Donald Hagner’s article on Jewish Christianity in the Dictionary of the Later New Testament provides a summary of its theology. The first issue Hagner discusses is the Law and Christian Life. The Jewish community in Acts appears to have continued to keep the Law. As Jews, there was no real disconnect between keeping the law and salvation. The Temple was the main location of evangelism. This evangelism did not attack the Temple or the priesthood, but seems to use temple worship as an opportunity to reach priests and Pharisees. From the beginning of his Gentile mission, Paul had to deal with Judaizers who argued that Gentiles ought to keep the law.
James Dunn agrees with this summary in his recent Neither Jew nor Greek (Eerdmans, 2015). In this book, Dunn tracks the shift from an entirely Jewish Church in early Acts to a more or less Gentile church by the fourth century A.D. He discusses each of the books in the Jewish Christian literature and concludes that they all represent some form of Jewish Christianity. With the possible exception of the epistles of John, each of these books is indebted to the Jewish Law.
Jewish-Christian literature displays a range of beliefs regarding the Law. Hebrews has the most to say about the Law and the role of the law in the present age. The Law itself is rarely addressed in Hebrews, and the Hebrew Bible as a whole is treated as foundational for understanding Jesus. The writer of Hebrews does not argue that Jesus “cancels the Law,” but rather that the law is most fully understood in the light of Jesus and his sacrifice. There is a certain amount of “supersession” in Hebrews – what Jesus did goes beyond the Law, therefore the only way to “do the Law” is to read it through the lens of Jesus.
James seems to have been a law-keeping Jew throughout his life. The book of Acts describes James as the leader of a robust church in Jerusalem with many priests and Pharisees, all of whom were “zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20). In James’ letter a short discussion on keeping the “royal law” (love your neighbor), and in the context James points out that breaking one Law makes one guilty of the whole law (James 2:8-10).
The most extreme example of Jewish Christians and the Law was the Ebionites. Some caution is needed here since we do not have anything that represents their own writings (possibly the Pseudo-Clementines, but this literature may reflect another early Christian group). We really know the Ebionites only from the impression they left on theological conversations in the second and third centuries. While it is likely that they are a sub-Christian sect (and usually included in lists of heretics), they claimed to be the real followers of Christ. They required complete obedience to the laws, including circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath (Eusebius HE 3.27, cf., Skarsaune, 437-8). They considered Paul’s view of the Law as inadequate and held James as the leader of the church.
Applying these observations to the New Testament, it is possible to call all the literature “Jewish,” although the Pauline letters are clear that the Law is not to be imposed on Gentiles. There is no statement in Jewish-Christian literature that Gentiles ought to keep the Law, but it is clear that Hebrews and James, especially, are interested in the interpretation and application of the Hebrew Bible in the present age.
But what about 1 Peter or the letters of John? Are they more or less interested in the continuing application of the Law to the Christian in the present age? Since Paul does discuss the Law at in many of his letters (Romans and Galatians especially), this question might be better asked as “how does the Jewish-Christian literature use the Law differently than Paul?”
Bibliography: Donald Hagner, “Jewish Christianity,” pages in the Dictionary of the Later New Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997); Oskar Skarsaune, “The Ebionites,” pages 419-62 in Jewish Believers in Jesus (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007).
P Long- While I do agree with your blog post comments about Jewish Christians and keeping the Law as Hebrews is the book that mostly speaks of this issue. I would have to replace the word “Law” with what Jobes refers to as the “New Covenant” (p. 45, Letters of the Church). None is to say that these two words don’t have the same meaning I just view it as a more proper term. I view the term Law is something that is set in place but more often than we realize “laws” are broken a lot of the time. If we use the term “Covenant” just as Jesus did in his period of time, it sounds like something that is demanded of us and that we follow in accordance to his will.
If we were to use the word Law in its proper formatting than a lot of these issues as the blog points out, I believe would be solved because it all depends on the use of the term and how people are to respond to it. Laws and Covenants I believe have different meanings in this topic assuming that we aren’t all on the same page. According to Jobes, it is the relationship of the new covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ to be the very first covenant as seen in Hebrews (p. 45, Letters to the Church). While we now understand the term covenant, we must now define the term Law. A Law is a set of rules used to run a community or country. Sounds a bit like a government run policy to me. This is not what God wanted for his people, which is why the two terms should be placed on completely different ends of the spectrum. For God wanted Jesus’ followers to want to live in a communion with him and offered himself as a sacrifice for this reason. He isn’t trying to be like the government officials, he is just trying to make us understand us better in the faith. This is something I wish Hebrews would explain more in detail as sometimes that can get confusing for some.
Hebrews is not just a message for the Jews I would think, but a message for all people as seen in multiple chapters of the section. More specifically, the first page right when you open it seems to be a reminder to all people. Hebrews 1, 2, 3, and 5 as seen in the Bible are all evident of this and speak to the matter with conviction. As most of Hebrews mentions warnings for certain things such as falling away from the source (Heb. 6). This is why I think it to be important that we do not secularize the book of Hebrews to one specific group, as I believe we all have something to glean from it.
Thanks, P Long and I hope you enjoy my insights on your blog posts.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
P Long- As you have stated above Paul’s view of the Law is differing from some of the main contributors to Jewish-Christian Literature. However, the book of 1 Peter makes no right out mention to the Law. Although 1 Peter is addressed to “God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces”(1 Peter 1:1), which no doubt is a reference to the Jewish population that were scattered do to the Roman takeover of Israel that then later converted to Christianity. 1 Peter takes no real stance on whether Gentile coverts should follow the Law, instead doing good and living a life worthy of Christ(1 Peter 2:16) is emphasized. 1 Peter is much less concerned with kosher food laws or circumcision and more concerned with the heart, and in that way I would argue that 1 Peter is rather similar to Paul’s view of the Law. 1 Peter seems to be written with the third group of early Christian sub-groups in mind; those who did not insist on circumcision or purity laws for Gentile converts, nor did they insist Jewish Christians abandon the Law (PLong Notes p. 10). I think that in a way keeping the Law is much more than relating it to a part of one’s salvation. I think that keeping the Law for many Jews solidified their Jewish identity; it was tradition and reminded them of the Covenant that God had made with the people before them. If Peter is the author of 1 Peter is would seem that Peter like Paul does not believe that following the Law is relevant to accepting Jesus Christ as one’s savior, this is later supported When Paul, James and Peter all decided at the Council of Jerusalem that Gentiles did not need to practice the Law in order to receive salvation(Letters to the Church p.4). While, 1 Peter does mention Pagans, he does not mention the Law to differentiate Christians from them, instead Peter says to practice “good deeds and glorify God”(1 Peter 2:12). I can understand why many Jewish Christian converts were slow to let go of the Law it was part of their identity of as a people, it was a part of God’s covenant with them, also added to the fact that Jesus himself was a Jew and practiced the Law.
Some good observations. Indeed, cultural, ethnic and national identity are all important parts of following the Law…. Doing so, even upon following Jesus as Messiah, was a way of remaining Jewish when they saw no reason NOT to remain so. Acts, Ch. 1, significantly has the disciples asking Jesus (who I don’t believe was actually embodied at the time, but that’s beside the main point here) if this is when the Kingdom will be restored to ISRAEL?
It seems to have been mainly Paul (plus maybe a few “off screen” characters) who pushed forward the idea that the Kingdom was to be a new entity of Jews and Gentiles united in a single “body of Christ”. If one reads the last several chapters of Acts carefully with tensions between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders (which no longer included Peter by then) in mind, it is apparent that dogma and ethnic relations were far from settled yet then, around 58 AD.
A great but so far little-known source developing this around the theme of Paul’s “collection for the saints” in Jerusalem is the book and documentary film by Robert Orlando. The book is entitled “Apostle Paul: A Polite Bribe” and the film, “A Polite Bribe”.
Paul seems to write about the Law quite a bit. The first thing I think of is when he is saying it is not necessary to follow the Law, such as when he talks about following food laws in 1 Corinthians 8. While saying this, he points out that while it is not necessary to follow the Law, it also is not bad if one feels like they should. He even says that if a brother feels the need to follow these food laws, then we should follow them in his presence so as not to cause him to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:13).
The main point that I see Paul make in his epistles is that there is not need to follow the Jewish Law because that is all about works. Instead, one must follow God’s Law, which is the Law of faith (Romans 3:27). He stresses that works alone cannot give salvation, and so following the Law itself will not bring salvation, such as in Phillippians 3:9.
As this class goes on, I will be interested to see if the Jewish Christian literature come to the same conclusion as Paul, that faith is more important than works. And if they don’t, I will be interested to learn what the reasons are.
“comprehensive theology and vast library of Biblical knowledge” – I think you would be surprised by the expansiveness of biblical knowledge demonstrated by the rabbis in second temple Jewish literature. Sure they didn’t have computers to run searches, but they had incredible memories more intimately familiar with the law.
I think that the idea of Jewish Christian literature and the law is very interesting. I never really thought about how Jesus fulfilling the prophecies and becoming the messiah would impact the law for the Jewish Christians. I obviously knew that once these Jews became Christians they would change their beliefs, however, the fact that the Jews had to reevaluate how they lived their everyday lives under the law is fascinating. I liked Long’s idea in this post where it says, “The writer of Hebrews does not argue that Jesus “cancels the Law,” but rather that the law is most fully understood in the light of Jesus and his sacrifice.” (Long). This points us to the understanding that the law was not thrown out the window but rather changed or adapted for the Jewish Christians. This can be seen in the bible in Matthew 5:17 where it says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”. This clearly agrees with Long’s point of the law not being canceled. We can see this being talked about in our class notes where it says, “It is entirely possible that a Jewish convert to Christianity would continue to live a Jewish lifestyle since there was nothing morally wrong with being Jewish”. (Long, 11). Because of this the Jewish Christians could and most likely keep up with the law in ways such as dietary law and keeping the Sabbath. However, at this point, this would be because of a personal preference rather than being forced to by the Law.
The part that stood out to me most from this post was how it highlights how diverse early Jewish-Christian approaches to the Law actually were. Rather than presenting a single, unified idea, the texts show us a lot of different interpretations shaped by different communities and concerns. Hebrews shows a certain view, treating the Law not as something that finds its fullest meaning through Jesus. In Hebrews, the Law is still authoritative, but it is read through the lens of Christ’s sacrifice, which both fulfills and surpasses it.
James, on the other hand, I feel like shows a much clearer view of the law. The emphasis on the “royal law” and the claim that breaking one part of the Law makes one accountable to all of it shows how obedience remains central to faithful Christian living. James also shows how faith is demonstrated through our actions shaped by the Law. This contrasts with Hebrews more theological and interpretive view of the Law.
However, there are extremes of the spectrum, like the Ebionites and how they pushed law observance to its fullest extent, requiring complete obedience and rejecting Paul’s authority altogether. Through their elevation of James, it shows how authority in early Christianity was not universally agreed upon. Looking at all these different views of the law, it shows that Jewish-Christian literature remains deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible while engaging the Law in ways that differ from Paul.
Jewish Christian literature sees the law differently than Paul. The Jewish law is very much centralized, and the church interprets that law very clearly. It is imperative that the law be upheld for living out their faith. It is followed and interpreted as the only way to understand and live out your faith. This is shown in the strict adherence to laws such as circumcision and dietary rules in the Jewish faith. Breaking just one of these laws would make one guilty in all manners. In James 2:10 it states, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Paul was more focused on living a life that was focused on faith and serving God. He did not put all his emphasis on the law; he felt that the law was there to reveal sin and to help guide believers to Christ. The difference is the Jewish Christian saw that law as a guide for living with complete obedience, when Paul saw the law fulfilled with a love for Christ.
Jobes states that: “While many might be able to refrain from the actual acts prohibited by the Law under the first covenant, no one is able to be pure in both behavior and heart all the time, without even one violation. God faults his people for their inability to keep the first covenant and promises them a new covenant that will be in their hearts and minds. The first covenant was set in place by God to be a shadow of the reality that would come in Christ” (P. 45-46). Overall Paul’s view of the law does seem to differ than most of the main contributors of Jewish-Christian literature. I believe that is because 1 Peter and the letters of John focus on more on the idea of love and what God did and the transformation in that. Where Galatians and Romans directly address the law to help emphasize the New Covenant and express that as believers we are, “Justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28 ESV). Where 1 Peter focuses more on a ethical view of the old-testament but through a Christ-centered way, and keeping the essence and the verry being of who He is at the care of the writing. Overall focusing more on the Heart of Jesus. As it states in 1 Peter 1:15 (ESV) that “he who has called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct.” I think where certain parts of the Jewish Christian Lit focus on the law and certain parts focus on the heart of Jesus all of it still points to the importance of the New Covenant. If we just had books like Galatians and Romans that focus a lot on the Law pointing to the New covenant. I don’t think we would know or be able to see to an extent the heart of Jesus we do through 1 Peter and the letters of John.
Peter, John, and Paul all have very similar ideologies when it comes to viewing the law in the context of a new covenant. They view the law as something that is not between God and us but instead a way to express love to God. (1 John. 5:1-5 ESV) This passage enforces the idea that if we truly love God, we will keep his commandments. These laws are how we overcome the world. The Bible, especially in the Jewish Christian literature section, expresses the idea that the only way we can avoid conforming to the patterns of this world is through the law. I feel like most Christians out there, including myself, can find some serious applicable truth to this. I feel like I can barely hold on by a thread despite doing my best to keep God’s commandments. I don’t see how anyone could find God in a world that constantly pulls us away from him while simultaneously resisting his commands. Romans 1 embraces this idea that people who don’t love God are given over to the passions of their flesh. It seems like those who do not embrace the law lose the ability to see God at all and become naive to moral common sense. It’s no wonder we see so much brokenness on the news and in the world. (1 Pet. 1:14) confirms this theological idea first mentioned by Paul.
Jesus did not come to fulfill the law but to be the fulfiller of it. He knows that we are incapable of fulfilling it on our own, but he still desires for everyone to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Peter says something near the end of 1 Peter that gave me chills just to think about. In (Pet. 4:18), it states, “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” As Jonathan Edwards says, we really are “just holding on by a thread.” But for our assurance, we can know that the thread is the blood of Jesus, which covers all sins. I personally fear being the type of person who has so much comfort in their salvation that they are comfortable living in sin. If keeping God’s commandments is what shows God we love him, and that love is what keeps us from Hell, we’d better grip tightly to his law.
This Blog post is really good and there are many things in this post that stood out to me such as How in the blog post it says that the Hebrews law is the law of Jesus and that it is fully understood in the light of Jesus because what Jesus has done is above law. And to me as a new christian that doesn’t really know too much I just felt like that was very important because we should all look at the Word in the Lens of Savior Jesus Christ. Another thing I found interesting is that Paul said that it isn’t really necessary to follow the Law in the Jewish christian I believe because he says that is all about the works that we do for people, but instead we must follow the law of the Lord because it’s about having Faith in Him. In 1 Corinthians 9:21 Paul says “To those not having the law I became like one not having the law though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law, so as to win those not having the law.” I really like this verse because faith in Jesus is more important than just following rules. Paul cared more about helping people know Christ than making them follow Jewish laws. He believed that Jesus fulfilled the law, and now people are called to live by faith and love through Him.
It’s interesting to interpret the different understandings of the Law through a Jewish lens or the lens of a Gentile or follower of Christ. Paul says we are released from the law in Romans 7:4-6. This would not be acceptable under Jewish beliefs, as they had low Christology and rejected the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. The beliefs of Gentiles at that time was that Jesus is in fact the Son of God, and that his time on Earth was meant to teach us of God’s word, and to save us from sin.
Jewish faith at the time of Jesus was much like the politicians and bad Christians that Professor Long mentions in his blog posts. It was showmanship, it was without weight, and it focused on performance and portraying themselves as the perfect image of faith. But the letter to the Hebrews shows us that “…God revealed his ultimate and final message to humankind in the person of Jesus some two thousand years ago”(Jobes, 59). Hebrews shows contrast of the Old and New Testaments, yet it recognizes Old Testament Law. It speaks against forms of spirituality that go against the revelation of Jesus, and it recognizes Moses as a faithful servant of God (just in a different light). Yet it still emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and He is the final word from God.