We Believe OR We Don't!

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assurance of things you have hoped for, the absolute conviction that there are realities you’ve never seen. 2 It was by faith that our forebears were approved. 3 Through faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God; everything we now see was fashioned from that which is invisible. - The Voice

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

- Stuart Chase

The Bible: Proof That God Doesn't Exist?

Although I am NOT a Fundamentalist (one who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture), I continue to be amused by the arguments of atheists and other non-believers against God and the Bible. For folks who pride themselves in their devotion to logic and skepticism, it never ceases to amaze me just how irrational and obtuse some of them can be when it comes to the topic of Scripture. They point out the obvious inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions, and moral failures inherent to the Judeo-Christian Bible and dismiss the possibility of any Divine involvement, and/or they see those things as proof that the God it purports to represent does not exist! For them, the imperfections constitute absolute PROOF that both God and the Bible are just outdated relics of a superstitious past!

Unfortunately, the standard Christian apologetics do NOTHING to discredit these folks or disprove the imperfections which they point out! In fact, more often than not, their answers and explanations only serve to reinforce the criticisms of the non-believers! Instead of acknowledging the role played by fallible humans in the writing and editing of Scripture, they insist that all of the discrepancies found therein are merely illusions and that all of the historical, geographical, and scientific information contained therein is absolutely accurate. As a consequence, the non-believers simply smile, shake their heads, and correctly assert that the "Christian" response is delusional and demonstrates the validity of their criticisms.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, the answer to these folks is NOT to be found in the beliefs and arguments of Fundamentalists. Indeed, if we are to rely on the teachings and beliefs of the Fundamentalists, we have already lost the argument! On the other hand, if we wish to have an intelligent conversation about Scripture and God, it must begin with an acknowledgement by both sides that Scripture is NOT a historically, scientifically, or geographically reliable text! (Indeed, I would argue that it was NEVER intended to be that kind of book.) Likewise, both sides must be willing to acknowledge that these writings have human fingerprints all over them - that they are literally full of the evidence of human error and frailty. Of course, we should also expect that these acknowledgements will be somewhat disorienting for our non-believing friends. After all, we've automatically eliminated most of the arguments which they quite effectively employ against the Fundamentalists!

The TRUTH is that God decided long ago to make Scripture a project in which "he" invited human collaboration/participation. Moreover, it is also imperative that we reject the Fundamentalist notion of what does and does not constitute inspiration. According to both Scripture and our own experiences as humans, inspiration is much more subtle and nuanced than what the Fundamentalists or their opposites would have us believe! The TRUTH is that God's Spirit is portrayed in the Bible as guiding, leading, educating, suggesting a course of action - it is NEVER portrayed as controlling, forcing, demanding, or dictating a course of action. And, as suggested, when we appeal to the creative experiences of artists, musicians, architects, athletes, etc., we find that inspiration is most often found in the midst of solitude and simplicity. In other words, within the context of the human experience, inspiration is rarely associated with something that is imposed or forced on an individual. Hence, the entire notion of Divine dictation of Scripture is shown to be absurd and without foundation!

In addition to all of this, we must understand that there are limitations/problems/difficulties inherent to the process of human communication. Indeed, whether most of us realize it or not, human communication is always a process. In the article, The Communication Process, we read: "The Communication Process can be broken down into several commonly accepted steps that are comprised of the following components: The Sender – This is the individual or group who is initiating the message.  This message can be verbal or non-verbal, can be ongoing or a one-off, can be conscious or unconscious.  The Sender can also be referred to as the Communicator. The Receiver – There must be a message sent if there is one to be received.  The Receiver – sometimes known as the Interpreter – is the individual or group to whom the message is sent.  Sometimes, a message received was one that was not necessarily intended to be. The Message – This is the particular content that is sent and received.  The message is coded by the users in a process that we will describe shortly. The Channel – (or Medium) is the means by which the message is sent.  Some common channels are: spoken voice/telephone/radio/television, written word, computer, The Context – This is the setting or environment in which the message is conveyed. Feedback – This is the response by the Receiver as to the success of the communication." Moreover, among these various components of the process, we should all be able to discern the potential for problems.

On the Communication Theory website, the article Barriers to Effective Communication, lists a number of potential problems which can and do interfere with human communication. In this regard, the article groups them together in the following categories: physical barriers (space-proximity, time, place, medium, etc.), psychological barriers (anger, depression and stress, mental states and disorders, drowsiness, fatigue, frustration, excitement, boredom, disinterest, nervousness etc.), cultural barriers, language barriers, semantic barriers, personal barriers (personality, social style, level of confidence, clothing, emotions, lack of knowledge etc.), physiological barriers (loss of eyesight, mental illnesses, physical illnesses, hearing and speaking impairment, even the learning disabilities like dyslexia, loss of memory, excessive fatigue and tiredness etc.), gender barriers, etc. In addition to these more general threats to human communication, there are also more specific challenges to written communications (as in Scripture).

In the Clearinfo, article Advantages And Disadvantages of Written Communication (from a business perspective), the following disadvantages are listed: no immediate feedback, misinterpretation and ambiguity, time-consuming, non-verbal cues not available, accessibility, rigidity, impersonal, etc. What about the advantages inherent to written communication? In the same article, we read: "One of the key merits of written communication is its ability to provide a permanent record of information that can be referred to in the future...Additionally, written communication can be easily disseminated to large groups of people, making it a valuable way to communicate important messages to a wide audience. When communicating orally, it is easy to miss or forget important details. However, with written communication, one can take the time to carefully craft a message that includes all necessary information. All in all written communication is a vital form of a communication channel as It allows for the permanent record of information, provides a means of disseminating important messages, and enables the conveyance of detailed and precise information. " The article also points out that oral communication is subject to certain advantages and disadvantages. In other words, all forms of human communication are imperfect and are subject to important limitations.

In an article for Psychology Today, How the Language You Speak Influences the Way that You Think, Dr. Neel Burton wrote: "Language may not determine thought, but it focuses perception and attention on particular aspects of reality, structures and thereby enhances cognitive processes, and even to some extent regulates social relationships. Our language reflects and at the same time shapes our thoughts and, ultimately, our culture, which in turn shapes our thoughts and language. There is no equivalent in English of the Portuguese word saudade, which refers to the love and longing for someone or something that has been lost and may never be regained. The rise of saudade coincided with the decline of Portugal and the yen for its imperial heyday, a yen so strong and so bitter as to have written itself into the national anthem: Levantai hoje de novo o esplendor de Portugal [Let us once again lift up the splendour of Portugal]. The three strands of language, thought, and culture are so tightly woven that they cannot be prised apart."

"Alright, Lonnie, I get that human communication - in particular the written word - is imperfect and not always efficient in communicating thoughts and ideas, but what does this have to do with the Judeo-Christian Bible?" my unbelieving friends will acknowledge. My answer: "EVERYTHING!" If the process is inherently imperfect/flawed, then it is literally impossible to fashion something which is completely reliable and error free! "With God all things are possible!" my Fundamentalist friends will quickly retort. I would respond by pointing out that the messenger (God) can be perfect and error free, but the vehicle of a humanly devised language is imperfect and must necessarily yield an inferior product. Let's say that the message is crafted in a flawless Divinely created language - that both the Sender (God) and the Message are perfect, we still have to account for the imperfection of the Receiver (us) - the way that we receive and interpret the message! Even so, I would say that God has employed a very flawed process to successfully communicate a message to humanity. In other words, God has made the impossible possible!

In the introduction to my copy of the New Living Translation (NLT), I found some valuable insights into the way that the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are translated into English. We read there: "English Bible translations tend to be governed by one of two general translation theories. The first theory has been called 'formal-equivalence,' 'literal,' or 'word-for-word' translation. According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into English and seeks to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as much as possible in translation. The second theory has been called 'dynamic-equivalence,' 'functional-equivalence,' or 'thought-for-thought' translation. The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text, both in meaning and in style." The NLT translators went on to acknowledge that both theories have their strengths.

Continuing, we read: "The pure application of either of these translation philosophies would create translations at opposite ends of the translation spectrum. But in reality, all translations contain a mixture of these two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be unintelligible in English, and a purely dynamic-equivalence translation would risk being unfaithful to the original. That is why translations shaped by dynamic-equivalence theory are usually quite literal when the original text is relatively clear, and the translations shaped by formal-equivalence theory are sometimes quite dynamic when the original text is obscure." Once again, the process of communicating this message is an inherently imprecise exercise!

"Alright, Lonnie, we understand the theoretical implications that this has for any written document - including the Bible, but what does this mean in practical terms?" My Fundamentalist and non-believing friends will demand. In answering this question, I think two examples will suffice. In the second and third chapters of Genesis, we find a narrative about a nude couple placed in the midst of a garden paradise with two magical trees and a talking serpent. Should this narrative be understood literally or figuratively? Is it happenstance or intentional that the serpent in this Hebrew Old Testament narrative is later identified in the Greek New Testament as being synonymous with Satan the Devil? Likewise, when we read in the King James Version: "Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men," is it clear what the author is talking about? OR Does this passage from the New Living Translation make its meaning clearer: "Your neck is as beautiful as the tower of David, jeweled with the shields of a thousand heroes"?

Hence, we return to our original question: Does the Judeo-Christian Bible prove that God doesn't exist? Would a perfect being with unlimited resources at his disposal author such an imperfect book? If God is love, why do we read of instances where "he" commanded the Israelites to murder innocent women and children in cold blood? How can we believe in a God or a book that claims the Sun and Moon were created after the Earth?

I would answer all of these questions by saying that even if God had personally written every line in the book (a notion which the book itself clearly contradicts), the audience - we who have received the intended message - would misinterpret and misuse the book! The God in whom I believe decided to involve the receivers in the formulation/writing of "his" message - decided to involve them in the entire process! Humankind has been an integral part of the process of communicating this message from the very beginning. Humans have participated in ALL of the components of the process: Sender, Receiver, Message, Channel, Context, and Feedback. "So, you're admitting that humans wrote, edited, produced the Bible?" my friends on both sides of the divide will demand. "YES," is my answer.

Even so, I would also add that I see clear evidence of another set of fingerprints all over this collection of writings we call "The Holy Bible." Moreover, I would suggest that this evidence is spiritually discerned - ONLY recognizable by the indwelling of the Divine Spirit within me. In other words, I see a book that is both very human and flawed, while simultaneously communicating that there is someone (God) with a beautiful purpose and plan behind all that we experience, have experienced, or will experience in the future. What do you think?

Paul - A Nazarene?

“Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings. This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman citizen. And desiring to know the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their council. I found that he was being accused about questions of their law, but charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment. And when it was disclosed to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state before you what they have against him.”

So, the soldiers, according to their instructions, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris. And on the next day they returned to the barracks, letting the horsemen go on with him. When they had come to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they presented Paul also before him. On reading the letter, he asked what province he was from. And when he learned that he was from Cilicia, he said, “I will give you a hearing when your accusers arrive.” And he commanded him to be guarded in Herod's praetorium. --Acts 23:26-35, ESV

And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a spokesman, one Tertullus. They laid before the governor their case against Paul. And when he had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying:

“Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since by your foresight, most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation, in every way and everywhere we accept this with all gratitude. But, to detain you no further, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly. For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, but we seized him. By examining him yourself you will be able to find out from him about everything of which we accuse him.”

The Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that all these things were so. And when the governor had nodded to him to speak, Paul replied:

“Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense. You can verify that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem, and they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues or in the city. Neither can they prove to you what they now bring up against me. But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So, I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia— they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me. Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: ‘It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.’”-- Acts 24:1-21, ESV

Why Sabbatarian Christians and Professor James Tabor Are Wrong About the Ebionites!

Perhaps it is a subconscious effort to maintain some intellectual continuity with his Armstrongist past, or maybe it is the genuine product of his own research and speculation, but Dr. James Tabor's suggestion that the sect of the Ebionites represented the original followers of Jesus Christ is NOT supported by the facts. To be sure, Tabor's narrative does support his contention that Paul's teachings represented a radical departure from the teachings of Yeshua and the original apostles. Now, while I would characterize Dr. Tabor's Paul and Jesus as brilliant and providing some valuable insights into the story of early Christianity (and a must read for serious Christians), I believe that his historical revisionism relative to the Ebionites and Nazarenes is simply too radical and is NOT supported by what we know about First Century Christianity.

Indeed, to accept Dr. Tabor's narrative about the Ebionites we would have to reject the New Testament canon, brand the Apostle Paul as a heretic, dismiss the events of 70 CE as unfortunate happenstance, and ignore many of the early documents of Christianity. To be clear, Dr. Tabor's narrative is at odds with the traditional/conventional understanding of Christian history and development. In other words, Dr. Tabor's narrative is NOT consistent or reconcilable with Christian beliefs and teachings.

Let's begin by exploring the parameters of the more traditional scholarly narrative about the Ebionites and Nazarenes. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject informs us that: The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. Origen is the first (Against Celsus V.61) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Church History III.27). Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all. (Origen, Hom. in Luc., xvii) St. Epiphanius calls the more heretical section Ebionites, and the more Catholic-minded, Nazarenes. But we do not know whence St. Epiphanius obtained his information or how far it is reliable. It is very hazardous, therefore, to maintain, as is sometimes done, that the distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Arendzen, John. "Ebionites." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909.

Likewise, the Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Ebionites informs us that they were a: Sect of Judæo-Christians of the second to the fourth century. They believed in the Messianic character of Jesus, but denied his divinity and supernatural origin; observed all the Jewish rites, such as circumcision and the seventh-day Sabbath; and used a gospel according to Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic, while rejecting the writings of Paul as those of an apostate (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 262; Origen, "Contra Celsum," ii. 1; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 27; Hippolytus, "Refutatio Hæresium," vii. 34; Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, i. 3, 12; on Matt. xii. 13). Some Ebionites, however, accepted the doctrine of the supernatural birth of Jesus, and worked out a Christology of their own (Origen, l.c. v. 61). Kohler, Kauffman. "Ebionites." The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 5, p. 31. Online Version of the original edition, 1906. Thus, in both of these more traditional interpretations, we see that Dr. Tabor's narrative aligns with the beliefs of the Ebionites and embraces their narrative about themselves. In plainer terms, the Ebionites become the "true" disciples of Yeshua, and more traditional Christians become the "heretics."

In his Ebionites and Nazarenes: Tracking the Original Followers of Jesus, Tabor wrote: This Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by “James the Just” (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. Non-Jews were certainly part of the mix but the dominant ethos of the group was an adherence to what Paul calls ioudaizein–to live according to Jewish law (Galatians 2:14). They were zealous for the Torah and continued to observe the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher. The non-Jews in their midst were apparently expected to follow some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15: 28-29). The term Ebionite (from Hebrew ‘Evyonim) means “Poor Ones” and was perhaps related to the teachings of Jesus: “Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God” based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones. I am convinced that Nazarene comes from the Hebrew word Netzer (drawn from Isaiah 11:1) and means “a Branch”—so the Nazarenes were the “Branchites” or followers of the one they believed to be the Branch–that is the Davidic Messiah. It is often confused with a completely different word,  Nazirite or Nazir, that refers to individuals, male or female, not a group, who took on a special vow based on Numbers 6. The two terms can sound alike in English are spelled differently in Hebrew. This narrative is also highlighted in a more recent post by Tabor (see The Ebionites: Heretics or Original Followers of Jesus?)

Now, having established the parameters of both views of the Ebionites, it is imperative that we review the primary sources associated with this topic. In the Church history authored by Eusebius, the Ebionites beliefs were described as heretical and characterized them as having a poor understanding (see my post The Great False Church Lie). From the First Century, we also have two writings which contradict the narrative that Gentile Christians observed the Jewish Sabbath. In The Didache, we read: But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. Please note that the context of these remarks clearly refers to the gathering together of Christ's followers (some folks try to argue that the original Greek is not referring to the Lord's Day). Also, from the Epistle of Barnabas , we read: Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.

In addition to these texts, we also have access to a number of writings from the Second Century which demonstrate that Sunday gatherings were the common practice of Christ's followers. In his epistle to the saints of Philadelphia, Ignatius wrote: “But if anyone preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchers of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men.” (See earlychristianwritings.com) For Ignatius, any Christians who were teaching the saints that they had to observe the Jewish law were clearly heretics. Likewise, in his epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius wrote: “Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace.” Later in the same epistle, he wrote: “It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.” (See earlychristianwritings.com or Early Christianity: From Sabbath to Sunday)

What's more, from the middle of the Second Century, Justin Martyr wrote: And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. (See earlychristianwritings.com or Early Christianity: From Sabbath to Sunday)

Nevertheless, even in the face of such evidence, for me, the most convincing evidence is found in the primary of primary sources: The New Testament Canon! Now, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the first few chapters of the book of Acts make very clear that Christ and all of his early disciples/followers were observant Jews. Hence, we would expect to find them observing the tenets of Torah (Sabbath, festivals, circumcision, clean/unclean, etc.), and we do. However, within a decade after Christ's resurrection and ascension to heaven, the number of Gentile believers began to grow exponentially. Moreover, as these Gentiles didn't have any tradition of Torah observance to draw upon, the question of their proper relationship to that legislation soon arose. Indeed, in the midst of Paul's and Barnabas' missionary efforts, some Jewish Christians arrived at Antioch from Judaea and challenged the apostles' ministry among the Gentiles.

Hence, we read in the fifteenth chapter of Acts: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'" (Acts 15:1-5, ESV) Clearly, the question before the gathering was: Will the Gentile believers be required to adopt the tenets of God's covenant with Israel?

However, we should note that just as there were Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, there were also groups that held differing opinions within both of these larger groups. Many scholars (including Dr. Tabor) have chosen to designate two main groups within the larger group of Jewish Christians: Nazarenes and Ebionites. Now, for our purposes, whatever these folks called themselves or how other folks characterized them, I believe that these designations (Nazarene and Ebionite) help to explain what came next in the narrative in the fifteenth chapter of Acts.

The account continued: "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.'" (Acts 15:6-11, ESV)

Notice first, that Peter spoke "after there had been much debate." This was NOT an easily settled question. Obviously, both sides of the debate recognized that the stakes were high - that the theological questions which this debate had engendered went to the very heart of the nature of the new faith. Next, Peter pointed out that God had already made the decision to give his message to the Gentiles, draw them into his Church, and had given them his Holy Spirit. Then Peter reminded his mostly Jewish audience that Christ had been the only Israelite who had ever successfully borne the yoke of Torah. As a consequence, Peter concluded that BOTH Jews and Gentiles "will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus."

Next, James pointed out that the prophets of old had predicted that David's heir (Christ) would make it possible for Gentiles to seek the Lord (Acts 15:15-18). According to the account, James then concluded his remarks with his own judgment of the matter: "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19-20, ESV) The account in Acts ends with the assembly writing a letter to the Gentile Christians which encouraged them to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:22-29) In other words, they gave them a short list of things that would distinguish them from the Gentiles around them and make them less likely to offend the sensibilities of their Jewish brethren. They would NOT, however, be forced to become Torah observant Jews. (See First Century Christianity: Putting Together the Available Evidence)

So, we see in this account two groups of Jewish Christians who had very different views of the whole question of a Gentile Christian's responsibility to Torah. We have one group who insisted that Gentiles had to become Jews and observe the tenets of God's covenant with Israel - we'll call them Ebionites. We have another group of Jewish Christians led by Peter and James who continued to observe the tenets of the Jewish faith, but who did NOT believe that those observances should be imposed upon their Gentile brethren - we'll call them Nazarenes. We should also note that Paul's letter to the believers of Galatia makes plain that some Gentiles were susceptible to the teachings of the Ebionites! Nevertheless, the account of the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts makes very clear that the views of Paul, Barnabas, and the "Nazarenes" triumphed!

For Paul, Gentile Christians trying to obey Torah was akin to a freeman submitting to slavery. He summarized his position: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (Galatians 5:1-6, ESV) Paul believed that Christ had fulfilled Torah, and that any Christian (Jew or Gentile) who was actively trying to be justified before God by obeying the Law had effectively severed him/herself from participating in salvation through Jesus Christ!

We must also not forget that Jesus Christ had predicted the complete destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem (See Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:5-6). From secular historical accounts, we know that the Romans did indeed destroy the Temple and most of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE. We also know that many of these Jewish Christians (both "Ebionites" and "Nazarenes") fled Jerusalem prior to its downfall. Moreover, we know that thereafter it became physically impossible for both Jews and Jewish Christians to observe the tenets of Torah in the manner prescribed by those writings. In short, there wasn't any Temple anymore!

For those Ebionites who rejected the Divinity of Christ, it is no wonder that the only Gospel account they considered to be valid was a modified version of the Gospel according to Matthew! After all, the first chapter of the Gospel of John presented real problems for these folks. We read there: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-14, ESV)

Thus, we have seen that, like the Ebionites themselves, one has to ignore/dismiss a great deal of evidence to characterize them as the "original" or "true" followers of Jesus Christ! The fact is that the clear weight of the evidence argues in favor of them being characterized as heretics - outside of the pale of what the majority of early Christians believed and taught. Indeed, to accept these folks as representative of original Christianity is to deny most of the New Testament canon!