by Brian Godawa
Jeffrey J. Bütz and James D. Tabor, The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just to the Founding Fathers (Simon & Schuster, 2009), 335.
[←138]
Boaz quotes from: John 1:1, 14.
Logos in Greek and Hebrew understanding:
“Logos (usually translated ‘Word’, sometimes also ‘Reason’) plays a central role in Greek thought, and is frequently associated with divinity…
“The meanings of the word most relevant to the divine are ‘reason’ (i.e. divine thought), ‘speech’ (divine revelation), and ‘order’ (divine activity)…
“Although the Logos has a rich history in Greek thought as a philosophical principle and is often associated with the divine (whether in general or with specific deities), it is not personified as an independent deity, and is not the object of cultic worship in the form of statues or altars (in contrast to personified gods such as →Dikē, Moira, →Tychē, Heimarmenē, →Pronoia). The reason for this may be the generality and abstract nature of Logos as rational or creative principle…
“God’s logos is associated with action rather than rationality (cf. also Ps 147:4, 7 [MT 15, 18]), and is in no way yet regarded as in any way independent from God himself.
“The theme is continued in the Wisdom literature. In a number of texts Sirach associates God’s logos with the creation and maintainance of the creational order (39:17, 31; 43:10, 26). Logos is linked with the more prominent theme of Wisdom (Sophia), who is regarded as God’s instrument in creation (Prov 8:22–31, Sir 24). In Wisdom theology a clear separation is made between God and his Wisdom: Prov 8:22 “God established me as beginning (archē) of his ways to brings about his works;” 8:30 “I was beside him bringing things together, and I was the one in whom he delighted” (translation of LXX text). Wisdom thus becomes an hypostasis (a self-subsistent entity), independent of God, but remaining very closely associated with Him...
“But in the personalized or hypostasized sense the Logos is found only in the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1–18), to which reference is made in two subsequent writings of the Johannine community (1 John 1:1; Rev 19:13). The opening sentence of the Prologue (1:1) reads: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with (the) God, and the Logos was God.” The first phrase very clearly recollects both the opening words of the Torah (Gen 1:1) and the description of the pre-existent Wisdom of Prov 8:22. The second phrase emphasizes the intimacy of the Logos’ relation to God (cf. Prov 8:31, also John 1:18 “in the bosom of the →Father”). The third phrase is climactic. “John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God” (C. K. BARRETT, The Gospel according to St. John [London 19782] 156). The predicative use of theos without the article is striking. “The Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of “God” for the →Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identifcation of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense.”
D. T. Runia, “Logos,” ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 525–529.
[←139]
Forever, everlasting covenant: see Exodus 12:14, Leviticus 3:17, Leviticus 23:21, Deut 12:1.
Psalm 105:8–11
8 He remembers his covenant forever,
the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
9 the covenant that he made with Abraham,
his sworn promise to Isaac,
10 which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11 saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan
as your portion for an inheritance.”
[←140]
Ekklesia translated as “congregation” or “assembly” rather than “church”:
“English translations have obscured the biblical and historical meaning of ekklēsia by translating it as “church” rather than “assembly” or “congregation.” It’s unfortunate that John Wycliffe (c. 1324–1384) and the translators of the Geneva Bible (1560) chose to translate ekklēsia as “church” rather than the more accurate “assembly” or “congregation.” And it’s a shame that the scholars who were chosen to develop what has come to us as the King James Version were forced to translate ekklēsia as “church.” The English word “church” is not related to the Greek word ekklēsia but is derived from the Greek kyriake (oikia) “Lord’s (house),” from kyrios “ruler, lord.”…
“It’s my contention that the use of “church” instead of “congregation” or “assembly” has gone a long way to create the myth of an Israel-Church distinction because it was viewed as a new thing rather than an extension of what the Old Testament had made obvious, both in the Hebrew and its Greek translation, the Septuagint. In all of the many definitional uses of ekklēsia in the New Testament – Melvin Elliott lists six – not one of them fits the definition given by dispensationalists as an newly created category of believers that had the result of creating an Israel-Church distinction.”
Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed: The Last Days Might Not Be as near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2010), 167–168.
[←141]
Ebionites as Judaizers:
“Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.”
Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 1.26.2 in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 352.
From Eusebius: “These, indeed, thought on the one hand that all the epistles of the apostles ought to be rejected, calling him an apostate from the law, but on the other, only using the gospel according to the Hebrews, they esteem the others as of but little value. They also observe the Sabbath and other discipline of the Jews, just like them, but on the other hand, they also celebrate the Lord’s days very much like us, in commemoration of his resurrection. Whence, in consequence of such a course, they have also received their epithet, the name of Ebionites, exhibiting the poverty of their intellect. For it is thus that the Hebrews call a poor man...
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, trans., Douglas R.A. Hare, Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 14.
“The theology taught by Paul viewed Jesus’ death as sacrificial. This proved to be a disruptive doctrine among the Ebionites. They nurtured a tremendous dislike for Paul and all of Pauline soteriology. Having completely rejected the sacrificial cult, they found no reconciliation in Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world…
“Characteristically, unlike Jesus, the Ebionites pushed towards staunch legalism. They carried the idea of eating anything still containing its own blood beyond the rabbinic requirement of draining the blood. They completely abstained from meats. Bloodshed of any kind was inappropriate to the Ebionites. This also widened the gap between the Ebionites and Paul. Poverty became a virtue, and the manner in which they followed the purity regulations was extremely strict and legalistic.
“The Ebionites maintained much of the Pharisaic halakhah and expanded upon it.”
Randall A. Weiss, Jewish Sects of the New Testament Era (Cedar Hill, TX: Cross Talk, 1994).
Ebi
onites were linked to the Nazoreans, and sometimes considered synonymous:
“This heresy of the Nazoraeans exists in Beroea around Coele Syria, and in the Decapolis around the area of Pella, and in Basanitis in the so-called Kokabe (but the so-called Chochabe in Hebrew). 8. For from there it originated after the migration from Jerusalem, after all the disciples had settled in Pella, because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to depart, since it was about to suffer siege; and for this reason, after settling in Perea, they were living there, as I said. There the Nazoraean heresy had its beginning.
“A second reference to the Pella flight occurs in the Panarion 30.2.7 in a discussion of the Ebionites: [The Ebionites] originated after the capture of Jerusalem. For at that time all who believed in Christ had settled predominantly in Perea, in a certain city called Pella of the Decapolis, of which it is written in the gospel [that it is near] the region of Batanaea and Basanitis. At that time, after having and while they were living there, from this [place] Ebion’s.”…
“that Epiphanius saw the refugees from Jerusalem as orthodox Christians who later fell prey to heresy. could hold such a position because he, like Eusebius, assumed that the group that went to Pella included no apostles, whom he considered to be the guardians of orthodoxy. The fugitives to Pella included "all the disciples" (Pan. 29.7.8), which meant "all who believed in Christ" (30.2.7). They were "the disciples of the apostles" rather than the apostles themselves...
“The Ebionites claimed that their name, meaning "the poor," derived from a time when they sold their longings and laid the money at the feet of the apostles (Pan. 30.17.2). Epiphanius denied this, insisting that their identity derived from Ebion, their founder. The Ebionites had noncanonical books bearing the names of apostles (30.23. 1-2). Epiphanius attacked these writings by telling a story to show that the apostle John knew of Ebion and considered him heretical. He concluded: "It is clear to everyone that the apostles disowned the faith of Ebion and considered it foreign to the character of their own preaching" (30.24.7)…
Craig Koester, “The Origin and Significance of the Flight to Pella Tradition,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1 (January, 1989), 92-93, 96.
Epiphanius does not consider the Nazoraeans to be sufficiently orthodox, however:
“They are different from Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ; but since they are still fettered by the Law – circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest – they are not in accord with Christians…
Jeffrey J. Bütz and James D. Tabor, The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just to the Founding Fathers (Inner Traditions, 2009), 335.
Epiphanius is quite correct when he dates the origin of the Ebionites and Nazoreans at the time of the capture of Jerusalem (Pan. 30.2.7; 29.5.4). And yet it is not a contradiction when he at the same time attributes the beginnings of the Nazoreans to the earliest period of the primitive church in Jerusalem, directly after the death of Jesus (29.7). Both dates are correct, depending upon whether one is speaking of the beginning of Ebionitism as an institution or of its spiritual beginnings.
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, trans., Douglas R.A. Hare, Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 18.
“The Sacrificial Cult. Of primary importance is the bloody animal sacrifice, abolished by Jesus. According to Recognitions 1.35 ff., the real point of Jesus' mission is the annulling of the sacrificial law combined with complete loyalty to and affirmation of the rest of the Mosaic law. Animal sacrifice, it is claimed, was permitted on a temporary basis by Moses only because of the people's hardness of heart; Jesus abolished it and replaced the blood of sacrificial animals with the water of baptism. Thus the logion of Matthew 5:17 reads in the Gospel of the Ebionites, with a characteristic alteration: "I have come to annul sacrifice, and if you will not cease to sacrifice the wrath will not turn from you."
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, trans., Douglas R.A. Hare, Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 82.
[←142]
Symeon misquotes Paul:
1 Timothy 2:12
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
[←143]
Cassandra is drawing about false teachers from:
2 Peter 2:10–22
10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, 13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. 14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! 15 Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, 16 but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness. 17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. 18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”
[←144]
Cassandra quotes from: Ephesians 2:14–15
[←145]
Temple as microcosm of heavens and earth:
“YHWH is building a new Temple, therefore creating a new world, and vice versa. In light of Gosta Ahlstrom's astute argument that Syro-Palestinian temples were meant to be "heaven and earth," I am led to wonder whether "heaven and earth" in Isa. 65:17 and elsewhere is not functioning as a name for the Jerusalem Temple. The Sumerian parallels are strong. The Temple at Nippur (and elsewhere) was called Duranki, "bond of heaven and earth," and in Babylon we find Etemenanki, "the house where the foundation of heaven and earth is."64 Perhaps it is not coincidence that the Hebrew Bible begins with an account of the creation of heaven and earth by the command of God (Gen. 1:1) and ends with the command of the God of heaven "to build him a Temple in Jerusalem" (2 Chron. 35:23). It goes from creation (Temple) to Temple (creation) in twenty four books.”
Jon Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” The Journal of Religion, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 295.
Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 5.5.5
“Now, the seven lamps signified the seven planets; for so many there were springing out of the candlestick. Now, the twelve loaves that were upon the table signified the circle of the zodiac and the year; (218) but the altar of incense, by its thirteen kinds of sweet-smelling spices with which the sea replenished it, signified that God is the possessor of all things that are both in the uninhabitable and habitable parts of the earth, and that they are all to be dedicated to his use.”
Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 707.
Flavius Josephus, The A
ntiquities of the Jews, 3.7.7
“Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the sea, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. (182) And when he ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts, he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets; and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number. (183) The veils, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the sea, because that color is dyed by the blood of a sea shell fish; the blue is fit to signify the air; and the scarlet will naturally be an indication of fire. (184) Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder. And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four [elements]; and as for the gold interwoven, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are enlightened. (185) He also appointed the breastplate to be placed in the middle of the ephod, to resemble the earth, for that has the very middle place of the world. And the girdle which encompassed the high priest round, signified the ocean, for that goes round about and includes the universe. Each of the sardonyxes declare to us the sun and the moon; those, I mean, that were in the nature of buttons on the high priest’s shoulders. (186) And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning.”
