Removing Jewish Roots from Christian Theology

The concept of "removing Jewish roots from Christian theology" refers to the historical process and theological arguments that have sought to distance Christianity from its origins in Judaism. This often involves reinterpreting or downplaying the significance of Jewish law, customs, and the ongoing identity of the Jewish people within Christian thought.

Early Christian writers, such as Tertullian and Origen, engaged with criticisms from figures like Celsus, who accused Christians of deriving their origins from "jugglers and deceivers" and misinterpreting obscure Jewish texts ^[7]. Celsus also charged Christians with sophistry for asserting that the Son of God is the Logos, and for presenting a "most degraded man" who was scourged and crucified ^[9]. These early interactions highlight a tension regarding Christianity's relationship to its Jewish heritage. Origen, for instance, defended Christian scriptures against the idea that they should be rejected in favor of Jewish copies, even when noting textual variations ^[10].

The New Testament itself reflects early debates about the relationship between Jewish law and Christian faith. The Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, encourages believers to move beyond "the principles of the doctrine of Christ" and "go on unto perfection," rather than laying again the "foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God" ^[1]. This passage has been interpreted as a call to progress beyond elementary teachings, which some understand to include aspects of the Old Covenant that were fulfilled in Christ ^[3].

Over time, some Christian theologians emphasized a distinct separation. Augustine, for instance, argued that the kingdom of the Jews was "overthrown, and removed from the Jews" after the coming of Christ, and that those who do not acknowledge Christ as the true King "must not be called Jews" ^[8]. This perspective suggests a theological supersessionism, where the Christian church replaces or fulfills the role of Israel.

Charles Hodge, a prominent Reformed theologian, articulated a view that minimized the distinct future of the Jewish people as a nation. He argued that any difference between Jews and Gentiles in Christ is based on individual character and devotion, not national distinctions. Hodge stated that the doctrine "we are all one in Christ Jesus" precludes the preeminence assigned to Jews in theories that involve their restoration to their land and national individuality ^[2]. He further contended that the apostles recognized no future for Jews in which Gentile Christians would not participate ^[2]. Hodge also believed that the early church's errors often arose from Judaism, as Jewish converts sometimes struggled to "emancipate themselves from their former opinions and prejudices" ^[4]. He noted that Jews had misinterpreted their scriptures, leading them to expect a Messiah who would be a national head like David or Solomon, which contributed to their rejection of Christ ^[4].

John Calvin, another influential Reformed theologian, affirmed Christ's Jewish lineage, noting that Paul declared Christ to be "God blessed for ever," while also stating that "as concerning the flesh, he was descended from the Jews" ^[6]. Calvin also emphasized the fulfillment of promises made to David regarding his offspring ^[6]. While acknowledging Christ's Jewish roots, the broader theological trajectory in some traditions moved towards emphasizing the universal nature of the Christian church over any particular national identity.

The idea of "removing Jewish roots" can also manifest in the rejection of specific Jewish practices or interpretations. Hodge, for example, argued that the New Testament does not command the church to assume the prerogative of judging who is regenerate based on external rites like circumcision or Passover, but rather to recognize those who profess faith in Christ ^[5]. This reflects a shift from covenant markers tied to Jewish identity to a focus on individual faith in Christ as the basis for inclusion in the Christian community.

Sources

Hebrews “Hebrews 6:1 (KJV) — Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 88: that if there be any difference between them, it is not in virtue of national or social distinctions, but solely of individual character and devotion. That we are all one in Christ Jesus, is a doctrine 811 which precludes the possibility of the preeminence assigned to the Jews in the theory of which their restoration to their own land, and their national individuality are constituent elements. 5. The Apostles uniformly acted on this principle. They recognize no future for the Jews in which the Gentile Christians are not to participate. As”
Hebrews (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Hebrews 6:6: If--Greek, "And (yet) have fallen away"; compare a less extreme falling or declension, Gal 5:4, "Ye are fallen from grace." Here an entire and wilful apostasy is meant; the Hebrews had not yet so fallen away; but he warns them that such would be the final result of retrogression, if, instead of "going on to perfection," they should need to learn again the first principles of Christianity (Heb 6:1). to renew them again--They have been "once" (Heb 6:4) already renewed, or made anew, and now they need to be "renewed" over "again." crucify to themselve”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 81: Church on this, as on other subjects, arose either from Judaism or from heathen philosophy. The Jews who professed themselves Christians, were not able, in many instances, as we learn from the New Testament itself, to emancipate themselves from their former opinions and prejudices. They had by the misinterpretation of their Scriptures been led to expect a Messiah who was to be the head of their nation as David and Solomon had been. They, therefore, as a body, rejected Christ, who came as a man of sorrows, not having anywhere to lay his he”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 64: to assert that all Jews admitted to circumcision and the passover, were, in the judgment of charity, truly regenerate persons. 2. The New Testament contains no command to the Church to assume the prerogative in question. There is the command often repeated to recognize as brethren all who profess their faith in Christ. There are explicit directions given as to those who, although calling themselves brethren, are to be rejected. ( 1 Cor. v. 9, 10 ; Rom. xvi. 17 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6 ; Tit. iii. 10 ; Matt. vii. 15-17 .) But there is no command ”
CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 49: declaring him to be “God blessed for ever,” he mentions separately, that, “as concerning the flesh, he was descended from the Jews.” Again if he had not been truly begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of the expression, that he is the “fruit of his loins;” or what the meaning of the promise, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?” ( Ps. 132:11 ). Moreover their mode of dealing with the genealogy of Christ, as given by Matthew, is mere sophistry; for though he reckons up the progenitors not of Mary, but ”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. XXXIII.: Immediately after this, Celsus, assailing the contents of the first book of Moses, which is entitled "Genesis," asserts that "the Jews accordingly endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and deceivers,(4) appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words, whose meaning was veiled in obscurity, and which they misinterpreted s to the unlearned and ignorant, and that, too, when such a point had never been called in question during the long preceding period." Now Celsus appears to me in the”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 8: Augustine — Exposition on Psalms — PSALM LXXVI.[1] (part 3): tribe of Judah, and had no foreign king before that Herod who was king when the Lord was born. Thence began foreign kings, from Herod.[13] Before Herod all were of the tribe of Judah, but only until there should come He to whom the promise had been made. Therefore when the Lord Himself came, the kingdom of the Jews was overthrown, and removed from the Jews. Now they have no king; because they will not acknowledge the true King. See now whether they must be called Jews. Now ye do see that they must not be called Jews. The”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. XXXI.: He next charges the Christians with being "guilty of sophistical reasoning, in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself." And he thinks that he strengthens the accusation, because "when we declare the Logos to be the Son of God, we do not present to view a pure and holy Logos, but a most degraded man, who was punished by scourging and crucifixion." Now, on this head we have briefly replied to the charges of Celsus in the preceding pages, where Christ was shown to be the first-born of all creation, who assumed a b”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — A LETTER FROM ORIGEN TO AFRICANUS. (part 4): Exodus, where there is such diversity in what is said about the tabernacle and its court, and the ark, and the garments of the high priest and the priests, that sometimes the meaning even does not seem to be akin? And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered wi”

Ask Your Own Question