The Judaizing Heresy



aka Eschatologuy

Judaizing has been a problem in the Church from the beginning. Even St. Peter fell prey to the Judaizers and their attempt to import into Christianity the false beliefs of Judaism. Today, Judaizing takes a number of forms. In this episode, we will cover circumcision, the use of “Yahweh” (and “Yeshua”), and several related matters.

As Christians, we must always ask ourselves both what the source of the thing is and what the purpose of the thing is. When it comes to Judaizing, the source is not God and the purpose is from Satan. The Jews do not have a special relationship with God or even any relationship with God, because they rejected His Son, and the Word of Scripture is clear:

No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

Why would we, as Christians, who have the Son by Faith, ask the Jews, who reject the Son and therefore do not have the Father, anything about religion?

What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?

Subscribe to the podcast here.

Show Notes

See Also

Further Reading

Parental Warnings

We have a frank discussion about circumcision, including some technically ‘explicit’ language, in this episode — you may wish to screen it before listening to it with your children.


The transcript for this episode can be found here

Other transcripts can be found here


Join the discussion on Telegram, visit the feedback form or comment below.

Reader interactions

6 Replies to “The Judaizing Heresy”

  1. Would referring to Jesus as Yeshua and/or Yehoshua be a mild form of judaizing you think? I have friends that do this and I’ve just dismissed it as silly, they seem to think it makes them more “in the know” than the average Christian. I usually just kind of poke fun of them by saying something like “you mean Joshua?” but idk, maybe it’s more serious. I don’t think they’re in danger of buying a cepher and having “Christian seders” and I think they’ll likely outgrow it but it seems to be somewhat common among enthusiastic zoomzoom Christians.


    1. It is just a new form of using “Yahweh”, and, yes, it is Judaizing. The great irony, of course, is that God caused the name of Jesus to be recorded in Greek, which is Ιησους, not ‘Yeshua’. Names are translatable, and we should use the appropriate one to the language we are speaking or writing.


  2. I was wondering what people think of this video and who and who not it says is a Jew in the Old Testament:


    1. I have seen that video and it contains both some accurate information and some inaccurate information. The Hebrews (more accurate than “Jews”) in the Old Testament and the modern Jews are certainly ethnically related, even if there is some admixture among modern Jewish populations. The more salient point is that Christianity and Judaism are not related, but diametrically opposed and hostile, religions.


  3. Could you share a reference for the difference between ancient and modern circumcision?


    1. A number of ancient historians wrote about the practice of circumcision, but most of them did not go into specific details on the physical aspects of the practice. However, Scripture itself does contain some examples that highlight the differences. I have previously mentioned the relatively speedy recovery period from Genesis 34, but an even better example would be the circumcision performed by Zipporah in Exodus 4 — if the ancient practice were equivalent to the modern practice, it would be very unlikely that Zipporah could have quickly performed the procedure using only a flint knife, but, if the ancient practice were a simpler cut instead of full removal, then it is entirely reasonable for Zipporah to have performed such a procedure quickly and with simple tools (or, in this case, a simple tool — the flint knife). Further, lacking both modern medical tools and modern sanitization methods, if the ancients had performed ‘modern’ circumcisions, then it likely would have resulted in a relatively high death rate for infant males, which does not seem to have been the case.