The Early Church’s conflict with Judaism
“Therefore,” Jesus said to them, “every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom treasures new and old.” –Matthew 13:52 (CSB)
In our last post we took a look at the 2nd century Christian apologetic known as the Epistle of Diognetus, and mentioned how the Apologist spends a couple chapters critiquing the worship practice of Jews. I think it would be good to examine this passage along with other critiques of Jewish worship/theology in the early Church. It’s actually pretty important for a couple reasons why we should appropriately examine and understand these critiques.
First, studying the 2nd-3rd century Christian critiques of Judaism can possibly open a window into better understanding some of the conflicts being addressed in the New Testament. Yes, these are later generations and different people, but more scholars are recognizing the connections that can be made between these writings and the New Testament. For example, Justin Martyr may not have the exact same theology and understanding as the 1st century Church, but there is a surprising amount of overlap and connection that can be found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (mid-2nd century) and the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (mid-1st century).
Second, it is crucial that we discern the difference between critiquing the theology of Orthodox Judaism and being anti-Semitic. It is a sad and difficult reality that over history different Christian denominations and communities have persecuted and oppressed Jewish people. There have been misleading and violent theological attempts by Christian influencers over the years to justify prejudice against the Jewish people. One disturbing example can be found in the last writings and sermons of Martin Luther. Even today, there are pastors driven by anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and use this to spread fear and discrimination to their congregation.
So I absolutely want to be humble and careful when addressing this topic. There has been damage done, and we should not downplay that. But we also need to understand the difference between what later Christian leaders taught and what the Pre-Nicene Church was addressing. There was theological tension in the first few centuries between the Jews and Christians. It wasn’t one side critiquing the other for no apparent reason. Both Jewish theologians and Christian theologians critiqued each other in the religious context. What we’ll see is that it was not a critique on Jewish ethnicity by the Pre-Nicene Church Fathers, nor did they ever call for violence or hatred. Rather, it was a theological critique of the Jewish practice in their time, and what the Rabbis considered necessary for salvation.
Affirming the Jewish Scriptures
One of the earliest heresies coming out of the 2nd century was Marcionism. Marcion believed that Jesus and the God of the New Testament were different from the God of the Old Testament, and wished to separate them. As a result, Marcion’s gospel and New Testament canon were quite different than the traditional gospel and NT canon Christians hold today. The Old Testament had no place in his canon, and because Luke is traditionally believed to be the only Gospel not written by a Jew, it was the only Gospel account (from the traditional four) he included.
Needless to say, Marcion and his beliefs were rejected and condemned by the Church. Many of the Church Fathers wrote against his teachings and tried to protect their congregations from being led astray by his false gospel. And here we see just one of many examples of how much the Scriptures meant to the early Church. There was no theological divorce between Abraham and Jesus in the eyes of the Christians.
The Old Testament and the Patriarchs were looked to highly by the Pre-Nicene Church. While we could run through several quotes over those three centuries, we’ll spend some time examining one of the earliest examples seen in the Apostolic Fathers. 1st Clement is often believed to have been written sometime in the late 1st to early 2nd Century (Jefford, 2012, Pg. 108-109). The epistle quotes the OT and looks to a variety of heroes and enemies from the OT as inspiration for how the Church is to live today. While the whole epistle could be examined in relation to this topic, we’ll just look at a few chapters for now.
We see in chapters 31-32 a very Pauline understanding of the Old Covenant. While affirming the righteousness of Abraham and his descendants, Clement points to their righteousness being rooted in their faith in God, not in their abilities or works of circumcision and Sabbath-keeping:
“For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice. Jacob, through reason of his brother, went forth with humility from his own land, and came to Laban and served him; and there was given to him the scepter of the twelve tribes of Israel.
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.
From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, ‘Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven.’ All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will.
And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men (and women); to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
This passage alone shows the early Church honoring the Abraham, Abraham’s descendants, the Old Covenant, and the fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Again, this is seen throughout the epistle. Later in chapter 43, Clement not only refers to Moses as “blessed” but also refers to the Old Testament Law as “sacred”.
Critique of Temporary Customs, not Undisputed Morals
There are three apologetic works in the early Church that can help shed much light on the theological conflict between Jews and Christians: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (mid-2nd century), Tertullian’s An Answer to the Jews (late 2nd century-early 3rd century), and Cyprian’s Against the Jews (3rd century).
When reading these three apologetics on Orthodox Judaism, you’ll find the Church Fathers have consistency in their criticisms and theology. All acknowledge the instructions God gave in the Old Covenant regarding circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, dietary laws, etc. Yet all three argue that these were never universal instructions from the very beginning, and served a temporary purpose for Israel. Now that Messiah Jesus has come, these customs have been fulfilled through Him and now we focus on His righteousness and the mission to proclaim Him to all nations. We’ll focus briefly on circumcision as an example. Since Sabbath-keeping is an important but complex issue, we’ll look at that in more detail another time.
Using very similar arguments Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, the Pre-Nicene Church argued that circumcision was given as a sign from God to separate His people from the pagan nations, but not a work of righteousness. They also argue that because this instruction was given after the time of righteous men like Abel, Enoch, and Noah, it was not a work God had universally declared to do from the moment He created humanity. Finally, they point out how circumcision only applied to the men, and therefore, couldn’t be seen as a work of salvation for all of humanity since women couldn’t partake.
“For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised; would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. Lot, being uncircumcised, was saved from Sodom, the angels themselves and the Lord sending him out. Noah was the beginning of our race; yet, uncircumcised, along with his children he went into the ark. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to who also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes, and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest.”
This line of thinking in regards to circumcision is pretty similar to the early Church’s reason for not keeping the Sabbath, holding the dietary laws, and not being nationalistic for Israel. So again, it is not the moral teachings of the Old Testament (such as not committing murder or adultery) or the valid history of God’s relationship with Israel that gets critiqued or revised. Rather, very similar to Paul’s dilemma in Romans/Galatians, what the Church is criticizing is the dogmatic belief that the customs of the Law (circumcision, Sabbath, nationalism, etc.) must still be held despite Christ fulfilling their purpose.
The Apostolic Fathers
So with all of this in mind, let’s now examine three Apostolic Fathers that critique the contemporary Judaism of their day. With the context above given, this should help understand why the criticisms are there.
1. The Epistle of Diognetus
“But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice—I do not think that you require to learn anything from me. For, to accept some of those things which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed, and to reject others as useless and redundant—how can this be lawful? And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days—how is not this impious? And to glory in the circumcision of the flesh as proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God—how is it not a subject of ridicule?”
At first glance, it almost seems like the Apologist is ignorant of the clear instructions the OT gives regarding these Jewish customs. But again, when examining what he’s actually criticizing, we see his issue is the reason and mindset for the Jews doing this.
Similar to Jesus’s comments about healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:4), the Apologist criticizes the understanding of Sabbath-holding in his time, not the Sabbath itself. Also, very similarly to the apologetics of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Cyprian, the Apologist criticizes the idea that circumcision makes a person one of God’s elect. It is not the Old Covenant instruction itself he criticizes, but the idea that this makes one righteous above others and plays into their salvation.
2. The Epistles of Ignatius
In his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius of Antioch stresses that to be a Christian and yet go back to following the Old Covenant’s customs would be a step backwards, not forwards. Again this is very similar thinking to Paul’s arguments in Galatians.
“For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples that prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?
...It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.”
That last comment may again understandably come off harsh to Jewish people. But again, the point Ignatius is making needs to be understood and clarified. If the Christian faith is true, if Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and Israel itself was leading to Jesus Christ, then it would be a mistake to cling to what was temporary. Ignatius is not referring to Jewish ethnicity, but referring to the orthodox Jewish religion that had rejected Jesus as Messiah and still held to the Law which had been fulfilled. He stresses this again in his Epistle to the Philadelphians. Jesus cannot be downplayed, or put in the background for the sake of Israel and the Law.
3. The Epistle of Barnabas
We saved the toughest for last. The Epistle of Barnabas is by far the most controversial, disliked, and confusing writing in the Apostolic Fathers. Barnabas spends a lot of time pleading with the church he is writing to not to follow the customs of the OT Law. They are no longer needed, and have been fulfilled in Christ.
What’s so bizarre and frankly eye-rolling about Barnabas is the argument he makes for this. The epistle uses an extreme allegorical interpretation of the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) to prove that the instructions for circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary laws were not meant to be understood literally but only spiritually.
In fact, Barnabas goes so far as to make a confusing claim that circumcision wasn’t originally given by God, but given deceptively by an “evil angel” (9.4). This has understandably caused much confusion and debate as to what this means. There is no passage from Scripture that even implies such a thing, and it doesn’t seem to be in agreement with the other early Christian writings as previously discussed. No other Apostolic Father makes such a statement, and the Jewish apologetics of Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. all acknowledge the validity of God commanding circumcision to Abraham and Moses.
So while I totally acknowledge the serious flaws of Barnabas, is this epistle just some Gentile supremacist writing that fails to understand anything about the Old Testament and Judaism? Actually, no. It has been argued for some time now that the epistle uses a specific Jewish method of interpreting the Bible.
L.W. Barnard believes Barnabas uses an Alexandrian method of Biblical interpretation (popular during Barnabas’s time) in response to a rise of Judaisers attempting to influence the Christian Church:
“This Epistle in all probability was written from Alexandria sometime in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) being addressed to a Christian community elsewhere in Egypt (1.4-5) which was in danger of falling back into Judaism as a result of the activity of militant Judaisers who had been impressed by the promise held out by Hadrian to the Jews that the Jerusalem Temple would be rebuilt (xvi. 3-4).”
The possible connection to Alexandria has been pointed out by many scholars, as 1st century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria uses a very similar allegorical interpretation of Scripture that Barnabas uses. Further into the previously quoted article, Barnard also addresses strong similarities Barnabas has with the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“This method of interpretation is strikingly reminiscent of that found in the Qumran Commentaries on the Books of Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Psalm XXXVII and in the Damascus Document where OT texts are frequently quoted followed by a contemporary interpretation.”
So while I and most Christians would strongly disagree with the method of argument The Epistle of Barnabas uses (and its claim about the origin of Jewish circumcision), it is still worth pointing how surprisingly Jewish its style actually is. And we once again find in the heart of the epistle that Barnabas is not bashing Jewish ethnicity, calling for persecution, or disconnecting itself from the Old Testament, but rather insisting that in Jesus the Old Testament customs have been fulfilled and should no longer be practiced or forced upon others.
Conclusion
This has been one of the longest posts I’ve done so far, and there is still so much to learn, discuss, and debate regarding this subject. But I hope this helps bring better understanding of the conflict between the Christians and Jews in the early centuries of the Church. I also hope this can help bring better understanding when reading the New Testament, particularly Paul’s writings.
For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called to be Christians; to all of whom we say, You are our brethren; rather recognize the truth of God. And while neither they nor you are persuaded by us, but strive earnestly to cause us to deny the name of Christ, we choose rather and submit to death, in the full assurance that all the good which God has promised through Christ He will reward us with. And in addition to all this we pray for you, that Christ may have mercy upon you. – Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho 86.4b-5
Bibliography
Jefford, C. (2012). Reading the Apostolic Fathers: A Student’s Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic.
Schaff, P. (2016). The Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Collection of Early Church Fathers. Toronto, Canada.
Martyr, J. (2016). Dialogue with Trypho. Toronto, Canada.
Brannan, R. (2017). The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation. Bellingham, WA. Lexham Press.
Barnard, L.W. (1960). Epistle of Barnabas and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Observations. Scottish Journal of Theology, 13, Pg. 45-59.
Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.
For Further Reading
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho
Tertullian’s An Answer to the Jews
Cyrpian’s Against the Jews
Matthew J. Thomas’s Paul’s “Works of the Law” in Perspective of Second Century Reception- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q8bO2J3CRI
Thumbnail Image: Picture from the Lumo Project