# Judaizer Heresy and council of jerusalem



## arapahoepark (Jun 18, 2012)

What exactly was the Judaizer heresy? How does it relate to the council of Jerusalem? In some ways it seems like NPP may have a point here (seeing how some of the language of the Jewish Christians were still trying to follow the law), and so I want to refute it.
Thanks!


----------



## MarieP (Jun 18, 2012)

When my pastor preached through this chapter, he brought out that the issue here was whether or not the Gentiles had to become Jews in order to embrace Christ. Did they have to be circumcised, keep the festivals, and eat a kosher diet? He noted that the issue wasn't whether or not they had to honor their father and mother or stop lying or stop committing adultery. It wasn't because they didn't believe in grace, or that they all had ill motives. A Judaizer could have said something like, "How could a Gentile who knows the grace of God not want to be circumcised?" And you could understand why, since that was a requirement for the people of God in the Old Covenant. Peter points to the inclusion of the Gentiles, whose hearts would be purified by faith. He not only says that Gentiles don't have to be circumcised/keep the feast days/eat kosher, but the Jews don't have to either. The letter is sent that they will not burden the Gentiles in this way, but they did place burdens on them as a temporary means to aid the weaker brethren among them. Or else there would be a Jewish church and a Gentile church and bring a big roadblock to the Gospel of free grace.

As for where this connects to the NPP, Justin Taylor wrote a provocatively entitled post on "Gratitude for the New Perspective on Paul but Resistance to Its False Dichotomies." He extensively quotes Moises Silva on why we can benefit from the NPP while holding to "both-and" rather than "either-or":



> first, for reminding us of what was obvious long before E. P. Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism came on the scene, namely, that it is quite unfair and inaccurate to paint postbiblical Judaism with the broad, indiscriminate brush of “legalism” and self-righteousness; and
> 
> second, for helping us to see more clearly that Paul’s overarching interest in Galatians 2-3 was not precisely to expound the doctrine of justification but to address the Jewish-Gentile question in the church and thereby to clarify who are the true descendants of Abraham...
> 
> ...



“Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; WUNT 181; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 217–48


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 18, 2012)

MarieP said:


> When my pastor preached through this chapter, he brought out that the issue here was whether or not the Gentiles had to become Jews in order to embrace Christ. Did they have to be circumcised, keep the festivals, and eat a kosher diet? He noted that the issue wasn't whether or not they had to honor their father and mother or stop lying or stop committing adultery. It wasn't because they didn't believe in grace, or that they all had ill motives. A Judaizer could have said something like, "How could a Gentile who knows the grace of God not want to be circumcised?" And you could understand why, since that was a requirement for the people of God in the Old Covenant. Peter points to the inclusion of the Gentiles, whose hearts would be purified by faith. He not only says that Gentiles don't have to be circumcised/keep the feast days/eat kosher, but the Jews don't have to either. The letter is sent that they will not burden the Gentiles in this way, but they did place burdens on them as a temporary means to aid the weaker brethren among them. Or else there would be a Jewish church and a Gentile church and bring a big roadblock to the Gospel of free grace.
> 
> As for where this connects to the NPP, Justin Taylor wrote a provocatively entitled post on "Gratitude for the New Perspective on Paul but Resistance to Its False Dichotomies." He extensively quotes Moises Silva on why we can benefit from the NPP while holding to "both-and" rather than "either-or":
> 
> ...



Thanks!
That really helps!
I believe it was (refering to the galatians quote) DA Carson said Wright always seems to background what the Bible foregrounds and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds


----------



## MarieP (Jun 18, 2012)

arap said:


> I believe it was (refering to the galatians quote) DA Carson said Wright always seems to background what the Bible foregrounds and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds



I actually think that was first said by JI Packer or Douglas Moo. But yes, hearing about Wright's views on Adam and Eve and his book "How God Became King" make me think that's the case. Genesis IS far more than just about the creation of the world and a literal Adam and Eve (and surely he's correct that those aren't its two main themes). But it IS about those things too (both of which, my pastor recently pointed out, are vital to a modern Christian ethic of marriage, sexuality, and pro-life issues). Christ's Kingship in the Gospels is more than just the doctrine that He is God, but, especially in John, it's certainly an important theme!

He'd get more Reformed people to listen if he'd stop making so many dichotomies (he'd also be more orthodox). Why can't the Anglican idea of a "middle way" be applied here? ;-)


----------

