The historical problem of "Judaization": When is the line drawn?

[RobNJ]

This turned into a really colorful thread.

When my mother used to comment that meal my father made was "colorful" , he's call her "Our lady of Crayola"

 

[ArmyMatt]

This turned into a really colorful thread.

I see what you did there

 

[Northbrook]

Judaizing is introducing or requiring gentile Christians to adopt jewish holidays and rituals. For example in the early 1st century church many gentiles were asked to be circumcised before baptized because there was a belief that you were converting into a jewish sect. It is the conscience of the Church itself that determines what practises are neccesary and what are not.

OK, Buzuxi02, may I ask you a question about the Sabbath? I'm a Christian, and I don't have any problem with observing the Sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday. My question is: I still like to observe the Sabbath "a little bit" on Sunday. For example, let's say I have to do laundry. If I can avoid it, I will not do the laundry on a Sunday. Because I like to try not to work on Sunday. Because I believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, etching them into stone tablets, which expressly say not to work on the Sabbath; and I read in the Bible that "God is not a man, that He should change His mind." What do you think about what I am doing?

 

[Soyeong]

So, as we know, several times in the history of the Church and Christianity in general, there have been accusations of impiously adopting Mosaic practices in the Church's life - the most famous example is the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches accusing each other of Judaizing the Eucharist, with Thomas Aquinas believing that the Eastern Churches adopted Leaven Bread due to the Jews using Leavened Bread throughout the year, while the Eastern Churches accuse the Roman Church of using unleavened bread because the Jews used unleavened bread during the Passover. Another one is the famous story of the Easter controversy, with certain Churches in Asia following the Jewish calendar for Passover.

However, my question is, when do the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics draw the lines of when Judaization is unacceptable?

Even though it is a Christian belief that these disciplinary practices "of the Law" were separate from the Covenant and specifically connected to the Nation of Israel, while the Church has allowed the Covenant to expand to include non-Jews, while those who reject Christ are outside the Covenant, nevertheless it seems that the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church have in different degrees adopted certain Jewish practices, which are based on the Torah.

For example, in Eastern Orthodoxy, there is clearly a Jewish inheritance of the treatment of women and men of "ritual uncleanliness" (as both men and women naturally do unclean things) as well as the period of time to when the soul departs. More than that, eating blood-meat is unacceptable for the Orthodox as well, which seems to have its origins in the Jewish idea that the blood is where the soul is contained (Abel's blood crying out to the Lord, for example), and even in discipline, the growing of hair and not-cutting it for monastics seems to have connections to the Nazarite vow.

In Roman Catholicism, these practices are noticeably absent - however, there are some unique Roman Catholic practices which seem to be Jewish in origin - for example, the monastic tonsure of the West seems to be connected to Judaism, with Elisha being bald, and not to mention the usage of the Zucchetto (whose connection to Judaism is debated). The Syriac Orthodox also use the Zucchetto.

However, some Oriental Orthodox go above and beyond this - mainly, the Ethiopian Orthodox, who follow Jewish Kosher law, and how they remove their shoes from their feet in connection to Moses and the burning bush during liturgy, as well as requiring circumcision for men. The Ethiopians also recognize the Saturday Sabbath (while seeing the Sunday as the New Sabbath, they still hold to the rule of relaxing on the Sabbath on Saturday).


So, it seems that in history, different cultures and the churches therein have adopted different praxis as it regards to what Jewish ideas are acceptable and what aren't in terms of the disciplinary works of the law. However, in light of all these variances, what made the Churches in Asia who adopted the Jewish Pasch unacceptable (considering it was before Nicaea)? Or what made the use of unleavened bread unacceptable? What made the controversies of the Judaizers during the time of Saint Paul, and the following centuries, unacceptable?

I'm unsure, considering that all the churches which have a historical connection to the Ancient Church, how these lines were drawn even in the Ancient Church, and that's the question I'm asking.

Thanks.

Jesus was a Jew who practiced Judaism by keeping all of it's laws, so what is the problem with following what he taught by example?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Jesus was a Jew who practiced Judaism by keeping all of it's laws, so what is the problem with following what he taught by example?

because the Law is fulfilled in Him.

 

[Soyeong]

because the Law is fulfilled in Him.

In 1 Peter 2:21-22, we are told to follow Christ's example, so do you think that we should follow Christ's example or do you think that Christ fulfilled the Law so that we wouldn't have to follow what he taught by example?

 

[ArmyMatt]

In 1 Peter 2:21-22, we are told to follow Christ's example, so do you think that we should follow Christ's example or do you think that Christ fulfilled the Law so that we wouldn't have to follow what he taught by example?

we do follow His example. however, according to the Synod in Jerusalem, Gentiles don't follow the Law. to do so is the heresy of Judaizing. Christ's example is far deeper than the Law He gave.

plus that text you referenced is about His passion. context is always key.

 

[Soyeong]

we do follow His example. however, according to the Synod in Jerusalem, Gentiles don't follow the Law. to do so is the heresy of Judaizing. Christ's example is far deeper than the Law He gave.

plus that text you referenced is about His passion. context is always key.

I agree that that passage describes his passion, but part of the example that we are to follow is that he committed no sin. Sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), so do you think that we should follow his example of refraining from sin or do you think that the Jerusalem Council ruled against following this example? In 1 John 2:5-6, we are also told that those who are in Christ ought walk in the same way he walked.

 

[buzuxi02]

OK, Buzuxi02, may I ask you a question about the Sabbath? I'm a Christian, and I don't have any problem with observing the Sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday. My question is: I still like to observe the Sabbath "a little bit" on Sunday. For example, let's say I have to do laundry. If I can avoid it, I will not do the laundry on a Sunday. Because I like to try not to work on Sunday. Because I believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, etching them into stone tablets, which expressly say not to work on the Sabbath; and I read in the Bible that "God is not a man, that He should change His mind." What do you think about what I am doing?

Why would you observe the Sabbath on the Lord's Day?
The Torah was given by Moses to the post-exhilic people, (aka the hebrews) after they left Egypt. The Goyim do not need to observe laws required to be followed by the 12 hebrew tribes and their descendants, if we as gentiles were to observe such things we would still be circumciseming infant boys. There is flexibility on how things are interpreted by Christian's and what is meant by "rest". For example among Orthodox Jews driving is forbidden on the Sabbath but walking is not. Up until 120 AD jews did not participate in military service on the sabbath that changed when their enemies began successfully attacking them on the sabbath. You are not even to cook on the sabbath hence why the day before is called the preparation day and meals and cleaning are to be finished before sabbath sets in etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I agree that that passage describes his passion, but part of the example that we are to follow is that he committed no sin. Sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), so do you think that we should follow his example of refraining from sin or do you think that the Jerusalem Council ruled against following this example? In 1 John 2:5-6, we are also told that those who are in Christ ought walk in the same way he walked.

again, context is key. John is not talking about the Law of Moses when he is writing of lawlessness, since the Synod in Jerusalem had already happened and Gentiles had already flooded into the Church. so we do refrain from sin and follow His example to be sure, but it's not bound up in the Law written on stone, but rather the law written on our hearts.

 

[buzuxi02]

That sort of thinG takes t0o loNg to дo

Oh wow this really is so annoying. Hurts my eyes to read especially the yellow straining to see it.

 

[Soyeong]

again, context is key. John is not talking about the Law of Moses when he is writing of lawlessness, since the Synod in Jerusalem had already happened and Gentiles had already flooded into the Church. so we do refrain from sin and follow His example to be sure, but it's not bound up in the Law written on stone, but rather the law written on our hearts.

A change in medium upon which a law is written does not change its moral authority or the content of what it requires you do. In Romans 3:20, the Law of Moses was give to make us conscious of sin, in Roman 7:7, we would not even know what sin is if it weren't for the Law, the Law is how the people in the OT knew what sin is, and Jesus was sinless, so he lived in complete obedience to the Law, so I don't see a good reason to think that 1 John 3:4 refers to some other law, and I don't see a good reason to think that the Synod in Jerusalem taught against following Christ's example.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A change in medium upon which a law is written does not change its moral authority or the content of what it requires you do. In Romans 3:20, the Law of Moses was give to make us conscious of sin, in Roman 7:7, we would not even know what sin is if it weren't for the Law, the Law is how the people in the OT knew what sin is, and Jesus was sinless, so he lived in complete obedience to the Law, so I don't see a good reason to think that 1 John 3:4 refers to some other law, and I don't see a good reason to think that the Synod in Jerusalem taught against following Christ's example.

no one is talking about not following the example of Christ. the Law of Moses was given to Jews and not Gentiles, and Jesus was a Jew. the Law was given to prepare the Jewish people for the full revelation of the Messiah. so the cultural laws that kept the Jews together as a people are not to be kept since the Messiah is come and the Gentiles can now know the true God of Israel

 

[icxn]

I'm going to post another long quote from St. Maximus the Confessor. It seems that he has all the answers to such questions, I mean the spiritual application of the OT laws, which are fulfilled through obedience to the Gospel. The following is from the "Two Hundred Texts on Theology and the Incarnate Dispensation of the Son of God" and is found in the Philokalia:

Some commandments of the Mosaic Law must be kept both physically and spiritually, others only spiritually. For example, ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal’ (Exod. 20:13-15) and so on must be kept both physically and spiritually (the spiritual observance is threefold, as explained below). To be circumcised (cf. Lev. 12: 3), to keep the Sabbath (cf. Exod. 31:13), and to slaughter the lamb and eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs (cf. Exod. 12:8; 23:15) and similar injunctions are to be kept only spiritually.

There are three main inner states characterizing the life of a Christian. The first consists in not sinning in actions; the second in not allowing the soul to dally with impassioned thoughts; the third in being able to contemplate dispassionately in the mind the forms of people or things that arouse pleasure or anger.
...
When what has been created in time according to the temporal order has reached maturity, it ceases from natural growth. But when what has been brought about by the knowledge of God through the practice of the virtues has reached maturity, it starts to grow anew. For the end of one stage constitutes the starting-point of the next. He who has put an end to the root of corruption in himself by practicing the virtues is initiated into other more divine experiences. There is never an end, as there is never a beginning, to the good which God does: just as the property of light is to illuminate, so the property of God is to do good. Thus in the Law, which is concerned with the structure of temporal things subject to generation and decay, the Sabbath is honored by rest from work (cf. Exod. 31:14), whereas in the Gospel, which initiates us into the realm of spiritual realities, luster is shed on the Sabbath by good actions (cf. Luke 6:9; John 5:16-17). This is so in spite of the indignation of those who do not yet understand that ‘the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath’, and that ‘the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath’ (Mark 2:27-28).

In the Law and the prophets reference is made to the Sabbath (cf. Isa.66:23), Sabbaths (cf. Exod. 31:13) and Sabbaths of Sabbaths (cf. Lev. 16:31. LXX); and to circumcision and circumcision of circumcision (cf. Gen. 17:10-13); and to harvest (cf. Gen. 8:22) and harvest of harvest, as in the text, ‘when you harvest your harvest’ (cf. Lev. 23:10). The texts about the Sabbath surely refer to the full attainment of practical, natural and theological philosophy; the texts about circumcision, to separation from things that are subject to generation and from the inner principles of these things; the texts about harvest, to the ingathering and enjoyment of more exalted spiritual principles on the part of the senses and the intellect. Through studying these three sets of texts the person of spiritual knowledge may discover the reasons why Moses, when he dies, takes his Sabbath rest outside the holy land (cf. Deut. 34:5), why Joshua carried out the circumcisions after crossing the Jordan (cf. Josh. 5:3), and why those who inherited the promised land brought to God the superabundant fruits of the double harvest (cf. Lev. 23:11).

The Sabbath signifies the dispassion of the soul that through practice of the virtues has utterly cast off the marks of sin.

Sabbaths signify the freedom of the soul that through the spiritual contemplation of created nature has quelled even the natural activity of sense-perception.

Sabbaths of Sabbaths signify the spiritual calm of the soul that has withdrawn the intellect even from contemplation of all the divine principles in created beings, that through an ecstasy of love has clothed it entirely in God alone, and that through mystical theology has brought it altogether to rest in God.

Circumcision signifies the quelling of the soul’s impassioned predilection for things subject to generation.

Circumcision of circumcision signifies the complete discarding and stripping away also of even the soul’s natural feelings for things subject to generation.

Harvest signifies the soul’s ingathering and knowledge of the more spiritual principles of created beings in a manner conforming to both virtue and nature.

Harvest of harvest signifies the apprehension of God which follows the mystical contemplation of noetic* realities and which, inaccessible to all, is consummated in the intellect in a manner beyond understanding. Such apprehension is fittingly reaped by the person who in a worthy manner honors the Creator because of what He has created, whether visible or invisible.

________
* intelligible​

 

[Northbrook]

Why would you observe the Sabbath on the Lord's Day?

Because I know I read somewhere that Saturday is the Jewish sabbath, that Sunday is the Christian sabbath, and that Friday is the Islamic sabbath. I even had an atheist friend who told a kind of joke about this. He used to like to say, "I am a Muslim on Friday, a Jew on Saturday, and a Christian on Sunday!" Get it (didn't like to work)?