Rabbi Paul
for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. Romans 2:13 NASB
Will be justified – It’s hard to escape the obvious implication of Paul’s statement. What matters is doing Torah. Anything less means exclusion from the Kingdom. Paul’s words are a fatal blow to the “only grace” crowd, especially since Paul connects required obedience to the verb dikaioo (“to make righteous, to justify”). The verb in this verse is a future passive. That means that sometime later someone else will offer justification to the subject of the sentence. You and I will be made righteous because we are doers of Torah. There is simply no way to read this verse as if it claims we are already justified by some past action that guarantees our status regardless of our behavior. Grace may invite us in but we are expected to work out our salvation once we accept the invitation.
We should have expected nothing less. Paul (Sha’ul) was a rabbi. He was trained in the school of the Pharisees. He was an expert in Torah. As Neusner says, “for Rabbinic Judaism, ‘Israel’ is always and only defined by the Torah, received and represented by ‘our sages of blessed memory’ as the word of God, never by the happenstance of secular history.”[1] For Rav Sha’ul, Torah is the defining factor of the Kingdom of God. Those who keep Torah belong. Those who do not are excluded.
Yes, I know, Christians choke on these words. Christians have been taught for centuries that the Jewish Torah is irrelevant to their faith. They have followed Augustine and Luther on the path of sola fide (only grace), ignoring the entire context of the Tanakh and the cultural thinking of the New Testament authors. They have drawn a line in the sand where there is no sand. How is this possible? The answer is political, not theological. When Christianity needed to define itself in the second and third centuries, influential Gentile “believers” began to draw hard and fast distinctions between Judaism and their new “Christian” religion. Christianity identified itself as not-Jewish, and since the very heart of Judaism is Torah, Christianity became the religion of not-Torah. Under the persuasion of the early Church fathers and with the assistance of the Roman Empire, Christianity formed a new way of understanding God and His involvement with human beings. That way was anti-Semitic and it has been so ever since. But in order to justify this new religion, the writings of rabbis like Sha’ul had to be reinterpreted. Their Jewish orientation had to be removed. Torah had to be excised. After twenty centuries, the success of this program is obvious. Most Christians today firmly believe that the “Law” is not essential to their faith. Saved by grace is all that’s needed.
And then they read Paul. (One must keep in mind that Romans is Paul’s final word on the matter. Don’t turn to Galatians to overturn Paul’s last thoughts on law and grace.) But they interpret Paul according to the CHURCH. The tradition is more powerful than the text.
Topical Index: justify, make righteous, dikaioo, Law, Romans 2:13
Interesting how Christians now are trying to rediscover the “doing” part of the gospel through other means. There are Earth Day activities, church building projects, youth outreach, food pantries, and even a resurgent interest in the “spiritual disciplines” of fasting and regular prayer. Good things, but still incomplete answers to vacuous Christianity.
I also notice that the list of “acceptable” activities EXCLUDES things unique to Torah, but ALLOWS things that are also held in high esteem by other religions or various political movements.
This reminds me,… have you written much about spiritual disciplines? I know Richard J. Foster’s book, Celebration of Discipline, has made the rounds a few times — but where do the disciplines of prayer, fasting, meditation, study, simplicity, solitude, confession, ect – fit into our pursuit of being God’s segullah. I can see how some of the disciplines are already inherent in Torah commands – but is there virtue in pursuing the disciplines as laid out by authors such as Foster also?
Anyone else have a take on this?
Gabe, good morning and God bless you and according to your comment I know that what I’m about to say may sound like a very simplistic answer but when you do what you are expected to do and not what you have to you’ll know that you are being a true witness. Shalom, Benny
“There is simply no way to read this verse as if it claims we are already justified by some past action that guarantees our status regardless of our behavior.”
This verse, maybe not. But what is to be made of the aorist dikaionthentes in Romans 5:1?
Rom 5:1 ESV – “[1] Therefore, since we have been justified δικαιωθέντες by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
What is faith? Emunah – the Hebrew word picture is “the strength of the living waters revealed”.
How is it revealed?
Jam 2:18 ESV – “[18] But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
What works? The works of obedience. Living according to God’s instructions for living. A rabbi would not expect (or write) anything else. Sha’ul’s used of dikaios (in it’s various voices, moods and tenses) is consistent in my view. He is speaking of showing the evidence of being made/declared righteous – showing the evidence of God’s righteousness working out through us through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. When we live lives according to His instructions we show HIS righteousness through our actions. We are declared righteous through HIS actions, HIS righteousness.
I don’t see any conflict or tension between Rom 2:13 and Rom 5:1 at all. Righteousness is not earned by obedience, it is demonstrated by obedience; and not our righteousness at that, but His.
Thanks for the reply. SKip’s point, however, seems to be saying that there is not a point in time that completely justifies us, that it is an ongoing activity. This is the point of contention between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
To follow Luther, Protestantism has found it necessary to use this Greek word here in two senses: one as “forensic justification” and the other as “vindication.” So they will translate Rom 3:28 and 5:1 as “forensic justification” while the passage in James and the one Skip quotes (Rom 2:13) will be translated “vindication.” That, in my opinion, creates a linguistic problem, and Skip highlights it here by the way he has translated dikaioo.
We’ll probably have to wait for Skip’s systematic theology 🙂 so we can see how he presents the atonement to address the seeming paradox of Paul’s writing.
The chances of ever getting a Skip Moen systematic theology are pretty much zero, but at least we recognize that this is a “seeming” paradox. Of course, I am not likely to conclude that paradox in inherently a sign of logical mistake. In some cases, paradox is simply what the text actually says. But more later, when I am not suffering from enormous jet lag and getting packed for another flight.
I don’t now. I thought you were giving to us in daily pieces. 🙂
~ but be doers of the word and not hearers only deceiver your own selves..~ (James 1.22)
Hello? Is anyone listening?
The “shema” of Israel belongs to Jews and Christians alike. Listen and obey. “(Please) do as I command” is (still today) the impassioned plea of our Savior.
~ for the commandment is a lamp and the law is light and reproofs of instruction are the way of life!~ (Proverbs 6.23)
are we so worried that because we have been (and are daily) saved by grace (and not by works) that we will be spending the rest of our days on this green planet sitting on our hands? – Not a chance.
(let all things be done decently and in order!)
we are saved
!.) by grace
2.) through faith
3.) and… (drum roll please…) – unto good works!
Works! works! works!- an apple tree will produce apples because it is an apple tree. You and I will know it is an apple tree because an apple tree produces apples. “Show me” your faith- by your works! Our works justify us before men. They shall know we are Christians by our love! – and even the word “love” (avad) has within it the connotation of service! Serve one another in love! -Why? – Because dear friends- “He went about doing good!”- and the servant is not above his Master.
Just as my own doctor said to me… “If you do as I say, I can help you..”
Now, (children) today- “read and follow label directions…”
It is interesting that you chose to write on this passage today – I was discussing it with someone on facebook just yesterday. I wrote a brief piece explaining my understanding of the distinction between redemption, salvation, sanctification and justification and this verse was brought up in discussion.
The ESV renders it this way: Rom 2:13 ESV – “[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
The words “righteous” and “justified” are of course the same Greek word in two different voices (or tenses? My knowledge of Greek grammar is sadly lacking). Looking at the etymology brings one back to dike (that’s “dee-kay”) which appears to be a legal term meaning to prove or give evidence, to do justice. Indeed according to Strong’s (not the last word, by any stretch) dikaioo can also mean: “2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered”.
In other words (and I believe it fits with the context of the whole point of Romans 2 as I read it), Sha’ul is saying that “it is not those who only hear the Torah that are righteous, but those who do Torah show righteousness“. In other words, obedience to God’s instructions is the evidence of righteousness – the evidence of the internal transformation that has already taken place (and the means by which further and continuous transformation is facilitated). Obedience has to come from the inside out, not be mandated from the outside in.
To rephrase Sha’ul’s statement as a question: “If you were accused of living according to God’s instructions for living, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”
Amen brother Rodney! – and as we are the only “Bible” the “lost” (as in not saved) will ever read, do they see (I wonder) enough of a “difference” to make a difference? ~ You shall know them by their fruits!~
Also, let us please remember- this “fruit” which our Bible refers to is not “self” produced, for He has said (we do pay attention to His words,- right?)- “without Me, (Carl, etc..)- you (Mr./M’am) can do nothing!” Any fruit in my life or in any life will be the result of “abiding in the Vine..” (John 15)- and boy oh boy is this “abiding in the Vine”- another topic for another day… (even though, lol!- it should be today!”
This brings us full circle back around to “if any man be in Christ.” Not one is excluded or uninvited, for He has said “whosoever will” (does this include the Jew?) “whosoever will” (does this include the Gentile?) “whosoever will” may come and take of the water of life freely. “Whosoever will”- (Hallelujah!- I meet these qualifications.) The Christian life is Christ in the Christian. ~ the (living, resurrected, indwelling) Christ in you and Christ in me- the hope of glory!
~ And you, (all of you) that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled. Yet now He has reconciled you (calling all sinners!) to Himself through the death of Christ in His physical body. As a result, He has brought you into His own presence, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before Him without a single fault!
My sins are gone!- I’ve been set free!- My God, my Savior has ransomed me, and like a flood His mercy reigns!- Unending Love- Amazing Grace!
~ and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross.
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Washed all my sins away, washed all my sins away;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood shall never lose its power
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
Be saved, to sin no more, be saved, to sin no more;
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
E’er since, by faith, I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
And shall be till I die, and shall be till I die;
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
Then in a nobler, sweeter song, I’ll sing Thy power to save,
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
Lies silent in the grave, lies silent in the grave;
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
LORD, I believe Thou hast prepared, unworthy though I be,
For me Thy blood bought free reward, a golden harp for me!
’Tis strung and tuned for endless years, and formed by power divine,
To sound in God the Father’s ears no other Name but Thine.
~ A fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity ~ (Zechariah 13:1)
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy riven side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.
Skip … interesting TW.
Reflecting on my study addressing the full breadth of ALL of Paul’s Epistles… my conclusion is that our justification…, our being justified, being credited with righteousness, occurs >>> APART << One purpose of the Torah [ aka law ] is to reveal and increase trespass (the breaking of YHWH’s commands), revealing the depravity and carnality of human beings resulting in the reign of sin, which leads to death. When the “old self” or carnal nature encounters YHWH’s commands, the result is the breaking of these commands. It is THIS aspect – the enmity of the carnal nature against YHWH’s law – from which believers have been freed, having died to the dominion of sin through Yeshua haMashiyach. Sha’ul [ aka Preaching Paul ] calls this “the law of sin and death,” and contrasts it with “the law of the Spirit of life,” which we are now under. In Yeshua haMashiyach, we now have freedom from the Torah [aka law ]of sin and death, the carnal nature’s hostility against YHWH’s Torah [ aka law ], so that we CAN obey His commands. (ch. 5-8).
I would certainly agree that ” Grace may invite us in but we are expected to work out our salvation once we accept the invitation” …, and also that WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND the cultural context of Sha’ul’s [ aka Paul ] letter, then …, the cohesiveness will become apparent. Last, let us note with gravity the nature of Paul’s writings as a whole using proper Biblical hermeneutics and proper exegeses which are ESSENTIAL if we are to discover the truth of what Paul is teaching and not biased anti -semetic spun theological replacement DOCTRINES.
The book of Romans, written by the apostle Paul, is often used to prove that believers in ” Christ ” are free from any obligation to obey the Mosaic law. There are many “freedom passages” in Paul’s letter to the Romans, and it is our purpose to examine each in detail and see if Paul (and God) really is granting believers this liberty. Whenever the topic of following God’s instructions from the Old Testament comes up, the almost universal rallying cry springs forth, “We are not under law but under grace.” This reminds me of a line in The Princess Bride. Throughout the movie, Vizzini repeatedly proclaims “Inconceivable!” with an emphatic lisp, and then finally, Inigo Montoya says in his Spanish accent, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.” The same thing applies to the book of Romans. Rather than pull the freedom passages out of context, we need to examine how Paul uses each of them to see if it matches what we have been taught. Good biblical hermeneutics and proper exegeses (the methods by which we accurately interpret the bible) are essential if we are to discover the truth of what Paul is teaching.
As we approach the book of Romans, we should first define some key terms regarding the law that are relevant to both the book and its first-century context:
Torah: This word literally means “instruction” or “teaching” in Hebrew and is often translated as “law.” It specifically refers to the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Pentateuch or Mosaic Law.
Oral Law: These are extra laws that were set in place by the Pharisees after the return from the Babylonian exile to prevent Israel from going into exile once again. They functioned as a fence to prevent Israel from disobeying the Torah. These laws were by nature more restrictive than the Torah. The idea was that if these were not disobeyed, then Torah would not be disobeyed. Initially given orally, they were later written down and collected in the Talmud.
With these terms in mind, it is important at this point to make a critical distinction between biblical Judaism and the Pharisaical Judaism of the first century. Biblical Judaism, which accepts the Torah and remainder of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) alone as authoritative, is a grace-based religion. The Pharisees of Yeshua’s [ aka – Je-sus ] ‘ time, in contrast, believed one must also obey the man-made Oral Law. These Pharisees had an external focus on works in which they “…trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt” (Lk 18:9). A major reason people believe we are free from the Mosaic Law is because they believe biblical Judaism is a works-based system that YHVH put in place for a time to show us our need for a Savior. While the Torah absolutely does point to the Messiah, it is by no means works-based. In this commentary on Romans, New Testament scholar James Dunn cites Ed Sanders’ work on first-century Judaism. In this work, Sanders (another Pauline expert) makes a compelling argument that Judaism was not a works-based, earn-your-own-salvation religion, but rather a grace-based religion, wholly dependent upon YHWH’s election. Dunn writes:
” Judaism’s whole religious self-understanding was based on the premise of grace—that God had freely chosen Israel and made his covenant with Israel, to be their God and they his people. This covenant relationship was regulated by the law, not as a way of entering the covenant, or of gaining merit, but as the way of living >>within the covenant YHVH’s people were not to obey the law for the purpose of their own justification! YHWH always has redeemed and justified His people by grace, through faith. Rather, obedience to the law was a way of life after YHVH’s people had been redeemed, a response to the grace of YHWH. If this is the case, and it certainly appears to be, who then were Paul’s antagonists?
Anticipating this question, Dunn answers it for us (p.lxix-lxx). Because of the events that befell both Yisra’el and the yehudim, such as the Assyrian captivity of the northern Kingdom, the Babylonian captivity, and the invasion of Judea by Antiochus Ephiphanes, Judaism morphed into a separatist religion. Beginning with Ezra, Yehudim began to shun contact with other nations. As separateness began to be deeply rooted in the Yehudim’s national consciousness, we see this attitude reflected in such passages as Jubilees 22:16:
Separate yourself from the Gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.
Note that the reference to this passage is >> NOT found in the written Torah, or in the Bible, but rather in an added man-made rule designed to separate the Yehudim from the Gentiles. Later, this admonition became a law under the Oral Law1 of the Rabbis. We see the dominance of this oral law when Keefa [ aka -Peter ] says,
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Yehudi to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation (Acts 10:28a).”
Here Keefa [ aka – Peter ] claims that associating with a Gentile is unlawful. Yet it is only unlawful with regard to the rabbinic enactments in Oral Law, not to Torah.
Dunn writes:
Not surprisingly this desire to live within the law and be marked off from the lawless and sinner became a dominant concern in the factionalism which was a feature of Judaism in the period from the Maccabeans to the emergence of rabbinic Judaism as the most powerful faction (p.lxx).
The Jews, in an attempt to avoid returning to exile, completely separated themselves from Gentiles, which led to both a separate and elite identity. From this developed a wrongly works-oriented religion, as they sought to keep both Torah and the Oral Law, claiming superiority and separateness from their works of the law.
Furthermore, during the 2nd Temple period, especially in the first-century CE, we see Yehudim condemning other Yehudim as “sinners” because they were not educated in Torah, worked for the Romans, or did not measure up to the standards the Pharisees had erected, i.e. the Oral Law. No clearer example of this can be shown than that of Y’shuas’ teaching in Luke 18:9-14 in which he describes the self-righteous Pharisee contrasted with the repentant tax collector. Luke tells us that Yeshua told this parable to some of those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and treated others with contempt; and Yeshua uses the Pharisees as the antagonists of the story. Not only did the Pharisees separate themselves from Gentiles, but they also separated themselves from those Yehudim who did not measure up to their code of righteousness.
When Yehudim, coming out of Rabbinic Judaism, became believers in Yeshua haMashiach, this former “baggage” would not have been easily left behind. This leads to a key issue in Paul’s letter to the Roman – כרסטינא = KRSTINA = KRËSTIÄNA / XPHCTIAN (CHRESTIAN – Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 – the Word –>Christian does not appear in the text .. that is another story for another time ). In fact, according to Dunn, a major theme running throughout Romans is how Yehudim and Gentiles stand in relation to each other in terms of the gospel . YHVH’s design was for Yehudim and Gentiles to be united through Mashiach / Christious imagine just how difficult this unity must have been. The Yehudim come from a background of fences built upon fences with man-made rules and regulations governing every aspect of their life, where Gentiles come from the background of doing anything you want, worship what you want, eat what you want, live however you want. These two groups were then thrust together, and both groups thought they were superior to the other. Paul’s letter is designed to help them get along in the community of faith. Understanding the Roman schisms between believing Yehudim and Gentiles will play a significant role in understanding the letter as a whole. It is this very thing, this self-identification as a righteous person or people to the exclusion of others based on your own works, that is at the heart of Paul’s letter to the Romans.
For centuries, ” Christian’s ” has misunderstood the root issues in the Roman church. ” Christianity ” has mistakenly believed that those wanting to live according to YHVH’s instructions in the Torah, those who wanted to live according to His very word in faithful obedience as Yeshua instructed (Matt 4:4), were those who were now being condemned by Paul as trying to earn salvation through works. However, such an understanding introduces conflict and contradiction into Paul’s writings. How could Paul, on one hand, proclaim that we are “not under the Torah” and therefore have no obligation to keep YHVH’s law or use it for instruction or authority in our lives, then turn around and quote the law as his authority and proof text? One cannot at the same time dismiss the law as an authority and cite it as an authority. Or, how can Paul at one moment appear to be saying we are free from the law, but then turn right around and say that we uphold the law (Romans 3:31)? When we correctly understand the cultural context of Paul’s letter, the cohesiveness will become apparent.
Last, let us note with gravity the nature of Paul’s writings as a whole. Pauline theology is incredibly complex, and at times, seemingly contradictory. This is why Keefa / Peter states the following regarding the teaching of Paul:
” There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability (2 Pe 3:16-17). ”
Keefa [ Peter ] states that Sha’ul’s [ Paul’s ] letters are often hard to understand, and that ignorant people can twist them and so fall prey to the error of lawlessness. We, along with Peter’s original audience, should take this to heart as we approach the book of Romans. With this introduction, i turn our attention to the ” freedom passages ” found in the book of Romans, which cause so many ” Christians ” as well as some ” Messianic’s ” so much confusion.
Please feel free to respond … i am humble … humbled daily and teachable. Thanks for all you do and share.
Michael 🙂
typo –> occurs >>> APART << from the Torah. 🙁
Thank you, Michael.
your welcome 🙂
Excellent Michael. Said in such a way that a theologian would be forced to see it, yet a child could understand it! Thanks!
Michael, would you care to elaborate on this intriguing statement?
“This leads to a key issue in Paul’s letter to the Roman – כרסטינא = KRSTINA = KRËSTIÄNA / XPHCTIAN (CHRESTIAN – Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 – the Word –>Christian does not appear in the text .. that is another story for another time ).”
Might I add that there is a chapter in Daniel Gruber’s book on this translation issue. I hope to have more of his books in hand soon and, for those going to Israel, it is required reading. 🙂
Hello Linda….sure … np …… feel free to examine the texts and give feedback . Peace and blessings.
Michael 🙂
In Christian/English bible translations, the word [ term ]” Christian ” appears in three places; Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16. The oldest known Greek manuscript of the ” New Testament ” is the Sinaiticus, the second oldest is the Vaticanus. Neither of these texts contain the hellenized term ” Christian “. However, copies made after these replace the original Greek term XPHCTIAN (CHRESTIAN) with XPICTIAN (CHRISTIAN).
Without any exception the original word in every instance is not XPICTIAN (CHRISTIAN) but XPHCTIAN (CHRESTIAN) as can be seen in photographs of the actual Sinaiticus manuscript.
The earliest extant Greek New Testament to explicitly contain the name “Christian” is the Codex Alexandrinus dated ca. 450 c.e. This is just far too late for “Christian” to begin appearing in manuscripts if it were the original term given to followers of the Nazarene Messiah. The appearance of “Christian” in the Greek text is clearly an anachronism which has been paraded as supporting evidence for the Christian name and faith. In fact, some lineages of Greek manuscripts (Minuscule 81) were still faithfully copying Chrestian up until 1044 c.e.
How does the Aramaic Peshitta compare? Whether Christian or Chrestian, they would only appear as transliterated loan words in an Aramaic text. There are no definite rules about transliterating Greek words into Aramaic letters. Quite often the Greek vowels are not represented. Because there is no corresponding letter or sound for the Greek letter H,e (eta) in Hebrew or Aramaic, the vowel is not represented by a character. However י (yud) can represent the Greek I,i (iota), but it is often dropped. In the Peshitta the I,i (iota) in CHRESTIAN is represented by the letter י (yud). So one has to wonder, since the word is supposed to be CHRISTIAN, why the first I,i (iota) is not represented. If the word was pronounced KRESTIANA, then because there is no consonant for H,e (eta) in Aramaic, we would not expect to see any letter between the ס and ר. This is how the word in question is written in the Aramaic Peshitta and it suggests that the Greek source word was Chrestian and not Christian.
ARAMAIC CONSONANTS WITH VOWELS ADDED ENGLISH TRANSLITERATION
כרסטינא = KRSTINA = KRËSTIÄNA = CHRESTIAN
Applying the same standard rules of transliteration to any other term, KRSTINA would be rendered with the appropriate vowels KRËSTIÄNA. Some unscrupulous people will attempt to say that the Aramaic presents something much more akin to CHRISTIAN. For this to be true, we would expect to find the following.
ARAMAIC CONSONANTS WITH VOWELS ADDED ENGLISH TRANSLITERATION
כריסטינא = KRISTINA = KRISTIÄNA = CHRISTIAN
The main problem with Christian is that there is no letter י where it would be expected and so the case for it being Christian is very uncertain. If it sounded like KRISTIANA and because there is a consonant for I,i (iota) we would expect to see a י between the ס and ר and yet it is absent in the Peshitta.
But another way to indicate the pronunciation is with vowel points. The Khabouris manuscript provides us with clearly marked vowel points that indicate the correct pronunciation that comes between the R and S. The resh is accompanied by what is called a zlama qashya which are the two diagonal dots below the letter indicating the eh sound. If the intended sound was ih it the dots would be horizontal psheeka, or for the ee sound a single dot called a khawsa. This confirms that it is CHRESTIAN.
Some translators of the Peshitta, members of the Church of the East, translate KRSTINA as “Christian” but this can be attributed to their Christian bias since there is no other logical reason to translate the word as anything other than chrestian. Christians have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that their name and faith are firmly rooted in the scriptures. In modern times the Church of the East has been completely assimilated into the Roman Catholic Church. Although many Assyrian Catholics still exhibit a fondness towards this scriptural vestige of their once Judeo-Nazarene faith, they translate it in conformity with Roman Catholic terminology and doctrine. This is what we call truly S.A.D. (Substituting Aramaic Diacritics).
The literal translation of Christians is “anointed men” or “anointlings”. This is far removed from the general meaning of Chrestians which is “good men”. Christians are fond of saying that Christian means “follower of Christ”, as perhaps it should. That is a platitudinal definition, and it may be the literal one as found in Strong’s Concordance, but it isn’t the one practiced by Christians. In practical terms, a Christian is one who practices Christianity, just as a Jew practices Judaism, and a Hindu, Hinduism, etc.
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about how “chrestians” were blamed for the burning of Rome in 64 c.e. Later editions of his Annals show that the term chrestians was edited to read as “Christians” instead. This reveals a systematic effort to legitimize a new religious movement that otherwise had no scriptural or historical backing. This fact completely removes the Christian name from the first century.
Tacitus (56-117 c.e.)
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” – Annals 15:44
Enrico Rostagno copy of folio 38 r of M.II (Leiden 1902), line 21 shows there is a conspicuous gap between the first i and s. The first i is much bolder and of a different style than the second. Upon closer inspection of the Latin Medicean II manuscript usingultraviolet light, it becomes apparent that the space was originally occupied by an e which was erased and replaced with an i by a later scribe. The original said “chrestians”.
An Ultraviolet photo of folio 38 r of M.II, by Donato Pineider. Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Firenze shows …consequently, the long standing tradition in the Church that Nero had persecuted Christians is a historical fallacy. This suggests that it was probably the Natzraya (Nazarenes) that suffered, the only group called Chrestians by the common people.
The earliest reference to Christians or “Christianity” is in the second century (ca. 110 c.e.) writings of Ignatius of Antioch. (Even this document is suspected by some scholars to have been revised by later Christians.) Magnesians offers us the earliest definition which explains that “Christian” was a designation to separate Natzari Jews from non-Jewish “believers”. This treatise on Christianity reveals a deep distrust and hatred of Jews and Judaism, of the Almighty’s law and commandments.
Ignatius (35 – 98~117 c.e.)
“Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, and things in which the Jews make their boast. Old things are passed away: behold, all things have become new. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received grace.” – Magnesians ch. 8b
“Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for he that does not work, let him not eat. For say the [holy] oracles, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread. But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lords Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week].” – Magnesians ch. 9b
“…and [he] endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews…” – Magnesians ch.11b
“Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. …It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, ..” – Magnesians ch. 10a
“Let us therefore prove ourselves worthy of that name which we have received. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, he is not of God; for he has not received the prophecy which speaks thus concerning us: The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people. This was first fulfilled in Syria; for the disciples were called Christians at Antioch, when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church. …Abide in Christ, that the stranger may not have dominion over you. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end.” – Magnesians ch. 10b
Justin Martyr frequently exercises a play on words between Christian and Chrestian. It is hard to tell which of these he actually prefers.
Justin Martyr (100-165 c.e.)
“By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are Chrestians. But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evil-doers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offense, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted.” -Apology 1, ch. 4
Clement appears to accept both terms during the transitional period before the term chrestian is retired.
Clement (150-211 c.e.)
“Now those who have believed in Christ both are and are called Chrestians, as those who are cared for by the true king are kingly. For as the wise are wise by their wisdom, and those observant of law are so by the law; so also those who belong to Christ the King are kings, and those that are Christ’s Christians.” – Stromata IV
The populace seems to recall the original designation for believers as Chrestian, and are still not fully acquainted with the transition to Christian as Tertullian points out.
Tertullian (160-224 c.e.)
“Now then, if this hatred is directed against the name, what is the guilt attaching to names? What accusation can be brought against words, except that a certain pronunciation of a name sounds barbarous, or is unlucky or abusive or obscene? But ‘Christian,’ as far as its etymology goes, is derived from ‘anointing.’ And even when it is incorrectly pronounced by you ‘Chrestian’ (for not even is your acquaintance with the name accurate), it is formed from ‘sweetness’ or ‘kindness.’ In innocent men, therefore, even an innocent name is hated.” – Apology Ch.III
Due to the popularity of the name of Chrestians many incorrectly assumed that Yeshua’s title must have been Chrestus. Lactantius sets out to correct this misconception, but in the process reveals a few interesting things that heretical groups bare the name Christian. These may have been Marcionites who practiced this switching of terms.
Lactantius (240-320 c.e.)
“…for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus. The Jews had before been directed to compose a sacred oil, with which those who were called to the priesthood or to the kingdom might be anointed. And as now the robe of purple is a sign of the assumption of royal dignity among the Romans, so with them the anointing with the holy oil conferred the title and power of king. But since the ancient Greeks used the word χρίεσθαι to express the art of anointing, which they now express by ἀλείφεσθαι, as the verse of Homer shows,
“But the attendants washed, and anointed them with oil;”
on this account we call Him Christ, that is, the Anointed, who in Hebrew is called the Messias. Hence in some Greek writings, which are badly translated from the Hebrew, the word eleimmenos is found written, from the word aleiphesthai, anointing. But, however, by either name a king is signified:” – Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII
“…all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others,” – Divine Institutes, Book IV, ch. XXX
By the end of the fourth century references to Chrestians have disappeared, and the transition to Christian is complete. Church bishop and historian Epiphanius reveals with no uncertainty that Christians were not originally known as Christians. He confirms that the Natzraya (Nazarenes) refused to adopt the name of “Christians”. He states that the first believers in the New Testament were known as Natzraya (Nazarenes). He also reveals that Christians broke away from this group because they were at variance against the Law.
Epiphanius (315-403 c.e.), Panarion 29
1:2 For this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but “Natzraya.” 1:3 However, at that time all Christians [Chrestians] were called Natzraya in the same way. They also came to be called “Jessaeans” for a short while, before the disciples began to be called “Christians” [Chrestians] at Antioch. 6:5 And no wonder the apostle admitted to being a Natzar! In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Natzrat there was no other usage of the name then. People thus gave the name of Natzraya to believers in Christ, of whom it is written, “He shall be called a Natzar.” 7:1 But these sectarians whom I am now sketching disregarded the name of Jesus, and did not call themselves Jessaeans, keep the name of Jews, or term themselves Christians but [rather] Natzraya from the place-name, Natzrat, if you please! However they are simply completed Jews.
It is interesting to note that not once did Polus (Paul) once use the term Christian in any of his writings. The Greek translation of his teachings does however use many related forms of Chrestian such as chrestotes, chrestos, chrestologia, chresteuomai, chresis, chresimos, chrematismos, chrematizo, chrezo, chreia, and chraomai. With his dozens of references to the topic of a Chrestian lifestyle, it no wonder that the Greeks of Antioch nicknamed Polus a Chrestian.
Marcion the Gnostic, and contrarian, certainly played a role in popularizing the name Christian. He also switched the Greek title of the Messiah from Christos to Chrestus. All this begs the question, why did these heretics choose the name Christian? One is that they found it to be an easy transition both verbally and scripturally since it only required a minor change in pronunciation and spelling. However some researchers have suggested that the practical benefit of adopting the moniker derived from the illustrious name “Christos” loaned instant credibility to the new cult.
“It is quite more likely that the Christians chose the name Christian (rather than Chrestian) for the luster that the high name would shed on them than that their virtues shed luster upon the name. The name needed no extraneous illumination; the Christians (as has been seen) doubtless did.” – Alvin Boyd Kuhn, ‘Who is this King of Glory? – A Critical Study of the Christos-Messiah Tradition’
Notzrim (Nazarenes) are not Christians
In modern Hebrew, the word for Christians is Notzrim, which is the same as Natzraya in Aramaic, or Nazarenes in colloquial English. This is clearly a misnomer. The historical distinction between the Jewish sect of Notzrim and Christians is unknown to even most rabbis and scholars. The only way to break the tradition of ignorance is to correct it at every given opportunity. Christians should never be referred to as Notzrim in Hebrew, and Notzrim should never be referred to as Christians. My opinion from exhaustive / extensive textual and historical documentations and research.
Be well
Michael 🙂
Thank you Michael for this valuable summary. The case is made. It’s extremely difficult to deny the history and the texts in order to hang on to the Christian revision.
Thank you, Michael, for posting this in response to my request. Only knowing a small amount of Hebrew and no Greek, I did not follow the arguments completely. However, I did see clearly that the term “christian” was not in the oldest manuscripts and evolved from the original term “chrestian”. I greatly appreciate the light this has shed on my understanding of the three texts in question.
Ha! Inconceivable….great movie 🙂