The Man You Never Knew
You shall say to them, ‘This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the Lord their God or accept correction; truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth. Jeremiah 7:28 NASB
Perished – Almost the end of the year (as far as the pagan world is concerned). Almost. Just enough time to think about some changes in the way you will investigate your faith for the coming year. Of course, the biblical New Year started long ago, so maybe you have already incorporated these few principles. In that case, this is just a gentle reminder. But this reminder begins with the introduction to a man you probably never heard of. His name was Marcus. He was elected bishop (“overseer,” not Roman Catholic Church official) by the Jewish Messianic community that escaped the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The community, called Nazarenes, moved to the area of Peraea just before the Roman slaughter. But political winds shifted and Hadrian expanded persecution of the Jews, preventing any hope of returning to Jerusalem. Chandler writes:
A sudden political shift eventually saw the election of a man named Marcus as their bishop, a minister of the Gentiles, and probably a native of one of the Latin provinces. Capitalizing on their desperation, Marcus persuaded many of them to renounce their practice of Mosaic law so as to purchase admission to Jerusalem from the Romans, integrating them further with the Catholic establishment of the Gentiles whose growing success and opulence weighed heavily on the scarcity of the Nazarenes.[1]
Read that again. Slowly. This occurred before 100 CE. This Messianic, Torah-observant community, once residing in Jerusalem since the end of Yeshua’s ministry, gave up their obedience to Torah in order to 1) be allowed back to Jerusalem, and 2) extricate themselves from poverty. In other words, geographic and economic oppression were the reasons for abandoning God’s instructions. Life was easier when it accommodated Roman ways. And Marcus, the man you never knew about, a Gentile who knew what it meant to be Roman, persuaded these followers that they should have an easier life. The truth perished. The “church” moved in the direction of Rome. Accommodation was the word of the day. The rest is history.
It didn’t take Roman swords to convert these people. They weren’t tortured for their Jewish way of life. They were persuaded from the inside. Theological wolves arise from within. They left their obedience to the God of the prophets because they wanted relief—justifiable relief, or so it seemed. And they were absorbed into a new religion without a whimper. So here’s the first principle. Every idea has a history. Every action begins somewhere. Find the root and you will learn much more about what you think you believe. Most disasters begin for “perfectly good” reasons.
Topical Index: Marcus, Nazarenes, truth, Jeremiah 7:28
[1] Kegan Chandler, The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma, pp. 131-132.
“Every idea has a history. Every action begins somewhere. Find the root and you will learn much more about what you think you believe.”
That is something that it is so important for us to understand… we normally live in oblivion
Where “yoga” comes from? Where “acupuncture” comes from? Where “banking” and “money” come from? Where every single “modern” activity comes from?
What is the root of all these “normal” and “harmless” things that people get involved in?
No wonder one of the last commands found in the Bible is:
“Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
“ ‘Come out of her, my people,’
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;” Revelations 18:4 telling us to come out of Babylon… the same way Jeremiah told Israel in Jeremiah 51:45…
The only problem for us is that we do not live in a place or city called “Babylon”… so from where we need to come out?
Babylon… Babel… confusion… so many “voices” around us…
Yes… “truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth”… confusion reigns in these modern times…
I have a friend who says we live in a society and time where ” truth is lying dead in the street” .
Add to that ” they were persuaded from the inside. Theological wolves arising from the inside” Time to walk very circumspectly- Dwelling in the shelter of Elyon and Abiding in the shadow of Shaddai will become the only way to survive all those voices.
You are right, dear sister. That should be our response. Time to examine each and every mode and practice – not just the visible, ‘hot’ topics, but the hidden, inherent ones, too. Alfredo .reminds us that everything in our world requires us to ‘sign off’ on the origin if we are going to enjoy the fruit. If we practice yoga so as to enjoy the fruit of that exercise, we need to remember that a spirit of origin accompanies all practices. We don’t have to cognitively ‘believe in’ that spirit either;
I think I have learned that Hebraic teaching shows it is our actions that reveal the heart; not our mental assent. I see Christians who, because they have been trained in the Greek philosophy that it is mental assent that reveals the ‘truth’, think they can copy the practices of the world – from glossolalia to “Christian insurance” pools, to “trunk or treating”, etc, as long as they re-label (supposedly ‘redeem’) them, but surely we are only safe if the practice has its spiritual origin in Torah.
I think there is a spirit (motivational force; for example, the “spirit of Christmas”) riding with every choice, that will trigger the empowering stamp of approval of one or the other of two kingdoms. There are also promised curses accompanying one of those kingdoms, and promised blessings the other. If your life looks cursed instead of blessed, you may want to take a closer look at which kingdom is being honored with each and every choice of your life. There are no neutral choices, powered (spirited) by us. All choices honor either one kingdom or the other. Humanism is the myth that there is a third kingdom; however, I think that is a lie that originated at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I think we are not ‘safe’, ultimately, with any of the systems that were originated by the world, and we were specifically instructed to be in the world, but not be “of” it. All our instructions originated off-planet. Our lives should reflect the fact that we put all our trust – ALL of it – in heaven only, and require (“judge”) the rest of the world to answer to heaven by our lives. As I understand Jerry and Lisa might be saying, we should be rubbing the entire world the ‘wrong’ way. Not there yet!
Yes Laurita- It all goes back to that tree
“Glossolalia, Christian insurance pools and trunk or treating”, all in one sentence. Wow! We Canadians really live in a sheltered word imagery environment. Interesting. Thanks.
I hear ya Laurita. I have this discussion every time someone ask why I don’t “do” Halloween. After all, it’s so cute to see the kids dressed up in costumes. Sigh
Same thing with Christmas and Easter although these two are really a mixed bag of religious pagan traditions. No one can tell me why they put up a tree or say Merry Christmas. It’s always that it is tradition and that is what we grew up doing. I got called Scrooge this year because I made the comment I was tired of Christmas music!
I hate systems of the world and they are everywhere. I am sure I still observed a few that I am unaware of as of yet. I guess if I am rubbing others the “wrong” way I should rejoice at least on this subject!
Relabeling to make it okay-yeah that’s a great idea 🙁
Thanks for your thoughts Laurita. They are helpful for me.
hi Alfredo Just read your message & less than 10 minutes ago I had googled Yoga for understanding The word means union & the English equivalent word Yoke comes from this root meaning. As far as yoga the practise is concerned, for us it is becoming unequally yoked spiritually. I had heard that each position taken is a reference to a specific spiritual entity that the practitioner is participating in an invitation by using a posture for union whether aware of this actuality or not. FJ
Yes. Yoga and other practices are not harmless at all… we must be aware of those things.
The “pattern of this world” . . .
Or “every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.”
The choice has always been the same.
“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life,
and only a few find it.”
Yeshua said “the kingdom of God is within you.”
Where are we looking?
Skip
How did this influence the NT records or the translations thereof?
When you link it to the earlier prophetic reasons it sounds as if the activity was predetermined by God for a specific reason. Or is it a warning that was ignored?
I’m not sure about your comment on God predetermining the result. That, I think, is a philosophical issue yet to be settled. I do think that for whatever reasons God allows men to make tragic mistakes, and to reap the consequences. It seems to be a consequent of free agency. And, yes, all these influences do have an impact on the text and its translations, as many of the Dead Sea scrolls have shown. So we press on, willing to revise our beliefs as we discover more and more about our twisted history.
Skip thank you for the prompt response.
And how we make big mistakes when we give our free will some free reigns.
As you say let’s press on in our search for the truth while we humbly do what we believe is the way prepared or called into. I think that may be the only control we truly will have…
Given that Hadrian reigned from 117 to 138, the situation of which Chander writes is from the 2nd century, probably ca. 135. I did a search “Marcus bishop of the Nazarenes” and found (1) a quote from ‘google books’ in Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1, which sheds more light; (2) this blog post: hoshanarabbah dot org/blog/2014/05/21/how-the-church-divorced-itself/. In the latter, just do a search for “marcus” to easily find the same quote. Note that Gibbon states that these “Nazarenes” were pejoratively called “Ebionites”, a group known to have had some Gnostic tenets. As Gibbon notes, “the disciples of Moses and those of Christ” rejected them, respectively, as “apostates” and “heretics”.
Skip, I can understand supposing Chandler was referring to the 1st century by the way the quoted portion is laid out. But, is this 1st century understanding specifically in Chandler’s work or only in your extrapolation of Chandler?
One other thing I noticed is that Gibbon capitalizes Catholic. While RCC adherents certainly claim there was a Catholic church back then, I don’t think this is actually the case. Gibbon may have been on firmer ground with catholic, instead.
In reading further in Gibbon’s work it’s apparent that he’s pushing that the “Nazarenes”, aka Ebionites (who were apparently at least quasi-Gnostic), were the original Christians. I was recently engaging with a New Age Gnostic on another site, and he kept insisting that the Ebionites were the ‘real’ Christians, and now I think I’ve found where he got that notion. But in Scripture “Nazarene” was predominately used of Jesus (since He was from Nazareth), though once used of Messiah followers (Acts 24:5), while Tertullian asserts that non-Messiah-following Jews referred to Christians as “Nazarenes”, so, for these and other reasons, I don’t think Gibbon can make such a confident claim.
If Gibbon is the background for Chandler’s work in this particular instance—and I suspect it is—the reader should be careful not to draw any firm conclusions.
Craig, The paragraph that Skip quotes from continues with a reference from Reade’s “The Martyrdom of Man, New York, Eckler, 1890” (yes, 1890)- “in the second century the Christians of Judea, who had faithfully followed the customs and tenets of the twelve apostles, were informed that they were heretics. During that interval a new religion had arisen.” (Essentially the RCC). “The single Deity of the Jews had been exchanged for the Trinity, which the Egyptians had invented, and which Plato had idealized into a philosophical system.”
Chandler continues; “in spite of the world (of the new church), the Nazarenes (the Jewish remnant) are found still thriving in the fourth century – even during the troublesome Council of Nicaea. (Epiphanius, Panarion), reveals that these later Nazarenes were, in fact, the very same Jewish converts who directly inherited their church from the Apostles in first century Jerusalem.”
Chandler builds his case using about 350 source references. I certainly made up my somewhat undecided mind on this issue now.
I’m not at all familiar with Reade’s work, but he most likely sources Gibbon whose work predates his by a century. Note my initial quote of Gibbon’s in which he states that “disciples of Moses” referred to the “Nazarenes” (aka Ebionites) as “apostates”, while “those of Christ” called them “heretics”.
Your last quote in your initial paragraph is much too tidy, and not reflective of the truth. Larry Hurtado, in his works on this subject, is at pains to point out the Christ-followers of the 1st century, quite soon after His resurrection, worshiped Jesus in a manner accorded only to YHWH. Hurtado initially stated this worship could be seen as ‘binitarian’, though he later changed it to ‘dyadic’, since many had anachronistically imposed later categories (from 3rd and 4th centuries) upon the former, apparently thinking Hurtado was claiming binitarianism over against trinitarianism. Anyway, this same anachronism is evident in that last sentence of your first paragraph above. And to claim that Christians merely adapted Egyptian and/or Platonic ideas into their own theological stew is not helpful. How could the author possibly know that?
The “Nazarenes” may or may not be the same as the “Ebionites”. Apparently, Chandler glosses over this fact, and, from what you write above, it seems he doesn’t acknowledge that both/same specifically denied the authenticity of the canonical Gospels in favor of their own. To see what I mean, look up “Gospel of the Nazarenes”, “Gospel of the Nazaraeans”, “Epiphanius, Panarion“, and “Gospel of the Ebionites” on wiki. I have Schneemelcher’s two-volume work on the so-called ‘New Testament Apocrypha’, which records fragments from the latter, illustrating its Gnostic tenets.
Moreover, there is just not enough historical evidence to support the idea of a sect called the Nazarenes which had purportedly followed the teachings of the 12 apostles from 40 days after Christ’s resurrection (according to Gibbon) all the way through to Hadrian, and etc. And even if one postulates this, one cannot claim this sect is ‘true Messianism’ or ‘true Christianity’, for they specifically rejected the canonical Gospels (and may have rejected the Pauline letters, as well).
Hurtado, “the Christ-followers of the 1st century, quite soon after His resurrection, worshiped Jesus in a manner accorded only to YHWH.”
You need to be specific on your Hurtado biblical quote please.
George,
First, I want to state that, in my previous comment, I had intended on thanking you for providing both clarification and fuller context for this TW; so, here’s my belated ‘thanks’.
To answer your question, I’ll quote from Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). First, I’ll need to provide some background, and to that end I’ll use one of his footnotes (#10, p 31): “Because the word ‘worship’ and its Greek and Hebrew equivalents can connote a variety of degrees and forms of reverence, I wish to make it clear that by ‘worship’ here I mean the sort of reverence that was reserved by ancient devout Jews for God alone and was intended by them to indicate God’s uniqueness”. With “worship” defined, here’s a portion from the main text:
Hurtado goes on to note that even angels, which were especially lauded in extra-Biblical Jewish writings of the time, were never worshiped as such.
With this background he engages some other writers, then moves to NT writings, specifically 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:
Craig, Hurtado is in “good” company. There are many evangelical scholars who claim that Paul in 1 Cor. 8:6 actually “splits” the Shema in order to include Jesus in the one God of Judaism, (Lau, Bauckham, Dunn, Longenecker). But such activity seems unthinkable for a Pharisaic monotheist like Paul. If Paul did really intend to “split” the creed of Israel to include Jesus in it, we might have expected Paul to say: For there is one God, the Father and the Son. But he didn’t. He said there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus, (His agent ALONGSIDE the God of Israel.)
Yeshua explicitly says that receiving glory from mankind was not his intention: “I do not accept glory from human beings, but there is One who seeks it, and He is the judge.”
“Proskynesis” (prostration) is awarded to many others apart from God, while “latreuein” (cultic/religious service) is given only to God and never to Yeshua. Yeshua is worshipped as “the Lamb” precisely because of the GREAT SERVICE he has rendered to “our God”, his obedience to the Creator, not because he is somehow identical to the Creator himself. “FOR THIS REASON God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Yeshua every knee shall bow……..” Phil. 2:8-10,11. Worship that is paid to Christ is ultimately to the credit of God, not simply to Yeshua himself.
In contemporary Greco-Roman belief there are many gods who were thought to live in the heavens and many lords (rulers) on the earth, who represented the authority of the gods on earth, Augustus Caesar and successors in particular at that time who expected, demanded, to be worshipped at the point of a sword. They can still be seen all over the region today “saying” exactly this in bas-relief.
Which God do we worship, the god of the Romans or the God of the Hebrews, Shema?
George,
I’m not intending to be ‘snarky’, but let’s stick with what Paul did state. As I’ve expounded on 1 Cor 8:6 in my subsequent comment below (December 31, 2017 9:38 am), I refer to you that and add: the logical implication is that not only is God the Father Uncreated, the Lord Jesus Christ must also be Uncreated in order for “all things” to have come “through” Him, i.e., for Christ to have been the Agent of creation. Off and on since last year I’ve watched some of Anthony Buzzard’s YouTube video responses to James White, and while He is quick to point out part of this verse in support of his unitarian stance, he absolutely fails to address the latter part referring to Christ being the One through Whom “all things” came—that is, unless I’ve missed it in some other video. Perhaps you or Chandler have an answer?
Your quote in your second paragraph is certainly true (John 8:50), yet Jesus also stated that “the Father judges no one”, for He has given that to the Son (John 5:22, 27-30). My point is there is some sort of overlap in judgment—I’m not intending to start some lengthy discussion on this point, though I can, if necessary, since I’ve written at length on John 5:27 on my own blog. In any case, I started off with Pauline material in order to illustrate that this sort of worship was evident early, per my initial point on this matter. As the century went on, NT writings became even more explicit regarding the Deity of the Son, culminating in John’s explicit use of theos for Christ on Thomas’ lips (20:28). And throughout the NT “Lord” was used both of Christ (“the Lord”, “[the] Lord Jesus Christ”) and the Father (“Lord God”, “Lord God Almighty”).
I recall hearing Buzzard making a case regarding latreuō. On this point he is correct, with one possible exception, which I’ll note at the end of this comment. However, there’s some apparent overlap between latreuō and proskuneō. The former is also used in the LXX to refer to image-worship (Ezk 20:32), and both are used of the same in Exo 20:5; 23:24. More to the point, Satan ‘tempts’ Jesus with the latter (Mt 4:9), while it seem more likely, if Buzzard is correct, for the Devil to use the former. In Jesus’ answer to Satan, He quotes Deut 6:13, which uses both terms. The same is true of the parallel passage in Luke 4:7 and 4:8. In any case, all this does not negate Hurtado’s point here, which is that Jesus did in fact receive cultic worship/devotion on par with YHWH. Expounding on 1 Cor 10:14-22, note Paul’s caution about “provoking the Lord [Jesus Christ] to jealousy”, verbiage originally used of YHWH.
You wrote: Worship that is paid to Christ is ultimately to the credit of God, not simply to Yeshua himself. On this point I don’t necessarily disagree, though we would interpret it a bit differently.
As to your 2nd to last paragraph, I think it likely Paul is making an implicit corrective to the prevailing Greco-Roman thought, with one very important distinction: the “one Lord Jesus Christ” cannot be merely a human ruler, as He was Agent of creation, implicitly Uncreated.
You wrote: Which God do we worship, the god of the Romans or the God of the Hebrews, Shema? If I had to pick between these two, I’d pick the latter, of course, though with the understanding that Paul clarified what the original Shema really was. In other words, Paul didn’t change the Shema, he defined it per his personal revelation.
As regards latreuō, a few commentaries on Revelation 22 brought to my attention some peculiar grammar in Rev 22:3. In its immediate and larger context the Throne is said to be “of (the) God and of the Lamb” (ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou, 22:1, 3), or alternatively, “[the] God’s and the Lamb’s Throne” (Throne belonging to both [the] God and the Lamb), and in the last clause of verse 3 we find “they will serve/worship (latreuō) Him”, the latter a singular pronoun. The antecedent for this pronoun is not absolutely certain—is it both [the] God and the Lamb collectively? The immediately preceding noun would be “the Lamb”, but that is not likely the Revelator’s intention. And it doesn’t seem likely that it would be the Throne itself, though I suppose that’s possible. One commentary (G. K. Beale, NIGNT) opines that the pronoun could well be understood as a collective singular. If so, then His servants will serve/worship “God and the Lamb”. This (or “Throne”) is supportable by 21:22 in which “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are [the city’s] temple”.
I just went over to YouTube, and this came up as a suggested view, from Restoration Fellowship:
youtube dot com/watch?v=KnqAR-FEew8
I’ve a suspicion the videographer omitted some of White’s verbiage following this, as White usually goes to the next part of 1 Cor. 8:6, which speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Agent of creation (“all things” came through Him).
[As an aside, I was very taken aback at the outro music–music by the ‘alternative’ band The Cure, which I recognized right away. (I know more about music than anything else, as it occupied too much of my life for quite a time, as an escape of sorts.)]
With my previous quotes from Hurtado, I’ve barely scratched the surface. The author addresses the ‘preexistence’ question by engaging with some authors who deny this, mostly James Dunn (pp 118-126). Taking an example cited just above, 1 Corinthians 8:6, two clauses are set in parallel with one another, the first referencing God the Father, the second the Lord Jesus Christ. “All things” are from and for the former, while “all things” are through the latter. This means the Lord Jesus Christ’s preexistence is presupposed. Paul doesn’t even feel the need to elaborate on this issue. It is just stated as fact, apparently because it was known among his readers (pp 123-124). Not only does this verse presuppose preexistence, it proclaims the Lord Jesus Christ’s agency in the creation of “all things”.
First Corinthians was written ca. 55AD. And, as noted just above, preexistence was a ‘given’ at the time of Paul’s writing. This may be evidenced further in Scripture by passages that seem to be adaptations of Christian hymns (I’m using “Christian” here in light of Acts 11:26, not intending any sort of anachronism). Sticking strictly with Paul for now, Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20 are assumed by many to have been intact or redacted hymns, and each of these points to the Son’s preexistence. If these are indeed hymns inserted into the Philippian and Colossian epistles, this would account for Paul’s unqualified, matter-of-fact statement of Christ’s preexistence in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Craig, one last time with only one reference. Our One God has a plan for the world which He alone conceived and put in motion according to what He alone said. Particular things are to be determined by our free will, choices each and every day. Others are predetermined by God and only by God. God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience, Skip Moen.
When an architect is approached by a client to build something, he develops a plan in his mind. He “sees” what the client wants (hopefully). This pre-existent ideal building is ‘real’ in his mind and the architect ‘sees’ it clearly. It is predetermined in his mind but it can, may and probably will change. He ALONE can change the plan but the client can influence it.
God is our Architect who chose the Hebrew nation to build His new world order with an eternal covenant that included plans for the Gentiles. His plan ideally includes redemption for ALL who choose to obey Him, His Torah, as His Messiah showed us. His new world order for His miscreant but penitent “clients” included a ‘pre-existent’ planned Messiah to be His representative here to fulfill His plan in the resurrection. A King. A Ruler to execute His perfect plan, his ideal building. We too will become Sons of God in His plan but only the first born will be the ruler, the King who showed us that His plan is valid for the faithful.
George,
On the surface, that sounds convincing until I read such Scriptures as John 17:5 (“the glory I had with You before the world existed”) and 17:24 (“because you have loved Me before the world’s foundation”).
I can’t reply to detailed quotes any more. I just loaned the book to my brother for 6 weeks. Happy Secular New Year.
Understood. Same to you and yours!
I’m trying to follow the analogy. I understand that God the Father is the Architect, is Messiah the Builder?
No he is the King.
I’d be fine if He were both Builder and King. I’ll leave it at that.
Joyous and prospers 2017 to all.
Craig and George thank you for the dialogue. May I add we are all His living bricks building this ever changing and improving permanent dwelling under the children of Israel.
Happy Gregorian New Year!
בנה B-N-H to build. בך B-N son. ביך B-Y-N between, also used as “wisdom”. A King builds a kingdom.
Robert,
I don’t understand the interrelationship you’re illustrating and how it may apply, and I’m not sure how it addresses the relevant NT Scriptures (see my comments above). The most important verses to harmonize are those that have Yeshua speaking about a time he enjoyed with the Father before the foundation/creation of the world (John 17:5, 24).
Craig this would then also imply two different entities not one split or separated entity…
Seeker,
Yes, two Uncreated: God the Father, and the Son. The question then becomes what do we make of that? The Arians asserted that the Son was of a different ‘substance’, than the Father, and that “there was a time when the Son was not”, meaning that the Son came after the Father.
Well, I am having issues with the use of the label “Jews” and “Jewish”. Don’t those terms refer to those from Judah? I thought I understood that the term Jew wasn’t even in use before the 1st century. Weren’t these earlier people actually Hebrews? Why do we lump them all together with the label “Jew”? Where did this begin and why?
Messianic and Torah observant are not truly synonymous with Jewish. If Jew is a name for those from Judah then what is one to believe? I think we are too fast and loose with “Jewish.”
Torah observant I get. This is what Jesus was. This is where my struggle lies in living in this current mixed up world.
My good wife Kathryn reminds me this morning in our discussion of this post- “more evil is done because of selfishness than because of wickedness” She goes on to comment to me “selfishnes is far more pervasive and is more insidious “.