Measiali ' that evoked their antagonism. As the movement seemed to spread at an alarming rate, the Sadducees feared a poimlar rising. They were satislied with things as they were, and they were exceedingly anxious not to give any oU'ence to Home. They opposed the apostolic preaching, as they liad opposed the claim of .lesus to be the Messiah, for they knew how similar movements had ended. The Pharisees took no part, at lirst, in the opposition to the new movement. This seeming inditl'erence is quite intelligible. We have already pointed out that the I'harisees were greatly interested in desus and in the claim which was m.ade by His followers that He was the Messiah. They were equally interested in the apostolic contention that the Itesurrection demon- strated the truth of His Messiahship. The ' rising from the dead ' had put the whole matter in a new light. The disciples themselves had temporarily relinquished their view that Jesus was the expected deliverer, but the Resurrection enabled them to recover their faith in a transligured form. We are not surprised that many Pharisees were among the early disci])les (Ac 15*). Gamaliel, a prominent Pharisee, counselled caution in dealing with the new movement. He suggested that they should wait developments and accept the verdict of Provi- dence. It was a Pharisaic belief that history judged all movements. Gamaliel was willing to keep an open mind, and in this attitude he repre- sented the more enlightened Pharisaism of the day. When they considered the question in the light of the llesurrection, there seemed nothing in the doctrine that Jesus was the Messiah which was inconsistent with the Messianic hope as it pre- vailed among the Pharisees., But they had not long to wait before they saw the significance of the new movement, and their interest was converted into determined and relentless opposition when they understood its true inwardness. The his- torian of Acts puts into the mouth of Stephen one of the most epoch-making utterances in the New Testament. Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew, and his early training had fitted him to grasp the uni- versality of the gospel. Christianity was the true completion of the religion of Israel, and, therefore, the supersession of Judaism. It was the fulfilment of the hope of Israel. The religious teachers of the nation liad tried to bring out the true nature of religiim, but the nation, in the person of its official leaders, had ofiered continued resistance to the Holy Ghost, with the result that the religion of the prophets had degenerated into Judaism. In the light of Stephen's conception of the gospel, Jewish institutions were temporary ; they had no abiding significance. They were not essential to the spiritual and universal gospel of Christianity. This speech contradicted Pharisaism at every point. Stephen was charged with speaking ' words against this holy place, and the law (6"). He spoke ' blas- phemous words against Moses and against God ' (v."). These accusations were inevitable from the Pharisaic point of view, for to the orthodox Pharisee the Law was a complete and final system. The charge of blasphemy had been brought against Jesus Christ, and the repetition of the indictment in the case of Stephen shows that the disciple had understood the mind of the Master.^ Henceforth the opposition of Judaism to the Christian Church is uncompromising and unbroken, and the martyr- dom of Ste]ihen was followed by the death of other prominent members of the Church. But the scattering of the Church meant the spreading of the gospel. There seems little doubt that refugees played no small part in the earliest missionary activities of the Church. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the opposition which Judaism was able to otler to the young churches which came into
existence in did'crent towns and villages in Asia Minor and in Kurope, for throughout the Konian Empire there were large Jewish settlements./In connexion with the repeated outbreaks of persecu- tion in various centres, the unbelieving Jew was the dark figure that stood in the background. There is truth in TertuUian's statement * that Jewish synagogues were the chief sources of per- secution. The historian of .Acts saw in Judaism^ the real opponent of Christianity. To him there was no other rival religion, for the heathen world was irreligious. Its numerous religions were not worthy of the name. To the strict Pharisee it was also equally clear that the real opponent of Judaism was Christianity. Judaism could hold its own against heathen religions, but Christianity was a powerful rival, for it deprived .ludaism of every- thing except its nationalism. The Jew repeated, in the case of the Christian mi.ssionary, the charge which had been brought against Jesms. He knew that it carried weight with the re]>resent.ative of Rome. In Thessalonica they urged 'certain vile fellows of the rabble' to lead the oppo.sition. The charge of high treason was insinuated in the words ' These all act contrary to the decrees of Cssar, say- ing that there is another king, one Jesus' (Ac 17'). It was this charge that finally decided Pilate to speak the fateful word and hand over Jesus to His persecutors. Generally throughout the Acts, Rome, in the person of its proconsuls, is repre- sented as taking on the whole a favourable view of Christianity. The brunt of the opposition came from the representatives of Judaism. But much depended on the temperament and character of the Roman governor as well as on the manner in which the prosecutors conducted the charge. The Jews in Corinth were not quite so alive to the possi- bilities of the situation as their compatriots at Thessalonica. The Corinthian Jews indicted Paul for urging men to worship contrary to the Law. Gallio replied that he was not concerned about their religious controversies. He would interfere only in case of crime or political misdemeanour (Ac 18'''- '*). It Is possible that the historian lays stress on the favourable attitude of Rome to the early Christians in order to impress on his Roman readers that there was no real incompatibility between the Christian religion and the interests of the Empire. The Christian Church felt the force of Jewish persecution in a peculiarly violent manner in the first lialf of the 2nd cent, when they refused to join in the revolt of Bar Cochl)a — the ' Son of the Star' (Nu 24"), who headed a Messianic movement. The Christians refused to admit his claim, and were exposed to the vengeance of both Rome and the would-be Messiah. To the Romans they were Jews, whilst to the insurrectionists they were renegades. The Church of Pentecost consisted entirely of Jews who accepted the apostolic doctrine that Jesus — Crucified and Risen — was the Messiah. Apart from that confession, they remained Jews and retained their Judaism in its entirety ; and we must not read too much into that elementary creed. Even Peter and John, not to mention their converts, had not fully understood the teaching of Jesus. But it is an astonishing fact that within half a century the leading minds of the Church had set forth the content of the Christian religion, in Gospel and Epistle. When the Jew perceived the universal character of the gospel, he became its re- lentless opponent. He was too much of a nationalist to accept a gospel that placed all nations on an equality, whilst his reverence for the Law would not permit him to believe that it could be superseded. His nationalism and conservatism made him a bitter persecutor of ' the Way.' There were two alternatives for the Jew — conversion ox persecution. • Sc(>rp. 10.