On the Term ‘Judeo-Christian’

Ignore the critics on this:

There is a lot of foolish thinking out there – often coming from those who claim to be Christians. They can get all bent out of shape when someone dares to use the term ‘Judeo-Christian.’ Often this can come from those who deep-down are Jew-haters. Sure, they can try to cover this irrational and diabolical animus with all sorts of theological sophistry, but at the end of the day many of them are just plain old antisemites.

The phrase itself is of course simply shorthand for what all true believers have embraced for two millennia. It means the Christian faith grew directly out of the Jewish faith, and that without the Old Testament there would be no New Testament.

The biblical Christian fully affirms as authoritative and binding the 66 books of the Bible: 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. They recognise that the old heresy of Marcionism must always be rejected. He basically threw out the OT, and even parts of the NT. See more on this egregious error here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/02/27/modern-day-marcionism/

So when believers today speak about the Judeo-Christian worldview and the like, they are simply saying our faith is derived from the Hebrew scriptures (OT) and the Greek scriptures (NT). They could speak about the ‘Hebrew-Greek’ worldview, but that is too general, so Judeo-Christian more accurately describes what is being referred to.

But for all sorts of reasons – some good, some not so good – there are some Christians who think it is actually heretical to use this term. I kid you not! Those who are more sensible about this can have troubles because of the long-standing debate about how we understand the relationship between the Testaments.

All true Christians accept that the 66 biblical books are fully canonical, inspired by God, and contain his inerrant words to his people. However, there are legitimate questions that can arise here. A chief one is this: What exactly continues between the Testaments and what discontinues?

As but one prime example: the OT sacrifices that ancient Isael practiced by direct order of Yahweh are now superseded by the full and final sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins. The book of Hebrews for example speaks to this often, as in Heb. 9:22-26:

Under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And in Heb. 10:9-14 as well:

He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Given that the OT temple is no longer with us, we could not do those sacrifices even if we thought they still applied to Christians today. But I have spoken about this in other places, eg: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/05/12/one-bible-two-testaments/

Of course the modern debate about replacement theology (or fulfillment theology, or supersessionism) arises here. Many are just trying to figure out how Jeus fulfills what is found in the OT. That is, is Jesus the new Adam, the new Moses, the new Israel, and so on? See more on this here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2023/10/20/on-replacement-theology-an-introduction/

Many in this camp clearly are not antisemites, but sadly some are. And they are using this teaching as a way to legitimise their hatred of Jews and Israel. It is them that I have a real problem with. Indeed, I cannot in good faith regard them as genuine brothers when there is so much hatred, and so much ugly Marcionism going on.

With all this by way of background, I offer here six quotes by various folks who have recently been speaking to this on the social media – in this case, X. They may be coming from different places, and may not all be Christians (eg, the first one I cite), but they all have problems with this obsession with demonising the phrase in question.

Jordan B Peterson:

With regard to “Judeo Christian”: The 10 Commandments are Jewish. The great stories of the Old Testament are Jewish. The Jews developed the idea of subsidiarity as the alternative to tyranny and slavery. The Jews established the cultural preconditions for the rise of universal literacy. The fate of Israel at the hands of the Islamists is the fate of the West. This rising tide of anti-semitism sickens me. Those of you engaging in it for your oh-so-moral reasons—you’re despicable. And remember, you proud “Christians” objecting in all your purity to the term: Christ Himself was a Jew.

Wes Huff:

So much noise online regarding the term “Judeo-Christian.” Guys – in academia it’s simply the term that describes the combined corpus of Old and New Testaments. The Jewish heritage of the Hebrew scriptures combined with the New Testament. That’s it. I know you want there to be some conspiracy but there isn’t, that’s the way we’re using it. It has nothing to do with geo-politics or a one world order.”

Allie Beth Stuckey:

The term “Judeo-Christian” has sparked a lot of debate on the right lately. When people talk about America’s “Judeo-Christian values,” they’re not claiming the Founding Fathers were Jewish. They’re referring to the shared biblical worldview that has shaped the West: that we’re made in the image of God, that our rights come from our Creator—not the government—and that every human being has inherent dignity. And the truth is, Jesus was a Jew, and His Jewish identity is a key part in the history of Christianity.

Seth Dillon:

The term is only rejected because it offends people who hate Jews. But all it actually does is highlight a profoundly influential shared moral framework drawn from the Bible. It’s an accurate and useful descriptor that refers to something real, so complaining about it is stupid.

Dan Burmawi:

The entire Christian framework is built upon the Jewish one. Christianity can’t exist as a standalone religion detached from Judaism. Remove its Jewish foundation, and what remains is another pagan religion. Jesus, throughout the Gospels, drew not only from the Hebrew Scriptures but also quoted the oral Torah, which later became the Talmud. His teaching assumed the Jewish understanding of God, history, covenant, law, sin, and redemption. Without Judaism, the fundamental concepts that are central to Christianity lose their meaning. Jesus’ words should not be understood in isolation from the revelation that came before Him, nor as if they replaced it. Revelation unfolds as a sequence, not as disconnected fragments. It is like a relay race: each runner receives the baton from the previous one. No runner begins ten miles from the finish line carrying no baton at all. That is why the phrase “Judeo-Christian civilization” is a historical reality. The moral, legal, and philosophical foundations of the West emerged from the Christian tradition that was built on Jewish foundations. Western civilization represents the closest humanity has come to embodying the Kingdom of God, the moral vision that emerged from the Jewish and Christian understanding of God.

Insurrection Barbie:

Christianity does not make sense apart from the Jewish people because Christianity is the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Israel, not their cancellation. Jesus was not an abstract religious figure who appeared out of nowhere. He was born a Jewish man, into the line of Abraham and David, exactly as God had promised. He was circumcised under the Law, worshiped in the Temple, celebrated the Jewish feasts, and declared, “I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them.” The apostles were Jews. The earliest church was overwhelmingly Jewish. The gospel went “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” None of that is incidental. It is the story. The Old Testament is not a book that Christians discarded. Nor is it merely a Jewish book that Christians borrowed. It is the first part of a single covenant story that culminates in Christ. This is precisely why Paul warned Gentile believers against arrogance in Romans 11. He did not tell them that Israel no longer mattered. He did not tell them they had replaced the Jewish people. He said the opposite. We are wild branches grafted into an existing tree. The root supports us, not the other way around. And he reminds us that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” God does not fulfill His promises by pretending He never made them. He fulfills them by keeping them. When we erase the Jewish identity of Moses, David, the prophets, or even Jesus Himself, we are not elevating Christianity. We are flattening the very story that gives Christianity its meaning. If Jesus was not Israel’s Messiah, then what exactly was He fulfilling? If there was no covenant people, then what covenant was He bringing to completion? The beauty of Christianity is not that it replaces Israel. The beauty of Christianity is that the God of Abraham proved faithful to every promise He made. Christ is the “yes” and “amen” of those promises, not their denial. That matters because the character of God is revealed in His covenant faithfulness. He keeps His word. He always has. The real Christ is not ours to reinvent. He is the Jewish Messiah promised from the beginning, and He calls every culture including our own to conform to Him, not Him to us.

As can be seen, these six writers would even differ with one another in some of the details and fine print. But they all would be concerned about how the hatred of the phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’ is too often an indication of hatred of the Jews and Israel.

Afterword

Just as I was about to post this article, I came upon a new piece that is quite relevant here. It even uses one of the quotes that I featured above. It is titled “’Judeo-Christian’ isn’t just theology — it’s civilization” by Luke Moon. It nicely ties in two important areas here: the biblical/theological, which is always essential, and the political/international relations aspect.

What is happening in modern Israel today IS tied in with these old theological and scriptural discussions and debates. So both aspects need to be addressed. Here is just one paragraph from his piece:

Os Guinness puts the civilizational point plainly: “We owe a lot to the Greeks and much to the Romans, but our Western civilization is essentially a Christian civilization rooted in Judaism.” That is why “Judeo-Christian” matters politically: not because Judaism and Christianity are interchangeable theologies, but because the West’s ideas of covenant, law, liberty, prophetic judgment, and ordered freedom emerged from a biblical inheritance that was decisively opened to ordinary people through the Reformation. https://www.christianpost.com/voices/judeo-christian-isnt-just-theology-its-civilization.html

Obviously all this is a massive topic with so much more needing to be said. And some hot heads are likely ready to tar and feather me for daring to say what I have written here. Such would be commentators are advised to take a chill pill first before writing in! Otherwise, let the debate continue.

[2015 words]