true religion,' and only indirectly as concessions to Judaism as they were specially reverenced by Jews. This explains the perjilexinij addition 'and from fornication.' See Hort, JudaiJttic Christianity, pp. 6S-73.) Thus was established a modus vivendi for those communities in which Jew and Gentile converts were to be found together. It is too much to assume from Ja 2^ that in such communities the Jews had their separate ' syna- gogue,' and lived apart. The author is writing from the stand- point of things as they were in his own church, i.e. where the community included only Jews who had formed themselves into a synagogue congregation. The incidents related in Gal 2il'i* presuppose a close and daily intercourse (especially in the way of meals) between the Je^s-ish and Gentile communities. If St. Paul condemned so strongly in this instance a reaction to the exclusiveness from which a break had been made, it is certain that he would not have encouraged the establishment of such a system in any of his own churches. We are therefore oonildent that in ail Pauline churches the Jews, like the apostle, and even St. Peter himself (cf. Ac 10*3 113), did not refuse to mix with the Gentiles, even if to some extent the two did fall into separate congregations. And intercourse of any kind im- plied a mutual give-and-take. The Jew resigned his instinctive and traditional hatred of the Gentile and lived as a Gentile (iflvixaJf Cf », Gal 2i*). The Gentile had to subordinate his 7»Wif to the principle of love (1 Co 81), that he might give no cause of stumbling to Jews. And there were grades between the pure Jew and the pure Gentile. The 'proselyte of the gate on becoming a (Jhristian naturally felt an instinctive sense of obhgation towards the whole or parts of the law. St. Paul has In his mind, not only Jews, but the class of rti^e/xivin in Ro 14^ And Bo 14'. a, 1 Co 8i-'» !()»« must be understood generally without exclusive reference to Jew or proselyte.
In the mixture of religions from which Christianity drew converts, there were many scruples, serious enough to those in whom they were ingrained from childhood, but which might draw a smile of contempt from the man of * knowledge.' St. Paul's line of teaching is that their observance or non-observance is accidental, but that the principle of love, which enjoins respect and forbearance towards them, is essential (see Bo 14i^i7, ICoS^X
(3) The Christian and the World.— The earliest persecQtions proceeded, not from the Romans, but from the Jews, either publicly, where they were allowed a measure of local authority {e.g. Ac 4'"*" 5i7(r. Qi. 1^ 2 Co 11"), or in the way of private mal- treatment. The Jews succeeded in some instances in raising Gentile mobs against their enemies {e.g. Ac Q""- IS" 14'). On rarer occasions the hatred of the Gentiles was aroused by personal losses occasioned through Christian teaching (Ac le""' IV^'-). But the Roman government and its re- sponsible representatives neither originated nor supported these persecutions. Its attitude was one of IndifTerence {e.g. Gallio in Ac 18") or active pro- tection (cf. Pilate 8 attitude Mt 27"'**, the authori- ties at Tbessalonica Ac 17', Ephesus 10"*-, Jerus. 21" 23'"'-). The Jewish accusation, that the Cliris- tians were rebelling against the Romans and setting np another king, was never regarded seriously by the government (cf. Lk 23', Jn 18»», Ac 17'). On occasions of tumult, indeed. Christians were appre- hended aa the apparent causes of disturbance, and treated with the rough-and-ready method of Roman provincial justice (Ac 16^ 22") ; but this was a universal practice, and not confined to Christians. The period of official persecution did not begin till Nero opened it in 64. So the Church looked to the Roman government as a protector rather than a persecutor (cf . 2 Th 2'). Those especially who were fortunate enough to possess the Roman citizenship found it a great safeguard against injustice (Ac le" 22» 26'*-"). These facts prepare us for the