On the opposition of the Jews, Paul wrote: “From the Jews I received forty lashes minus one” (cf

It follows that the terrible prediction of Paul – one which unfortunately came to pass – did not exclude a subsequent reconciliation

80. In the years preceding the writing of the Letter to the Romans, because he experienced fierce opposition from many of his “relatives according to the flesh”, Paul occasionally expressed strong defensive reactions. Dt 25:3). A little later he notes what he must do in the face of danger from brothers of his race as well as from Gentiles (2 Co ,26). The recalling of these sad experiences elicits no comment from Paul. He is ready to “participate in the sufferings of Christ” (Ph 3:10). But what provokes an animated reaction are the obstacles placed by Jews in the way of his apostolate to the Gentiles. This is evident in a passage in the First Letter to the Thessalonians (2:14-16). These verses are so much at variance with Paul’s habitual attitude towards the Jews that attempts have been made to demonstrate that they are not from Paul, or to play down their vehemence. But the unanimous testimony of manuscripts renders their exclusion impossible, and the tenor of the whole does not permit restriction to the inhabitants of Judea, as has been suggested. The final verse is pungent: “God’s wrath has overtaken them at last” (1 Th 2:16). One is reminded of Jeremiah’s predictions 335 and of a phrase in 2 Ch : “The wrath of the Lord against his people became so great that there was no remedy”. These predicted the national catastrophe of 587 B.C.: the siege and capture of Jerusalem, the burning of the Temple, the deportation. Paul apparently foresees a catastrophe of similar proportions. It is worth noting, though, that the events of 587 were not the end. The Lord then had pity on his people.

It would probably be better to see a reference, as in Rv , to the pagan context in which the Philippians lived, and to assume that Paul is referring here to pagan customs: sexual perversions, immoral acts, cultic mutilations associated with orgiastic cults

In 1 Th 2:14-16, in the context of sufferings inflicted on the Thessalonian Christians by their compatriots, Paul recalls that the churches in Judea had suffered the same fate at the hands of the Jews, and accuses them of a series of crimes: they “killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out”; then in the present tense: “they displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved”. It is clear that the last is more important to Paul than the two preceding negative appraisals. Because the Jews are an obstacle to the Christian preaching addressed to the Gentiles, they “oppose all men” 336 and “they displease God”. In opposing the Christian preaching, the Jews of Paul’s time show themselves in solidarity with the ancestors who killed the prophets, and with their own brothers who demanded that Jesus be condemned to death. The formulae used by Paul seem to suggest that the death of Jesus is to be attributed to all Jews indiscriminately without distinction: anti-Jewish interpreters understand them in this sense. Put in context, however, they refer only to Jews who were opposed to preaching to the pagans and therefore opposed their salvation. When the opposition ceases, the accusation does as well.

Another polemical passage is found in Ph 3:2-3: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh (katatom)! For it is we who are the circumcision (peritom)”. Whom has the apostle in mind here? Since the reference is not explicit enough, it does not allow us any certainty, but the interpretation that Jews are envisaged, can at least be excluded. According to a current opinion, Paul would have in mind judaising Christians, who wished to impose circumcision on Christians from the “nations”. Paul aggressively applies to them a term of contempt, “dogs”, a metaphor for the ritual impurity that the Jews sometimes attributed to the Gentiles (Mt ). He downgrades circumcision of the flesh by ironically calling it “mutilation” (cf. Ga 5:12), and opposes to it a spiritual circumcision, similar to Deuteronomy’s circumcision Antioch CA eros escort of the heart. 337 The context, in this case, would have been the controversy about Jewish observances within the Christian churches, as in the Letter to the Galatians. 338