Who were the Judaizers?

[Hank77]

Circumcision was not a Rabbinic decree. It was part of the Abrahamic Covenant. The problem was that some wanted/required gentiles to convert to Judaism before entering the New Covenant.

According to Strong's Greek, that is exactly what Judaizer means. It only appears one time in the NT.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
G2450
Ἰουδαΐ́ζω
Ioudaizō
ee-oo-dah-id'-zo
From G2453; to become a Judaean, that is, “judaize”: - live as the Jews.

 

[Ken Rank]

Circumcision was not a Rabbinic decree. It was part of the Abrahamic Covenant. The problem was that some wanted/required gentiles to convert to Judaism before entering the New Covenant.

Yes and no brother. Circumcision as a first step was a rabbinic decree. Shamai argued that it had to be the first thing done, along with memorizing all 613 commandments and adhering to what we see in Acts 15. Hillel was what we see in Acts 15 alone, and then said they would learn and do other things as they advanced in the faith. So the idea that to be a "Christian" one had to be circumcised in the flesh as a first step was an added rabbinic requirement and COULD be an example of what Judaizing was. I am not saying I am 100% correct... I simply shared one option of what it means.

 

[Hank77]

The argument was that gentiles coming into the Church were to convert to Judaism, as Christianity was viewed as Judaism. The old testament law required proselytizes and "strangers" to be circumcised. The pro side argued rightfully that the law required circumcision. According to the law they were right. But the apostles more or less put it to a vote and the anti side won out. The Church set aside the requirement for circumcision.

Wasn't their decision based on OT scripture, Noah being an uncircumcised gentile who was a man of God by grace and faith?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

According to Strong's Greek, that is exactly what Judaizer means. It only appears one time in the NT.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
G2450
Ἰουδαΐ́ζω
Ioudaizō
ee-oo-dah-id'-zo
From G2453; to become a Judaean, that is, “judaize”: - live as the Jews.

It is not just to "live" as Jews but to actually convert to Judaism as a means to Salvation.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yes and no brother. Circumcision as a first step was a rabbinic decree. Shamai argued that it had to be the first thing done, along with memorizing all 613 commandments and adhering to what we see in Acts 15. Hillel was what we see in Acts 15 alone, and then said they would learn and do other things as they advanced in the faith. So the idea that to be a "Christian" one had to be circumcised in the flesh as a first step was an added rabbinic requirement and COULD be an example of what Judaizing was. I am not saying I am 100% correct... I simply shared one option of what it means.

I agree as to conversion but in and of itself, it was not initially a Rabbinic decree. For the ger to convert yes, as were the other things.

 

[Hank77]

It is not just to "live" as Jews but to actually convert to Judaism as a means to Salvation.

That is what I understand as well.

Yes, 'living' as of them 'living' their religious beliefs under the Law of Moses. Gentiles must be circumcised to be a member of the nation of God's chosen people then observing food laws, etc.

 

[All4Christ]

Please be careful about debate and teaching here.

 

[Erik Nelson]

No they did not consider them lost tribes. Judaism always had converts and converts had to do certain things (circumcision, mikveh, etc). In fact, there was a court of the gentiles in the Holy Temple.

Maybe / yes / yes

either way, the Judaizers held that "national Israel" was a prerequisite for Salvation, whereas God could raise up Saved individuals from stones (Matthew 3:9 = Luke 3:8)

they were basically saying gentiles couldn't possibly be saved, no way, only physically circumcised Israelites

whereas the NT writers had a different opinion

 

[Erik Nelson]

The argument was that gentiles coming into the Church were to convert to Judaism, as Christianity was viewed as Judaism. The old testament law required proselytizes and "strangers" to be circumcised. The pro side argued rightfully that the law required circumcision. According to the law they were right. But the apostles more or less put it to a vote and the anti side won out. The Church set aside the requirement for circumcision.

yes, they viewed Christian Salvation as confined to within Judaism

Acts 15 quoting Amos 9:11-12 (LXX) said Christian Salvation was offered to all humanity, first to Jews, yet also to all gentiles too, making the Church a "hodgepodge" (from their POV) of Jews & gentiles, united in acknowledging Jesus as Christ Messiah

 

[Dave-W]

Please be careful about debate and teaching here.

That is why I am waiting for an ok from the OP before posting here.

 

[Anhelyna]

Please be careful about debate and teaching here.

I echo All4Christ's comment here - it is hoped/anticipated that all non-Orthodox posters on this thread will be adhering to the SoP when posting here.

 

[All4Christ]

That is why I am waiting for an ok from the OP before posting here.

Thanks for doing that FTR, I wasn’t referring to you specifically, just a general comment to the group at large. It’s an easy thing to miss sometimes

 

[~Anastasia~]

{All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules. In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.}

The Judaizers were not welcome by the Apostles into their church. Did they go extinct? Did they believe Jesus was the resurrected Messiah? If so then it sounds like they would be considered a 'Christian denomination' if they survived to modern day.

Makes me think of John 17:21. If the Apostles did not allow this other denomination into their church, there is no way the Judaizers and the Apostles could have been in the same church.

I don't think it's correct to consider them an "early Christian denomination" that survived until today.

It was a misunderstanding in the very early Church. The first Christians were Jews, and it was natural enough for them to assume various continuations from Judaism (certain aspects did continue - though some as intentionally modified practices).

It was an error on the part of some to assume converts first needed to "become Jews". That error was corrected by the Apostles.

Whether or not there was anything surviving from that time (not that I've read) ... someone else might know. I'm not aware of any such schism due to heresy at that time. However ... all the various early heresies (of all kinds) form the foundation for all sorts of "recycled" heresies today. We see shades of Gnosticism, Arianism, Sabellisnism, and others in various denominations today. Nothing new under the sun ...

 

[Soyeong]

{All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules. In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.}

The Judaizers were not welcome by the Apostles into their church. Did they go extinct? Did they believe Jesus was the resurrected Messiah? If so then it sounds like they would be considered a 'Christian denomination' if they survived to modern day.

Makes me think of John 17:21. If the Apostles did not allow this other denomination into their church, there is no way the Judaizers and the Apostles could have been in the same church.

Judaizers taught in Acts 15:1 that all Gentiles were required to become circumcised in order to become saved. I will not that God's Law never commanded all Gentiles to become circumcised and the reason why God commanded all Jews to become circumcised was not in order to become saved, so circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose that God commanded it for that was contrary to his purposes. God they upheld God's Law by correctly ruling that it does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. A ruling against what God never command should not be taken as a ruling against obeying what God has commanded.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Judaizers were not welcome by the Apostles into their church. Did they go extinct? Did they believe Jesus was the resurrected Messiah? If so then it sounds like they would be considered a 'Christian denomination' if they survived to modern day.

Who said the Judaisers were not allowed into the apostles churches? Judaisers were simply Jewish- Christian's who still viewed their sect as part of judaism. So they believed gentiles should also follow the same jewish ordinances they followed. They were never expelled from the Church (Acts16:3-5) but their practises were not binding amongst gentiles.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

Who said the Judaisers were not allowed into the apostles churches? Judaisers were simply Jewish- Christian's who still viewed their sect as part of judaism. So they believed gentiles should also follow the same jewish ordinances they followed. They were never expelled from the Church (Acts16:3-5) but their practises were not binding amongst gentiles.

Those verses you cited say the churches obeyed. If some did not obey the Apostles' ruling, I don't think the Apostles would consider them to be part of their church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Those verses you cited say the churches obeyed. If some did not obey the Apostles' ruling, I don't think the Apostles would consider them to be part of their church.

What makes you think any schismed over this? I'm not aware of any who did at that point.

Schism was not a light thing. If the Church broke apart over every issue, it wouldn't have been the Church. Look at all the issues with Rome, and it took centuries before there was finally a break, and even longer before it widened.

 

[buzuxi02]

Those verses you cited say the churches obeyed. If some did not obey the Apostles' ruling, I don't think the Apostles would consider them to be part of their church.

If you look at those verses, Paul took Titus whom he first had to have circumcised to go with him to the synagogues to issue the decrees. They didn't just dismiss the sensibilities of the Hebrews. In the early Church we know from Justin Martyr that some jewish-christians still observed the customs of the Jews but did not require it for gentiles, some insisted that Christians must observe the law and customs of the jews (ebionites???), and a third group who Justin claimed were neither Christians nor Jews as they confessed Christ but remained in the synagogue where the leaders pronounced curses upon Christianity.
Some Jews in the diaspora simply never left the synagogues so over time they simply melded back into the contemporary Judaism of the 2nd century.

 

[Northbrook]

You ask, "Who are the Judaizers?" Well, I'm not sure who "the" Judaizers are, but I can tell you something about a Christian denomination that I would say tends to Judaize. That denomination = the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS. Sometimes they call themselves "SDA." These people are Christians who believe in keeping the sabbath (that is, not doing any work on the sabbath). Their feeling is, one of the Ten Commandments says to keep the sabbath, and that may be in the Old Testament, but, hey, "God is not a man, that He should change His mind." Then a second thing they do is call SATURDAY the sabbath. So they keep the sabbath; and they observe the sabbath on Saturday, as opposed to Sunday. These are two respects in which they Judaize.

 

[TheLostCoin]

I could not imagine labeling someone a Christian who teaches salvation by "grace plus law, faith plus works." Subtle mixture of law and grace which is a perversion of the gospel (Galatians 1:6-9)

That's a very slimy and slithery way to promote your heretical theology on an Orthodox forum, said theology which contradicts the Book of James.

We are talking about the abolishing of mandating Jewish practices (which is what Saint Paul was talking about) - not how you can be saved without giving a darn about anybody but yourself.