Christianity – From Jewish Sect to Separate Religion?

Shaye J.D. Cohen in his book From the Maccabees to the Mishnah locates early Christianity firmly within the world of Jewish sectarianism. However, he does not think it remained so beyond the first century.

Cohen defines a sect this way:

A sect is a small, organized group that separates itself from the larger religious body and asserts that it alone embodies the ideals of the larger group because it alone understands God’s will . . . In the final analysis, what makes a sect a sect is its separation and exclusivity. Guilds, clubs, synagogues, and schools resemble sects in that they are small voluntary associations, but as long as they neither separate themselves from the community nor claim exclusive possession of truth, they are not sects . . . Whether as a cause or an effect of its alienation, a sect rejects or, at least, harshly criticizes the institutions and practices venerated by the rest of the society. In ancient Judaism, the targets of sectarian polemics were primarily three: law, temple, and scripture (120, 122, 123).

Cohen notes the following about the movement known from the New Testament. (1) It is a small organized group that has separated itself from a larger religious body; (2) It presents itself as the only true expression of Judaism – faith in Jesus was “the new norm for Judaism”; (3) It expresses itself in polemics against the central institutions of society due to its sectarian alienation; and (4) It performs distinctive rituals, practices and interpretations of Jewish observances. Of the final point, Cohen says “These distinctive and peculiar practices, more than the distinctive and peculiar theology on which the practices were based, made Christianity a sect or, at least, a separate group within Jewish society” (161).

Then Cohen states,

Early Christianity ceased to be a Jewish sect when it ceased to observe Jewish practices. It abolished circumcision and became a religious movement overwhelmingly gentile in composition and character. This process was accompanied by the elevation of Jesus to a position far higher and more significant than that occupied by any intermediary figure in Judaism . . . Christians believed that Jesus, born of a mortal mother, had become the Logos incarnate; no Jewish group is known to have advocated such a theology. Its practices no longer those of Jews, its theology no longer those of Jews, the Christianity of the early second century CE was no longer a Jewish phenomenon but a separate religion (161, emphasis added).

What’s wrong with Cohen’s assessment of the development of Christianity from sect to religion?

First, Cohen assumes a universal rejection of circumcision by all Christians. This is not true, although it would be correct to say that, since the Jerusalem Council’s decision (Acts 15), circumcision was abolished as a requirement for Gentiles for entry into the eschatologically restored kingdom. And it is true that the predominantly Gentile church of the subsequent centuries rejected Jewish practices as carnal. The church father Jerome in the fourth century represents the attitude toward Jewish Christians with “They are not Jews because they believe in Christ, and they are not Christians because they observe the Jewish laws”.

Second, Cohen assumes that belief in the deity of Jesus was a rather late development and not found among early Jewish believers. Both these assumptions are wrong. Worship of Jesus is early and to be found among Jews (cf. the work of Hurtado and Bauckham).

Third, he contradicts himself by using theology as a criterion for Jewish sectarian status. After all, Cohen pointedly stated that what made early Christianity a sect was its peculiar practices not its theology. What’s more, he knows that there were some Jewish Christ believers who continued to observe Torah like the earliest followers of Jesus into the fifth or sixth century. So the idea that “no Jewish group is known to have advocated such theology”, in regard to Jesus’ deity, can only be true by discounting as evidence the early Jewish Christians. We know that apparently there were some Jewish Christian sects within Christianity (called Ebionites) that rejected Jesus deity, but this was not a uniform belief among all Jewish Christians (e.g. Nazareans).

Furthermore, if Jewish elements within early Christianity did not in fact cease to observe Jewish practices, then at least those particular groups should still be considered as Jewish sects using Cohen’s definition [even if they practiced table fellowship with Gentiles and considered them to be members of Abraham’s family based on the work of Messiah].

What does all this mean for today? At least three things: First, belief in Jesus should not be the line between what is Judaism and what is not. Second, while Gentile Christianity has developed into a separate religion from Judaism, this does not mean that Jews who believe in Jesus need to leave Judaism and assimilate into Gentile churches. Today, we need to recognize the reality of both Gentile Christianity and Messianic Judaism. Third, while Christ-believing or Messianic Judaism represents a significant development theologically and at times practically from non-Christ believing/Messianic Judaism and can be seen having something of a supersessionist [Israel is replaced by a new or renewed Israel] element, it is wholly in keeping with a sectarian Judaism of the ancient world. So the “replacement” element of supersessionism must be mitigated by its Jewish framework. Israel or Judaism is not replaced by something like the Gentile church.