Separation of Judaism and Christianity in Early Church History
The separation of Judaism and Christianity in the early Church was a gradual and often contentious process, marked by theological debates and practical considerations regarding the inclusion of Gentiles [2, 5]. Initially, Christianity emerged from within Judaism, with early believers, including the apostles, grappling with whether the new faith should remain bound by Jewish customs and laws [2].
A central question was whether Gentile converts needed to adopt Jewish practices, such as circumcision and adherence to the Mosaic law, to become Christians [2, 5]. John Chrysostom notes that there was significant doubt among early Christians about whether the Gospel should be preached to Gentiles at all, and if so, whether it should be mediated through Judaism [2]. Paul became a prominent advocate for Christianity being distinct from the Jewish system, arguing against the necessity of Jewish forms for Gentile believers, a view that Peter and James adopted more slowly [2]. This issue led to "no small discussion among the converts from Judaism regarding Gentile believers" [5].
The theological foundation for this separation rested on the understanding that in Christ, traditional distinctions between Jew and Gentile were abolished. The Apostle Paul, for instance, emphasized that in the renewed person, "There is no such thing as Greek and Jew... circumcision and uncircumcision" [4]. Charles Hodge elaborates on this, stating that "we are all one in Christ Jesus," a doctrine that negates any preeminence assigned to Jews based on national or social distinctions [3]. The apostles consistently acted on this principle, recognizing no future for Jews in which Gentile Christians would not participate [3].
The early Church also had to distinguish itself from certain Jewish doctrines that began to influence Christian thought. Hodge points out that Jewish doctrines concerning the merit of works, the efficacy of external rites, a visible kingdom of Christ characterized by worldly grandeur, and an external church from which there was no salvation, along with a priestly ministry and church hierarchy, started to spread among Christians [8]. These elements represented a "somewhat spiritualized, but still essentially Judaic" form of Judaism that threatened to corrupt the Gospel [8].
The term "Jew" itself, derived from the patriarch Judah, initially referred to those from the tribe or kingdom of Judah, distinct from the Israelites of the ten tribes [1]. However, after the Captivity and Restoration, the name extended to encompass the entire Hebrew nation [1]. This historical usage highlights the evolving identity of the Jewish people, which further contextualizes the early Christian debates about identity and inclusion.
The destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the Jewish state in 70 CE also played a significant role in the practical separation of the two faiths, as it diminished the centrality of the Jewish temple and its associated rituals [2]. This event, coupled with the theological arguments for Gentile inclusion without Jewish legal requirements, solidified Christianity's distinct identity.
While early Christians were initially few in number, their growth led to internal discussions and eventual divisions, particularly concerning the interpretation of divine books and the observance of Jewish customs [5, 7]. The early Church's understanding of regeneration also evolved; among Jews, a heathen becoming a proselyte was considered "born again," a concept that influenced early Christian thought where becoming a church member was seen as being "born anew" [9]. However, the New Testament does not command the Church to assume the prerogative of judging who is truly regenerate, but rather to recognize those who profess faith in Christ [6].
Sources
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Jew — The name derived from the patriarch Judah, at first given to one belonging to the tribe of Judah or to the separate kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 25:25; Jer. 32:12; 38:19; 40:11; 41:3), in contradistinction from those belonging to the kingdom of the ten tribes, who were called Israelites. During the Captivity, and after the Restoration, the name, however, was extended to all the Hebrew nation without distinction (Esther 3:6, 10; Dan. 3:8, 12; Ezra 4:12; 5:1, 5). Originally this people were called Hebrews (Gen. 39:14; 40:15; Ex. 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 1 Sam. 4:6, 9, ”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts & Romans: doubted that Christianity was for the Gentiles: the great question was, whether it was to be preached to them through the medium of Judaism. Should it still be held within Jewish forms? Should circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law be required? This was a great practical question in the days of transition from Judaism to Christianity. Later Paul became the champion of the idea that it was to be cut loose from the Jewish system. Peter and James came but slowly to this idea. The destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the Jewish state brought t”
- 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”
- Colossians (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Colossians 3:11: Where--Translate, "Wherein," namely, in the sphere of the renewed man. neither . . . nor . . . nor . . . nor--Translate as Greek, "There is no such thing as Greek and Jew (the difference of privilege between those born of the natural seed of Abraham and those not, is abolished), circumcision and uncircumcision (the difference of legal standing between the circumcised and uncircumcised is done away, Gal 6:15) --bondman, freeman." The present Church is one called out of the flesh, and the present world-course (Eph 2:2), wherein such distinctions ex”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. XI.: He says, in addition, that "all the Christians were of one mind," not observing, even in this particular, that from the beginning there were differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning[10] of the books held to be divine. At all events, while the apostles were still preaching, and while eye-witnesses of (the works of) 469 Jesus were still teaching His doctrine, there was no small discussion among the converts from Judaism regarding Gentile believers, on the point whether they ought to observe Jewish custom”
- 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 ”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. X.: But observe what he alleges as a proof of his statement: "Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party:[4] for this was their object from the beginning." That Christians at first were few in number, in comparison with the multitudes who subsequently became Christian, is undoubted; and yet, all things considered, they were not so very few.[5] For what stirred up the envy of the Je”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 78: from the Gospel, and substituting Judaism, somewhat spiritualized, but still essentially Judaic. It is notorious that the Jewish doctrines of the merit of works; of the necessity and saving efficacy of external rites; of a visible kingdom of Christ of splendour and worldly grandeur; of an external church out of whose pale there is no salvation; of the priestly character of the ministry; and of a church hierarchy, soon began to spread among Christians, and at last became ascendant. This being the case it would be strange if the Jewish doct”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 4: In the early Church regeneration often expressed, not any inward moral change, but an external change of state or relation. Among the Jews when a heathen became a proselyte to their religion, he was said to be born again. The change of his status from without to within the theocracy, was called regeneration. This usage in a measure passed over to the Christian Church. When a man became a member of the Church he was said to be born anew; and baptism, which was the rite of initiation, was called regeneration. This use of the word has not yet”