From Divergence to Apostasy
The Beginning of the End
As I begin a new series that deals with the theme of divergence from Judaism to Christianity, I will attempt to answer the question of how Christianity diverged from its roots in Judaism and formed a distinctly different religion from the Judaism of Jesus’ day. One might think that this is a new discipline, but scholars have been discussing this theme of divergence for quite some time. Scholars seem to agree that divergence has taken place, but when it occurred remains a sticking point, as well as how the process unfolded -- was it gradual or quick? Answers vary, with some saying it happened as early as the Gospel of John or the Book of Acts, or as late as the Council of Nicaea. My use of the term Christianity in this context refers to a distinctly different religion from that of Judaism during Jesus’ life. Without going into much detail here, it is accepted among scholars that Jesus was a normative Jewish theologian during His time, but many earlier scholars have used Jesus’ teachings as an example of divergence from Judaism when, in fact, that was not the case. I will explain in more detail later how Jesus’ teachings were, in fact, normative to Judaism.
This essay comes from my personal study of prior theologians, especially those of the second century, when many Apologetics began to write in defense of Christianity. I studied theology for many years, and the theology discipline is truly vast. We have at least 2,000 to 3,000 years of scholarship, and it is truly daunting to read and comprehend what theologians of yore were trying to communicate without understanding their historical context. This context will become important as an interpretative lens to help the reader understand why certain questions were being asked and what these theologians attempted to answer. In fact, historical context will give us a better understanding of how and why Christianity began to evolve and distance itself from its Judaic roots. Throughout my education, I gradually understood that Christianity has been on a path that differs greatly from that of our Lord and Savior when he walked the earth. Over time, modern culture has adopted arguments made by these earlier apologetics, with their anti-Semitic attitudes, to separate themselves from Judaism. Why this tradition developed is where historical context will shed some light. The early Church consisted of Jewish, Jewish Christian, and Gentile Christian communities, each struggling to find its identity, leading to a great divide.
I became critical of this divergence while studying earlier theological writers, known as Patristic Fathers. I began to notice that these early apologetics, especially those of the second century, no longer found meaning from within Judaism when interpreting Scripture, but rather were using Greek philosophy as an interpretative lens, leading these early apologetics to begin reinterpreting Scripture in a new light that was distinctly different from its Jewish roots. I critiqued this new interpretative lens, calling it the Hellenizing of Christianity, or the process of making Christianity nothing more than a pagan religion of the Greeks while becoming distinctly different from Judaism. As Christianity distanced itself from Judaism, toward a pagan faith, we begin to see how both faiths began to clash. I have long argued that Christianity must return to its Jewish roots to find meaning and gain a deeper understanding of what the New Testament writers intended to convey. One needs a Judaic interpretative lens to understand the New Testament, not a pagan Greek philosophy.
This conflict led me to reinterpret the New Testament through a more Judaic lens, and I gained a new understanding while formulating different doctrinal positions – a process I realized was crucial to truly understand the New Testament. After reinterpreting Scripture through my new Judaic lens, my views no longer fit the context of present-day Christianity. The more I understood about the Jewish context of the New Testament writers and Jesus, the less my perspectives had in common with today’s Protestant and Catholic theology. This caused a crisis of faith that drew me toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), albeit unknowingly. I began to develop a new theological understanding, and I was unwilling to change my new views, even though I was the only one who held different theological presuppositions in my theology courses. What I called divergence, the LDS Church calls apostasy, yet both perspectives strive to lay the same foundation -- a foundation that today’s Christianity has veered so far from its roots, it is no longer in accordance with what Jesus was teaching and what God considers acceptable. This is where I find myself today: an outsider to Protestant and Catholic theology. However, my interpretative lens fits comfortably within the LDS context, and I intend to write about how this happened and how my theology reformed me and led me down a different path.
However, I first must try to show that Jesus was a normative Jew in His day, and that He did not come to destroy, replace, or create a new religion. The Gospel portrayal of Jesus was not one of an outsider to Judaism, but rather as an insider. The arguments and discussions Jesus was sparking were common in the Jewish community. The better we understand normative Judaism of Jesus’ day, the sooner we will begin to see that Jesus did not come to establish a new religion, but rather lived His life within Judaism to show us how to live. If anything, Jesus attempted to reform Jewish leaders and bring them back to the basics of biblical interpretation found within the Torah and fundamental to Judaism.
Two particular areas of discussion among Jews always have been how to honor the Law of Moses and the Sabbath Day. These discussions were very much alive within the Judaic community in Jesus’ day. In fact, both issues are discussed today: How does one honor the Commandments of God and keep the Sabbath holy? Today’s and yesterday’s Jews always strived to interpret God’s Word and live in accordance with it. When God gave Moses the Torah, the process of interpretation began. What did God mean when He said, “Keep the Sabbath Day Holy”? Today and in Jesus’ time, views varied on what God meant. One must understand that the questions posed to Jesus were not all meant to entrap Him. Some were sincere and meant to elicit greater understanding. A big difference is that when Jesus spoke on a subject, His knowledge, understanding, and authority in the way He spoke caused those listening to believe and trust in His words.
The heart of the matter or the sincerity of the person seeking to follow God seemed to be a bigger issue at times than how one interpreted Scripture. In the Old Testament, we see that God desired mercy, not sacrifice, telling us that He judges the hearts of people. Throughout the Old Testament, God keeps reminding us that His Commandments should be a matter of the heart, i.e., we should diligently seek to follow and that our desire to follow God should be our motivation. This standard of desire is what God sees, reminding us that merely following the Commandments is not the purpose, but it is the desire to follow the Commandments that pleases God. This desire brings us closer to God and compels us to want to follow God’s Commandments. Our motivation is what God sees -- are we truly trying to please Him, or merely following His Commandments to impress others, such as the leadership in Jesus’ day: Pharisees and Sadducees? In some ways, motivation and desire don’t necessarily make the Commandments impossible to follow, but rather they lower the bar in some sense, to one’s immediate circumstances. In other words, God knows when one is truly trying when one fails to uphold the law. Those who were sincere in trying to follow the Commandments also will be sincere when they ask for forgiveness when they fail. Thus, true motivation to follow also leads to true repentance when one fails, and God forgives a repentant heart. Following the Commandments for the sake of pride or earning grace from God is not what God desires, but one often can fall into this trap of earning grace. In keeping with this theme of desire and motivation, Jesus tells us a story about lust. He tells leaders and others that merely lusting after another woman is adultery. Today, Christians want us to believe that Jesus was raising the bar too high on sin, making the Commandment impossible to uphold, but in fact, he was reminding us that the Commandments are a matter of the heart and that our desire is foundational in following them, that merely wanting to follow them leads one to true repentance when one falls short. Jesus became a Jewish theologian, teaching us the Commandments, but also teaching us the Spirit of the Law. God does not want people merely to follow the Commandments: He wants the Commandments to change our hearts and draw us closer to Him, with the understanding that if one falls short of God’s holiness, a repentant heart allows one to get close to God through His grace once again. Thus, the Commandments are not merely a set of do’s and don’ts to control our lives, but rather a way of getting close to God through repentance through God’s grace, found within His Commandments. More can be said, but Jesus was not distancing Himself from Judaism, nor trying to dismantle it. Instead, He found himself engaging in conversations already taking place in Jewish society in His time. Moreover, when does one cross the line from work faith toward grace alone?
What about the Sabbath? The Church leadership had strict rules, such as how far one could walk, how much one could pick up, and whether you could cook or build a fire on the Sabbath -- these were normal questions back then and continue to be discussed today. People often think that Jesus broke the Sabbath laws, but in fact, He lived them. The fact that He healed on the Sabbath was not unusual, as doing acts of kindness and saving lives were acceptable on the Sabbath. One must understand that the Sabbath represented the Kingdom of God, in which God’s children will serve God. Thus, in Mosiah 2:17, we see that while we are in the service of humanity, we are in the service of God. This verse fits nicely into the concept of the Sabbath. Jesus did heal, and the religious leaders had a problem with that, but Jesus reminded them that it was OK to do good on the Sabbath. In fact, in the Book of Luke, Jesus often defends His act of healing and discusses what the Kingdom of God will be like in conjunction with his defense. Jesus reminded everyone that doing good in the Kingdom of God is normal, so healing was totally acceptable on the Sabbath. You might think that the religious leaders didn’t know this, but these teachings were common knowledge written into their laws. And yet, the question of when one crosses the line from resting to working on the Sabbath continues to be discussed centuries later. Jesus simply was caught up in a discussion that was normative in the Jewish community. Jesus’ principles were not new, but His approach to answering them may have been. Thus, Jesus was not trying to restructure or replace Judaism, as some have come to believe. He was upholding a Commandment of God on the importance of the Sabbath. The methods that Jesus used to teach were normative Jewish teaching techniques, He also observed Jewish festivals and kept Kosher laws, among other observances. During Jesus’ trial, no fault was found in His teachings. Eventually, the only thing that the religious leaders could find fault with was Jesus’ claim of being the Messiah. When Paul writes about keeping the Kosher laws, he reminds the reader that keeping Kosher is a matter of the heart, as are all the laws, and that one should keep Kosher according to his or her faith. Sadly, people interpret Paul as doing away with Kosher laws when he was upholding the greater spirit of them. The big difference here is interpreting Scripture from a Judaic standpoint, rather than a Greek philosophical one.
As Christianity developed in the early years, Jewish followers of Jesus were identified as followers of “The Way,” while Gentile followers of Jesus were identified as “Christians.” The use of these two terms early in the Book of Acts leads us to understand that two distinct groups already were beginning to develop. Just how far apart these two groups were in beliefs is hard to define, but at the center remained the same questions: How does one follow the Commandments in general, and how does one keep the Sabbath holy, along with other normative Jewish questions? One sees these same questions being discussed between various Christian communities throughout the New Testament. In my opinion divergence between Judaism and Christianity began very early. What we do know is that both groups had a common leadership found in Jerusalem. The Apostle Paul went to Jerusalem to speak with the other Apostles to settle differences, and once again, the same questions are being debated.
In scholarly work, we use the term Judaizer. The term is used in a derogatory sense to label a person who is trying to adhere to Jewish teachings in contrast with new Christian teachings. In actuality, Judaizers were Jewish Christians, but were more legalistic in their observances of the Commandments. They would have been more normative toward the religious leaders of the day, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees. In their legalistic efforts to follow the Commandments, they lost the Spirit of the Commandments. Paul and others argued against this legalistic approach, just like Jesus did. They often reminded us that we are saved by faith while honoring the Commandments -- a reminder that the Commandments are a matter of the heart, not merely a set of do’s and don’ts. Unfortunately, many view this clash of perspectives as a reason to diverge from Judaism altogether and do away with the Commandments, when in reality, that is not the essence of the bone of contention, which is how one should follow the Commandments and how the Commandments are meant to be kept – not whether they should be followed. The Commandments are meant to draw us closer to God not by works, but through faith, for it is faith in the Commandments that changes us from within, not from without. A legalistic approach is outward in nature, more concerned with following rules than focusing on the rule maker: God. The Commandments are meant to show us God, and God wants to change our hearts. This clash between the legalistic and spirit-of-the-law approaches remains a contentious subject today.
We notice very early in the Book of Acts that the same questions are discussed within the new community of believers in Jesus. As we look forward, the conversation in the late second century became more contentious, yet they still debated the same themes. Roman Emperor Nero was persecuting the Christians, so survival was more important than dealing with philosophical issues within Christianity at the time. However, conditions began to change later, when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the empire’s state religion. The Council of Nicaea was called immediately to iron out philosophical differences and create unity. However, the religious leaders summoned were manily Greek-educated, a simple fact that goes unnoticed. These leaders were more steeped in Greek philosophy than Jewish theology. Thus, when they tried to make sense of Christianity, they used their Greek education, and most did not uphold much of what the Council of Nicaea agreed to. It was a very close margin, and some say it was a minority perspective, particularly the issue of the Holy Trinity, a big sticking point among the leadership. When the council concluded, the new Creeds were meant to be a source of unification, but in fact, they divided the Christian community, and this division continues today. It was said that the Creeds were the leadership’s way of making Christianity fit within the Roman philosophical world, i.e., to make it more appealing to the Roman masses and Roman-educated elites. One noticeable detail is that after the first council, hostility toward Jews grew quickly. Where once diversity of views on topics within Judaism was acceptable, and still are, the new Christian leadership made only one perspective acceptable, and anyone who contradicted these new Creeds was branded a heretic. These so-called heretics were Jews and dissenting Gentile Christians. Notice that Jews were branded heretics even if they were not trying to adopt Christian views. This is important because it shows how Christianity and the Jewish community, up to this point, were intermingled. Jews and Gentile Christians lived among each other, but after the Council of Nicaea, gradual rifts would begin to take place. Scholars believe that as Christianity became more influential due to its relationship with the Roman state, a battle over converts also began. Thus, the new Greek Christian leadership sought to demonize Jews, calling them heretics and developing hostile, anti-Semitic rhetoric. Ironically, how to use the Commandments and the Sabbath observance were two points of contention between the two communities.
This process of using Greek philosophy to interpret Christianity was the beginning of what I call the Hellenization of Christianity, or the paganizing of Christianity, for the purpose of seeking favor among Roman elites. This process allowed Christianity to find favor, but it also allowed for educated Roman elites to join in the conversation of Christianity through Greek philosophical arguments. These new Greek-educated elites did not use Jewish oral laws or teachings to interpret Scripture, but rather their worldly pagan wisdom. Where once the Apostle Paul said the wisdom of man was foolishness in the eyes of God, this same foolishness would now come to define Christianity.
In the Book of Acts, we begin to see the distinction between Jewish and Gentile converts, yet at this point, both communities still had solid representation within the Apostles. By the time of the Council of Nicaea, Christianity was on a different trajectory from its Jewish roots. It eventually would become a religion of intolerance, where once it was a religion of tolerance. Where once Christianity’s foundation accepted diverse perspectives, understanding that God’s truth can be understood and applied to one’s life differently, now only one view was acceptable and only one way of living the Christian lifestyle would be tolerated. We noticed that when Paul and the other Apostles came together for discussions, they found common ground, allowing one group to exercise its faith one way and the others to do the same. There is so much more that can be said, but I feel that Christianity needs to find its way back to its roots. However, I fear that it might be too late. I believe restoration is needed, with a new beginning. The Reformation failed to elicit the necessary changes, as Protestants today have divided to the points of saturation, and it is self-destructive. This study provides some brief overall context on the conversation that Jesus was having with the Jewish leaders of His day, and it also serves as an example of how the same conversations continued with the Apostles, then within Christianity, and up to today. In my opinion, it is important to return to our roots and find meaning in our lives through the Commandments and through Sabbath observance. These, of course, are only two primary teachings, but are central for those seeking a relationship with God.