| Part ofa series on |
| Jewish Christianity |
|---|
 |
Ancient groups |
TheJudaizers were a faction of theJewish Christians, both ofJewish andnon-Jewish origins, who regarded theLevitical laws of theOld Testament as still binding on all Christians.[1] They tried to enforceJewish circumcision upon the Gentile converts toearly Christianity and were strenuously opposed and criticized for their behavior by theApostle Paul, who employed many ofhis epistles to refute theirdoctrinal positions.[1][2][3][4]
The term is derived from theKoine Greek wordἸουδαΐζειν (Ioudaizein),[5]used once in theGreek New Testament (Galatians 2:14),[6] when Paul publicly challenged theApostle Peter for compelling Gentile converts to early Christianity to "judaize".[7][8] This episode is known as theincident at Antioch.
Most Christians believe that much of theOld Covenant has beensuperseded, and many believe it has beencompletely abrogated and replaced by theLaw of Christ.[9] The Christian debate over judaizing began in thelifetime of the apostles, notably at theCouncil of Jerusalem and the incident at Antioch.[2][3] It has been carried on parallel to continuing debates aboutPaul the Apostle and Judaism,Protestant views of the Ten Commandments, andChristian ethics.
The meaning of the verbjudaize,[10] from which the nounJudaizer is derived, is derived from its various historical uses. Its biblical meaning is inferred and is not clearly defined beyond its obvious relationship to the word "Jew". TheAnchor Bible Dictionary, for example, says: "The clear implication is that gentiles are being compelled to live according to Jewish customs."[11]
The wordJudaizer comes fromjudaize, which is seldom used inEnglish Bible translations (an exception is theYoung's Literal Translation forGalatians 2:14).[12]
TheCouncil of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after thecrucifixion of Jesus, between26 and 36 AD.Acts15 andGalatians2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate whether male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to becomecircumcised; the rite of circumcision was considered execrable and repulsive during the period ofHellenization of theEastern Mediterranean[13][14][15][16] and was especially adversed inClassical civilization both fromancient Greeks andRomans, which instead valued theforeskin positively.[13][14][15][17]
BeforePaul's conversion, Christianity was part ofSecond Temple Judaism. Gentiles who wished to join the early Christian movement, which at the time comprised mostlyJewish followers, were expected to convert to Judaism, which likely meantsubmission to adult male circumcision for the uncircumcised, following the dietary restrictions ofkashrut, and more. During the time period there were also "partial converts", such asgate proselytes andGod-fearers (i.e. Greco-Roman sympathizers who made an allegiance to Judaism but refused to convert and therefore retained their Gentile (non-Jewish) status), hence they were uncircumcised and it was not required for them to follow any of the commandments of theMosaic Law.[18]
The inclusion of Gentiles into early Christianity posed a problem for the Jewish identity of some of the early Christians:[19][20][21] the new Gentile converts were not required to be circumcised nor to observe the Mosaic Law.[19] Circumcision in particular was regarded as a token of the membership of theAbrahamic covenant, and the most traditionalist faction of Jewish Christians (i.e., convertedPharisees) insisted that Gentile converts had to be circumcised as well.[22][19][20][21][23] Paul insisted thatfaith inChrist (see alsoFaith or Faithfulness) was sufficient forsalvation, therefore the Mosaic Law was not binding for the Gentiles.[24][25][26][27]
In theNew Testament, the Judaizers were a group of Jewish Christians who insisted that their co-religionists should follow the Mosaic Law and that Gentile converts toChristianity must first be circumcised (i.e. become Jewish through the ritual of a proselyte).[1][2][3][19][20][21][23] Although such repressive and legalistic requirements may have made Christianity a much less appealing religious choice for the vast majority of Gentiles,[4][13][14][15] the evidence afforded in Paul'sEpistle to the Galatians exhibits that initially a significant number of the Galatian Gentile converts appeared disposed to adopt these restrictions; indeed, Paul strenuously labors throughout the letter to dissuade them from doing so (cf.Galatians 4:21,Galatians 5:2–4,Galatians 5:6–12,Galatians 6:12–15).[1][2][3][24][25][26][27]
Paul was severely critical of the Judaizers within the early church and harshly reprimanded them for their doctrines and behavior.[1][2][3][4] Paul saw the Judaizers as being both dangerous to the spread of theGospel and propagators of grievousdoctrinal errors.[1][2][3][23][24][25][26][27] Many of his letters included in the New Testament (thePauline epistles) contain considerable material disputing the view of this faction and condemning its practitioners.[1][2][3][24][25][26][27] Paul publicly condemnedPeter for his seemingly ambivalent reaction to the Judaizers, embracing them publicly in places where their preaching was popular while holding the private opinion that their doctrines were erroneous (cf.Philippians 3:2–3,1 Corinthians 7:17–21,1 Corinthians 9:20–23,Romans 2:17–29,Romans 3:9–28,Romans 5:1–11,Titus 1:10–16).[2]
That Gentile Christians should obey the Law of Moses was the assumption of some Jewish Christians in the early church, as represented by the group of Pharisees who had converted to Christianity inActs 15:5. Paul opposed this position, concluding that Gentiles did not need to obey to the entire Law of Moses in order to become Christians.[2][3][23][24][25][26][27] The conflict between Paul and his Judaizing opponents over this issue came to a head with theCouncil of Jerusalem.[2][3][23][24][25] According to the account given inActs15, it was determined by theGreat Commission that Gentile converts to Christianity did not have to go through circumcision to be saved; but in addressing the second question as to whether or not they should obey theTorah,James the Just, brother of Jesus encouraged the Gentiles to "abstain fromthings sacrificed to idols, and fromblood, and from things strangled, and fromfornication" (Acts 15:19–29).
Paul addresses this question in hisEpistle to the Galatians, in which he condemned those who insisted that circumcision had to be followed for justification as "false believers" (Galatians 2:4):
But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us – we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those leaders contributed nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do. [...] We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by theworks of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.
Paul warns the early Galatian church that gentile Christians who submit to circumcision will be alienated from Christ: "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:2–4).
TheCatholic Encyclopedia notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26 sqq.)."[28]
%2c_c._1657.jpg)
Paul, who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles",[29][30] criticised the practice of circumcision, perhaps as an entrance into theNew Covenant of Jesus. In the case ofTimothy, whose mother was a Jewish Christian but whose father was a Greek, Paul personally circumcised him "because of the Jews" that were in town.[31][32] Some believe that he appeared to praise its value inRomans 3:1–2, yet later in Romans 2 we see his point. In1 Corinthians 9:20–23 he also disputes the value of circumcision. Paul made his case to the Christians at Rome[33] that circumcision no longer meant the physical, but a spiritual practice.[24][25][26][27] He also wrote: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts."[34]
Later Paul more explicitly denounced the practice,[2][3] rejecting and condemning those Judaizers who promoted circumcision to Gentile Christians.[20][24][25][26][27] He accused them of turning from the Spirit to the flesh:[24][25][26][27] "Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?"[35] Paul warned that the advocates of circumcision as a condition of salvation were "false brothers".[36][2][20] He accused the advocates of circumcision of wanting to make a good showing in the flesh,[37] and of glorying or boasting of the flesh.[38][20][24][25][26][27] Paul instead stressed a message ofsalvation throughfaith inChrist opposed to the submission under the Mosaic Law that constituted aNew Covenant with God,[21][24][25][26][27] which essentially provides ajustification for Gentiles from the harsh edicts of the Law, a New Covenant that did not require circumcision[21][24][25][26][27] (see alsoJustification by faith,Pauline passages supporting antinomianism,Abrogation of Old Covenant laws).
His attitude towards circumcision varies between his outright hostility to what he calls "mutilation" inPhilippians 3:2–3 to praise inRomans 3:1–2. However, such apparent discrepancies have led to a degree of skepticism about thereliability of Acts.[39]Baur, Schwanbeck,De Wette, Davidson, Mayerhoff,Schleiermacher,Bleek, Krenkel, and others have opposed the authenticity of the Acts; an objection is drawn from the discrepancy betweenActs 9:19–28 andGal. 1:17–19. Some believe that Paul wrote the entireEpistle to the Galatians attacking circumcision, saying in chapter five: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."[40]
The division between the Jews who followed the Mosaic Law and were circumcised and the Gentiles who were uncircumcised was highlighted in his Epistle to the Galatians:
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with thegospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with thegospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him anapostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to theGentiles), and when James andCephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me theright hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to theGentiles and they to thecircumcised.
"Judaizer" occurs once inJosephus'Jewish War 2.18.2, referring to theFirst Jewish–Roman War (66–73), written around 75:
...when the Syrians thought they had ruined the Jews, they had the Judaizers in suspicion also (Whiston Translation).[41][42]
It occurs once in theApostolic Fathers collection, inIgnatius's letter to the Magnesians 10:3 written around 100:
It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God. (Roberts-Donaldson Translation).[43]
Judaizing teachers are strongly condemned in theEpistle of Barnabas. (Although it did not become part of theChristian Biblical canon, it was widely circulated among Christians in the first two centuries and is part of theApostolic Fathers.) Whereas Paul acknowledged that the Law of Moses and its observance were good when used correctly ("the law is good, if one uses it lawfully",1 Tim 1:8), the Epistle of Barnabas condemns most Jewish practices, claiming that Jews had grossly misunderstood and misapplied the Law of Moses.
Justin Martyr (about 140) distinguishes two kinds of Jewish Christians: those who observe the Law of Moses but do not require its observance of others—with these he would holdcommunion—and those who believe the Mosaic law to be obligatory on all, whom he considers heretics (Dialogue with Trypho 47).
TheCouncil of Laodicea of around 365 decreed 59 laws, #29:
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. (Percival Translation).[44]
According toEusebius'History of the Church 4.5.3-4: the first 15Bishops of Jerusalem were "of the circumcision", although this in all likelihood is simply stating that they were Jewish Christians (as opposed to Gentile Christians), and that they observedbiblical circumcision and thus likely the rest of Torah as well.[45]
The eight homiliesAdversus Judaeos ("against the Jews") ofJohn Chrysostom (347–407) deal with the relationship between Christians, Jews and Judaizers.
The influence of the Judaizers in the church diminished significantly after thedestruction of Jerusalem, when the Jewish-Christian community at Jerusalem was dispersed by the Romans during the First Jewish–Roman War. The Romans also dispersed the Jewish leadership inJerusalem in 135 during theBar Kokhba Revolt. Traditionally it is believed theJerusalem Christians waited out theJewish–Roman wars inPella in theDecapolis. These setbacks, however, did not necessarily mean an end to Jewish Christianity, any more thanValerian's Massacre of 258, (when he killed all Christian bishops, presbyters, and deacons, includingPope Sixtus II andAntipope Novatian andCyprian of Carthage), meant an end toRoman Christianity.
The Latin verbiudaizare is used once in theVulgate where the Greek verbioudaizein occurs at Galatians 2:14.Augustine in hisCommentary on Galatians, describes Paul's opposition in Galatia as thosequi gentes cogebant iudaizare – "who thought to make the Gentiles live in accordance with Jewish customs."[46]
Christian groups following Jewish practices never completely vanished, although they had been designated asheretical by the5th century.
Skhariya orZacharias the Jew from Caffa led a sect of Judaizers in Russia. In 1480, Grand PrinceIvan III invited some of Zacharias's prominent adherents to visit Moscow. The Judaizers enjoyed the support of high-ranking officials, of statesmen, of merchants, ofYelena Stefanovna (wife ofIvan the Young, heir to the throne) and of Ivan's favorite deacon and diplomatFyodor Kuritsyn. The latter even decided to establish his own club in the mid-1480s. However, in the end Ivan III renounced his ideas of secularization and allied with the Orthodox Christian clergy. The struggle against the adherents was led by hegumenJoseph Volotsky and his followers (иосифляне,iosiflyane or Josephinians) and byArchbishop Gennady of Novgorod. After uncovering adherents in Novgorod around 1487, Gennady wrote a series of letters to other churchmen over several years calling on them to convenesobors ("church councils") with the intention "not to debate them, but to burn them". Such councils took place in 1488, 1490, 1494 and 1504. The councils outlawed religious and non-religious books and initiated their burning, sentenced a number of people to death, sent adherents into exile, and excommunicated them. In 1491, Zacharias the Jew was executed in Novgorod by the order of Ivan III.
At various times since then, theRussian Orthodox Church has described several relatedSpiritual Christian groups as having a Judaizing character; the accuracy of this label – which was influenced by the early Christian polemics against Judaizers – has been disputed.[by whom?] The most famous of theRussian Empire's Judaizing sects were theKaraimites[47][48]orKaraimizing-Subbotniks likeAlexander Zaïd (1886–1938) who successfully settled in the Holy Land from 1904.
TheEpistle to the Galatians strongly influencedMartin Luther at the time of theProtestant Reformation because of its exposition ofjustification by grace.[citation needed] Nevertheless, various sects ofMessianic Jews such asJews for Jesus have managed to stake out territory for themselves in the Protestant camp.
This behavior was particularly persecuted from 1300 to 1800 during theSpanish andPortuguese Inquisitions, using as a basis the many references in thePauline epistles regarding the "Law as a curse" and the futility of relying solely upon the Law for attainingsalvation, known aslegalism.[citation needed] Thus, in spite of Paul's agreement at the Council of Jerusalem, Gentile Christianity came to understand that any Torah Laws wereanathema, not only to Gentile Christians but also to Christians of Jewish extraction. Under the Spanish Inquisition, the penalty to a converted Jew for "Judaizing" was usuallydeath by burning.[citation needed]
The Spanish wordJudaizante was applied both to Jewishconversos who practiced some traditions from Judaism secretly and sometimes to Jews who had not converted,[49] in Spain and the New World at the time of theSpanish Inquisition.[50]
Sometimes, accusations of being a Judaizer led to the persecution of Catholics of Converso descent who were completely innocent of preaching or doing anything heretical by the Catholic Church. For example, while serving as professor ofBiblical scholarship at theUniversity of Salamanca, theAugustinianfriar andRenaissance humanismLuis de León both wrote and translated many immortal works ofChristian poetry into theSpanish language. But, despite being a devout and believing Christian, Fray Luis was descended from a family ofSpanish Jewish Conversos and this, as well as his vocal advocacy for teaching theHebrew language in Catholic universities and seminaries, caused false accusations from theDominicans of theheresies of being both aMarrano and a Judaiser. Fray Luis was accordingly imprisoned for four years by theSpanish Inquisition before he was ruled to be innocent of any wrongdoing and released without charge. While the conditions of his imprisonment were never harsh and he was allowed complete access to books, according to legend, Fray Luis started his first post-Inquisition University of Salamanca lecture with the words, "As I was saying the other day..."[51]
The term "Judaizers" was used by theSpanish Inquisition and the inquisitions established inMexico City,Lima, andCartagena de Indias forConversos (also termedMarranos) accused of continuing to observe the Jewish religion, asCrypto-Jews.[52][53][54] Entry of PortugueseNew Christians into Spain and the Spanish realms occurred during the Union of Crowns of Spain and Portugal, 1580–1640, when both kingdoms and their overseas empires were held by the same monarch. TheBnei Anusim are modern day Hispanic Judaizers.[citation needed]
TheCoptic,Ethiopian andEritrean Orthodox Churches all continue to practice male circumcision.[55]
A list of notable contemporary groups of Judaizers includes:[citation needed]
Galatians 2:14:"how is it that you compel the Gentiles to judaize?" "To judaize" was a quite familiar expression, in the sense "to live like a Jew", "to adopt a distinctively Jewish way of life"-with reference to Gentiles taking up Jewish customs like observance of thesabbath. The polemical note sounds in the verb "compel". [...] The element of compulsion would enter because there were Gentiles who were making claims, or for whom claims were being made, to enter into what generations of Jews had always regarded as their exclusive privileges (in terms of the argument of Galatians, into the direct line of inheritance fromAbraham). To safeguard the character of these privileges it was evidently seen as necessary to ensure that such claimants conformed fully to the traditional notes of thecovenant people. This Paul regarded as compulsion.
Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involvednudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks byepispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict ofAntiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons.
Circumcisedbarbarians, along with any others who revealed theglans penis, were the butt of ribaldhumor. ForGreek art portrays the foreskin, often drawn in meticulous detail, as an emblem of male beauty; and children with congenitally short foreskins were sometimes subjected to a treatment, known asepispasm, that was aimed at elongation.
