Up
Search Site
Contents
Books'n Mor
Overview
Concepts & Theory
Levantine Fieldwork
The First Christians
Questions & Answers
Critical Perspectives
Feature Articles
Biblical Chronology
The Levant
Music &The Bible
Helps & Aids
Travel & Touring
Words & Phrases
Photo Gallery
Useful Links
Who We Are
Our History & Purpose
Works Cited
What We Believe
Article Submissions
How to Cite BibArch
How to Contact Us

Click here to send us Questions or Comments

For January-March 2001
Volume 4 Number 1

[ Home ] [ More Editions of Perspectives ] [ Our Feature Article ] [ Comments from Viewers ] [ Questions & Answers ]

Our Feature Article

The Sinaitic Covenant and the Law of Moses: Irrelevant? Or, Do They Still Matter?

Messianic Jews and some Christian groups observe the weekly Sabbath, the annual Sabbaths, the biblical dietary laws, fast on Yom Kippur, tithe, and practice circumcision. Are these customs required of the people of God in today's world?

by Michael P. Germano

The admission of the first Gentiles�the Roman centurion Cornelius and members of his household�into the fellowship of the Church of God occurred about CE 35. Prior to this time the nascent Church of God was exclusively made up of Jews. Cornelius, an uncircumcised God-fearer but not a Jewish proselyte, was a military officer stationed at Caesarea Maritima (Acts 10:1).

When Peter baptized this entire group of non-Jews he did the unthinkable. Peter brought a group of uncircumcised Gentiles into the fellowship of a Jewish synagogue as full members�with the same rights as everyone else. In those early days Christian congregations, in keeping with the praxis of Jewish congregations of that time, followed the organizational pattern of the synagogue and their gathering places, or meeting locations, were known as synagogues not churches.

At that time the congregation at Jerusalem, the mother of all Christian congregations, was made up of Jews who adhered to Written Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures, also Tanakh or Old Testament) but rejected Oral Torah (the customs and traditions of the elders, known as halakah, later memorialized in the Mishna as rabbinic law). According to Roger Brooks, as Pharisaic Judaism emerged into the rabbinic Judaism of today's world, the rabbis came to believe that:

Each and every part of the written Scripture equally represents God's eternal law, God's Torah. The written law, Judaism holds, was accompanied by oral supplementary and complementary rules (later codified in the Mishnah). This belief in the integrity of the Dual Torah-both written and oral-is the reason for the exclusion of the Ten Commandments from daily worship rites. (Brooks 1990:35.)

In the Jewish understanding of apostolic times all verses in the Written Torah, were of equal value. No single portion of the Pentateuch, including the Ten Utterances (also Ten Commandments) was of any more import than any other. While the Ten Utterances were the focus, the heart and core, of the Sinaitic Covenant (Deuteronomy 4:13, 5:1-6) in Jewish law every single verse in the Written Torah was of equal weight and validity. In context historical Judaism, that is Jewish law, was a way of life, as it remains today, consisting of "a thought process to be learned, and a set of principles and values to be inculcated" (Brooks 1990:20).

Certain Torah-compliant members of the Jerusalem congregation protested Peter�s action in the Cornelius matter for it was impermissible according to the Written Torah. In the context of synagogue practice, believing that salvation in this age was only for the children of Israel as God�s chosen people not for the Gentiles, they challenged him (Acts 11:2). Acts records that they protested loudly, suggesting that the scene was one of confrontation and argument (Acts 11:2, 11:18).^F1 Their challenge of Peter's conduct, however, corresponded with the culture of the first-century Jewish synagogue. Until then the apostle Peter was Torah compliant (Acts 10:14; 10:28; 11:8; 15:10-11; Galatians 2:14-15). The Cornelius matter was a defining moment in apostolic Christianity for doctrinally this act separated permanently the Church of God from the Torah submissive life of the Sinaitic Covenant.

An anachronistic reading of disrespect for authority into this passage, agued by various clergy appalled with the apparent lack of respect for apostolic authority shown by the challengers, removes this scriptural passage from its synagogue context. Anciently Jews would heatedly support or argue over religious issues just as they do today. The apostle Paul, for example, was quite skilled at doing so which got him lashed, beaten with rods, and nearly murdered several times (II Corinthians 11:24; Acts 9:23; 14:5; 14:19).^F2 An old Jewish saying states that "Where there are two Jews there are three opinions." Such argumentation is an enduring aspect of Jewish culture. The early followers of the apostles, as Jews, were free to debate and argue strongly for synagogue traditions. This made it a difficult job to preside over and lead them let alone exercise any centralization and control. Argumentation, common in the traditional synagogues, was part of the Jewish cultural tradition coming over into the nascent Church. This paradigm not only characterized the rank-and-file but the early clergy as well.

The challengers, in the perspective of the writer of Acts of the Apostles, were "those who were circumcised" (Acts 11:2 NASB) or "those of the circumcision" (alternate marginal rendering at Acts 11:2 NASB). As all male Jews underwent ritual circumcision, and the Church of God was exclusively made up of Jews at the time, the inference is that "those of the circumcision" were a distinctive group, or party, within the Jerusalem congregation. This thought led Paul J. Achtemeier, in his The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church, to deduct that:

As a result of Peter�s traffic with the Gentile Cornelius, he comes under criticism from a group here identified as the "circumcision party." This group is never specifically defined by Luke, although it was obviously made up of people who felt no intimate social intercourse could take place with uncircumcised people. Although Luke does not say so, it is almost certain that we are to understand them as Jews who have become Christians, and who felt that non-Jews had first to be circumcised, that is, become Jews, before they could become Christians. (Achtemeier 1987:12.)

This group was likely the circle later referred to as the "sect of the Pharisees who had believed" (Acts 15:5 NASB). Peter resolved the matter amicably by calmly explaining to the congregation exactly what had taken place and why. As a result "they quieted down" suggesting they had remained quite vocal to that point and stated "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18). This, however, did not end the matter. Fourteen years later, in CE 49, renewed argument over the issue of Gentile admission to the Church arose over the ministry of the apostle Paul as more Gentiles converted to Christianity, and the applicability of the Law of Moses threatened to split the apostolic Church due to the subversion of these Messianic Pharisees.

The Messianic Pharisees

In the middle of the first century there were some in the congregation at Jerusalem who were believing Pharisees (Acts 15:5). This judaizing faction, later known as Ebionites, saw the Church of God as Messianic Judaism rather than a new religion.^F3 They had become followers of Jesus, whom they saw not as a deity but rather as a prophet who ushered in the Messianic Age. For them Jesus' death did not abrogate the Sinaitic Covenant. They did not perceive of the New Covenant and the Sinaitic Covenant as mutually exclusive but rather as complementary. While they accepted [Wvy yrxwnh (Yeshu�a Ha-Notsri) as the Messiah they stressed observing Written Torah and continuing in the Sinaitic Covenant.

They argued that all Christians had to live in accordance with the whole Law of Moses including circumcision. Since in their understanding all scriptures in the Written Torah were of equal importance there were many commandments to be obeyed by all Christians. In their thinking Gentile converts had to become practicing Jews, including the voluntarily assumption of the Sinaitic Covenant, as a prerequisite to becoming actual members of the Church of God (that is, Christians).

This faction desired to perpetuate the Jewish character of the early Church and stood opposed to the apostle Paul and his teachings. Evidently they saw that the open admissions policy followed by Paul and his companions would undermine their struggle to keep the Church of God a branch of Judaism. Activists among this group traveled about inciting controversies, planting questions, and creating confusion in the Diasporan congregations by casting doubt on the validity of Gentile conversions and urging a return to Judaism.

Messianic Pharisees, in spite of apostolic teachings to the contrary, failed to grasp, or refused to accept, that in fact the Sinaitic Covenant, and all of its requirements including the Ten Utterances, ended with Jesus� death. They remained Torah observant, refused to recognize the divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth, and continued to argue and teach that only Jews, by birth or by conversion, could become true Christians. They persisted in their teaching in spite of Peter�s handling of Cornelius� admission to the church and the judgment issued by James, the overseer of the mother church at Jerusalem, in CE 50.

Late in CE 49 some of this faction preached their heretical message in southern Galatia to congregations raised up as a result of the efforts of Paul, Barnabas, and their companions. These Messianic Pharisees, challenging the validity of the conversion of ethnic Gentiles and interfering with their spiritual growth, deliberately planted seeds of uncertainty, distress, and fear among Christians of Gentile descent.

The Messianic Pharisee faction could exert a powerful influence as shown in CE 57, only seven years after the CE 50 hearing before James recorded in Acts 15, when James reported that in Judea there were many thousands of believers in Jesus the Messiah who were "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20-22).^F4 They believed in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, but they did not understand the New Covenant nor were they transformed by the Spirit of God, but rather were zealous for Written Torah. This suggests that nearly two decades after Jesus� death christianized Jews living in Judea for religious reasons continued to circumcise their sons and observe the Law of Moses and were quite ardent in doing so. The teaching of these Messianic Pharisees was an insidious heresy.^F5

When Paul visited Jerusalem, ca. CE 56, James informed him that his adversaries were aware "that you [Paul] teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs [which Moses handed down to us]" (Acts 21:21 and Acts 6:14 NKJV). Which customs? Those of the Written Torah not halakah. They condemned Paul for this teaching. The question is�did Paul in fact teach this? The implication of Acts 21:21 is that the apostle Paul informed Jews in the Dispersion who became Christians that as a matter of religious obligation they did not have to keep Torah, nor halakat, nor ritually circumcise their children, since the Law of Moses no longer had binding effect on Jews.^F6 Moreover, the implication of the negative pregnant of Acts 21:21 is that the members of the mother church at Jerusalem continued, as a cultural practice, to circumcise their male children, otherwise the congregation itself would have been subject to the charges leveled at Paul as related to him by James.

Not until the fall of Jerusalem, and the final destruction of the Temple in CE 70, were the Mosaic systems finally quelled. The continued existence of these Sinaitic Covenant forms, and a "peculiar people" mentality, reinforced the Messianic Pharisee view that to be a true Christian one had to become a Jew first. The loss of the Temple, as the spiritual center of Judaism, brought its priestly forms and rites to an end. This forced the abandonment of the Levitical system and the Aaronic priesthood. It also fostered the rise of Pharisaic Judaism for the Pharisees were the only survivors of the war with Rome with sufficient infrastructure in tact to successfully reorganize themselves.

The Galatian Crisis

In southern Galatia there were large Jewish communities and a significant Jewish presence in Christian congregations. These churches arose out of evangelization of Diasporan Jewish synagogues (Acts 13:5; 13:14; 13:42-44). These were not entirely Gentile churches, as some believe, but Diasporan Judeo-Christian congregations with fledging memberships made up of ethnic Jews and Greeks.^F7 As a result of the evangelical effort of Paul and Barnabas some Gentiles, primarily Greek women and God-fearing Greek men, who had been attending Diasporan synagogues, converted to Christianity. Following the policy iterated by God though Peter, the apostles Paul and Barnabas did not require these male Greeks converting to Christianity to first become Jewish proselytes. For this reason men of Greek descent remained uncircumcised and free of the Law of Moses.

Cultural inertia, endemic in the Diasporan congregations of that day, perpetuated the dichotomy of Jews and Gentiles. Members of Diasporan congregations, whether of Jewish or Gentile ethnicity, grew up within this paradigm. Paul's language in Galatians 2 and the account in Acts 15 illustrates this practice. Paul knew that the Church of God could not survive without the rank and file becoming a unified whole. Therefore, soon after the resolution of these matters, Paul argues that in the Church of God there is neither Jew nor Greek but only Christians.^F8

Fairly soon after the evangelization of the Galatian region, while Paul was at Antioch of Syria, he received word of some of the messianic Jewish faction upsetting Christians of Gentile ethnicity in the churches in Southern Galatia. This occurred shortly after Peter�s visit to Antioch of Syria (Galatians 2:11). Paul learned that certain itinerant Messianic Pharisees, misrepresenting themselves as representatives of James, visited the Galatian congregation espousing their heresy that Gentiles had to become Jews before they could ever be true Christians.

Their message, "You Gentiles will not be true Christians unless you undergo ritual circumcision and keep Torah!", subverted Paul�s teachings and undermined the steadfastness of his converts and polarized congregations into Jews and Gentiles. Confused and bewildered, Gentile confidence and zeal slipped. Fearful of suffering the physical and social consequences of circumcision a number began to give up. The false gospel of the Messianic Pharisees so disoriented and shook the faith of some Paul�s Gentile converts that they had begun to revert to paganism (Galatians 1:8-11).^F9 

What was of concern to the fledging Gentile membership in the churches of the Hellenistic Diaspora was having to become Jewish proselytes  to receive salvation. According to Betz:

The argument is directed against the theology of Jewish-Christian missionaries opposed to Paul who have nearly won over the Galatians by persuading them that they remain "sinners" (2:15-17, 21) outside of salvation, unless they accept CIRCUMCISION (2:3; 5:2-3, 6; 6:12-13, 15) and TORAH (3:2, 5; 4:9-10, 21; 5:2-4, 18). (Betz 1976:352.)

Astounded at the their reaction, but unable to return to southern Galatia at once, a livid Paul sent a hastily penned epistle to the Galatian congregations (Galatians 4:19-20). Paul wrote:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel�which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-10 NIV.)

His statement establishes the time, setting, and circumstances prompting the epistle. Paul referred to how his converts were "so quickly deserting" by heeding "a different gospel". This shows that little time had passed from Paul's evangelization of the Galatian region until messianic Jewish detractors began to lead his converts astray. Further, when Paul wrote the epistle, he did not know the precise identity of the troublemakers. He referred to them as "some people" (1:7 NIV), "any one" (Galatians 1:9 NIV), "Who" (3:1 NIV), "They" (4:17 NIV), "those who unsettle you" (5:12 NIV), and "those" (6:12-13 NIV). He had to deal with nameless Messianic Pharisees claiming they represented James and the mother church at Jerusalem.

In his letter Paul sought to straighten out Galatian misconceptions, stem defection, and reversion. He condemned any such misguided Christian embrace of Mosaic ritual circumcision and Torah observance by Christians of either Jewish or Gentile ethnicity. He dwelled extensively upon the nature of justification, that is, being made right with God, as he undertook to strengthen the congregations spiritually.

Paul held that the Messianic Pharisees, often called Jewish Christians in today's scholarly literature, had a hidden agenda. At Galatians 6:12-13 he wrote:

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh (Galatians 6:12-13 NIV).

This apparently was an important motive of the Messianic Pharisee faction. If Gentile converts to Christianity would first become Jews then persecution by non-Christian Jews would diminish. The church would be less offensive and more tolerable to other Jews since every Christian would also be a Jew. Rather than suffer persecution by non-Christian Jews because of the Gentiles they could boast with pride of the thousands of converts added to the Jews because of their efforts.

Paul implied that if he taught circumcision, that is converting to Judaism as prerequisite to being a Christian, then he would not be persecuted by Jews and that "the stumbling block of the cross" would be abolished (Galatians 5:11). Paul, however, would have none of it. In Galatians he addressed the teachings of the "false brethren" and their "gospel" of ritual circumcision and Written Torah observance.

In his epistle Paul felt compelled to cite his apostolic authority. He claimed his credentials and knowledge of the Way as the result of direct revelation from Jesus of Nazareth and from none other. He also made one additional important point�the Gospel he preached, which had to include his teaching on the non-binding nature of the Written Torah since the Messiah had come, came directly from the resurrected Jesus Christ himself. He wrote:

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. (Galatians 1:11-14 NIV.)

Paul established four points to restore, reestablish, and strengthen his credibility with the Galatian congregations: 

1. His apostleship came directly from Jesus Christ and not from any human being (Galatians 1:1; 2:7-9; Acts 13:2 cf. Acts 14:4; 14:14).^F10 

2. The doctrines he taught came directly from God not the original 12 apostles (Galatians 1:11-12).

3. He had recently conferred with the apostles at Jerusalem, at the CE 49 Apostolic Conference,^F11 who confirmed his gospel, authority, and apostleship (Galatians 2:6-9).

4. He had rebuked publicly the apostle Peter, only weeks before, when he failed to act properly toward uncircumcised members of the church in fear of the Messianic Pharisee faction at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:12).

Paul made clear to the Galatian congregations that God, who sent him to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles, not only established his apostolic office independent of and apart from any involvement of Jerusalem's apostles and elders but that they concurred with his teachings on Torah. He appealed to the fact that he learned the gospel directly from Jesus Christ by way of revelation (Galatians 1:12). When Paul wrote that he went to Jerusalem "in response to a revelation" (Galatians 2:2) he was saying in effect "God sent me there." Paul traveled to Jerusalem for peer review lest he had "run in vain" in his ministry (Galatians 2:2). He related to the mother church apostles the "gospel" he preached.

He then called to his readers attention the fact that when he submitted his "gospel" to James, Peter, and John for review, evaluation, and approval earlier that year^F12 they added nothing (Galatians 2:2, 2:6-9). The apostles were all in accord on the matter. He pointed out that even Titus, who was uncircumcised, was not required by them to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3). Paul's point was that the apostles Peter, John, and James confirmed that his teaching regarding the applicability of the Law of Moses was identical to their own (Galatians 2:6-10). The Mosaic code was moot.

Only months after the Apostolic Conference, ca. CE 49, when the apostle Peter visited Antioch of Syria, a congregation with a considerable number of Christians of Gentile ethnicity, he did not observe the "Law of Moses" (Galatians 2:12-14). Peter lived and behaved like any ordinary converted Christian of Gentile descent and not as an observant Jew. When some of the trouble-making "Pharisees who believed" showed up from Jerusalem, Peter became apprehensive and withdrew from table fellowship with Gentiles. Such table fellowship was ostensibly forbidden traditional Jews as it would ritually defile them.^F13 The apostle Paul orally scolded Peter before the whole congregation for his behavior and later wrote about it in his abrupt letter to the Galatian churches. The apostle Peter, who was at the time an, not the, apostle to the circumcision,^F14 did not observe the Law of Moses and neither by implication did the apostle Paul.

Vacating First-Century Judaism

When this group of Messianic Pharisees from Jerusalem arrived at Antioch of Syria they encountered a less than pleased apostle Paul. The resulting disruption at the Judeo-Christian synagogue in Antioch was so intense that the congregation determined that the matter should go to the apostles and elders at the mother church at Jerusalem for resolution (Acts 15:2). They sent Paul, Barnabas, and others to bring the matter before James.

In Acts 15 we encounter an incredible event in church history. Rather than a record of an apostolic council we possess the record of an ancient synagogue judicial proceeding, that of the mother of all churches at Jerusalem, with its overseer, the apostle James, presiding. Here, in the typical procedure of that day, protagonists called upon the proper synagogue ruler to give an appropriate ruling based on issues of fact and law. Upon hearing the matter James issued his ruling binding the matter as part of the body of teachings known as the apostles' doctrines. James said "my judgment is...", which became mandatory as doctrine for all Christians. Scribes then prepared a letter based on the ruling which James sent to the affected congregations in Galatia with sufficient witnesses to attest to the rulings veracity. The details of the actual Apostolic Conference^F15 of CE 49 are set forth in Galatians 2. That occasion was a conference, consisting of some informal talks, perhaps about six months before the hearing detailed in Acts 15.

In Jerusalem, James repudiated publicly the unauthorized goings-on of the itinerant Pharisees who had believed. He distanced himself from them by saying, "We have heard that some of our number, to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words" (Acts 15:24). Note that he said "their words" not God's words.

In their first-century salvific context the questions of law before James were:

1. Is becoming a Jew through physical circumcision, the sign of the Sinaitic Covenant, necessary for salvation? and 

2. Is keeping Torah, the whole system of Mosaic law including the Ten Utterances, required for salvation?

At issue was the applicability of the Written Torah in Judeo-Christianity, not just to those Judeo-Christians of Gentile ethnicity but to Jewish believers as well. Why? The Written Torah consisted of the Ten Utterances and additional rules (statutes and judgments) providing further detail of how these rules were to play out in the everyday life and affairs of the Israelite nation. The Ten Utterances themselves were not set out as an issue to decide before James separate and apart from Written Torah because they could not be bifurcated from the context of the whole written Torah. Recall that in Jewish law every single verse in the Written Torah was of equal weight and validity. Moreover, the heart of the Sinaitic Covenant was the Ten Utterances given by God to the people of Israel not to the Gentiles. James, Paul, and the Messianic Pharisees knew that the whole system would stand or fall as a unit. If Torah was moot so were the Ten Utterances for they were given specifically to the people of Israel not to the rest of the world. The abrogation of the Sinaitic Covenant would nullify the Ten Utterances as well.^F16

Moreover, neither Oral Torah nor sacrifices appear in Galatians or Acts as being problematic. Jesus had made halakah a non-issue when he rejected the Pharisaic traditions of the elders. These Jewish customs did not come over into the teachings of the apostles. The Pharisees believed in Dual Torah wherein the Written Torah had an accompanying oral counterpart. This Oral Torah consisted of oral supplementary and complementary rules. Hence, oral traditions had no bearing upon the matter coming before James nor in the decision rendered. The necessity for sacrifices ended with Jesus� death.

The early Church of God, however, was far from being a democratic institution. The apostles, not taught the intricacies of church administration and managerial leadership, were charismatic personalities whose followers viewed them as "founder" figures. While the apostles wielded authority the sheer masses of people and the "orally-combative, debate-prone, argumentative" cultural bias fostered a climate for division within the Church.

The decision reached by James at the hearing, after considerable heated debate, was that the Church of God would go on with its teaching, practice, and custom that neither physical circumcision nor obedience to the Law of Moses, Written Torah, were part of the New Covenant relationship with God. In his published decree James exhorted Christians of Gentile background "to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:20 NIV).

In our day these aspects of the decree are difficult to understand. The meaning and basis of these restrictions have been a matter of conjecture and debate. Some see a reflection of the so-called Noah-hide covenant and others a call for Christians of Gentile ethnicity to be particularly circumspect in specific pagan practices that offended and infuriated traditional Jews of that day.^F17 Messianic Jews argue that the Gentiles, according to the decree, needed not convert to Judaism but had to conform to the four mitzvot enumerated by James. This, they contend, teaches Messianic Jews that the elements of Torah which apply to Gentiles under the New Covenant are not the same as those which apply to Messianic Jews. That is, the New Covenant specified different standards of conduct for believers of Jewish descent and believers of Gentile descent.

Perhaps the most plausible explanation comes from Ben Witherington III. Writing in the Bible Review, Witherington holds that in the cultural context of the Greco-Roman world it was the social setting of meals and not what Christians consumed that was of concern to James and Paul in the immediate context of Acts 15. The issue was avoiding idolatry not imposition of biblical dietary laws. He argues that in context the reference to idol-meat in Acts 15:29 prohibits attending pagan temple meals and it is not a discussion of the food laws of the Hebrew Scriptures (Witherington 1994:43). He writes:

If eidolothuton means food sacrificed to idols and eaten in a pagan temple, then one must reconsider what Acts 15 really claims. Acts 15 records that James said Gentiles must do the following to maintain table fellowship with Jewish Christians. Christians must avoid eidolothuton; sexual immorality; things strangled; and blood. James, like Paul, is arguing that Gentile Christians should avoid a venue where sacrificial meat and immorality are both found-namely, pagan temples, where, indeed, all four of the items listed on Acts 15:20 and 29 were available. The issue is not where we might find these four items separately, but where we might find all four of them together.
     If this is correct, then James is not imposing food laws on Gentile Christians, any more than Paul was. James, like Paul, wants Gentiles to avoid pagan temples and the things found there. (Witherington 1994:43.)

So, the mother church apostles James, Peter, and John, held as did Paul that the Mosaic Code did not apply to Christians of Gentile descent including its ceremonial demands concerning food and circumcision (Galatians 2:9-10; Acts 15:1, 15:5). Early Judeo-Christianity, seeing itself as �a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God� (I Peter 2:9), rejected not only the Oral Torah and all Jewish halakhic customs but denied that the Church of God, as the new Israel of God, was subject in any way whatsoever to the Law of Moses. The apostles taught that:

No Dual Standard of Conduct

The New Covenant is all inclusive. There is no biblically sanctioned dual, or double, standard for Christians of Jewish or of Gentile descent. Its provisions explicitly included Christians of all backgrounds whether they be of Jewish or Gentile ethnicity. At the Jerusalem conference of CE 49, the apostles Peter, John, and James confirmed that Paul's teachings were consistent with the apostles' doctrines (Galatians 2:6-10) and a few months later James officially, in a public decree, ruled that a Gentile did not have to become a Jew first in order to be a Christian (Acts 15:10, 15:20, 15:23-29). Being part of the new people of God, the Church of God, required neither Jews nor Gentiles to keep the Sinaitic Covenant, or the Law of Moses, or the Ten Utterances, or bear an external symbol binding the convert to the faith.

A circumcised heart, representing spiritual substance, depicted the mark of loyalty to the true faith of Israel, not a physical sign of no inherent significance. A circumcised heart brought about by the indwelling of the Spirit of God, is the sign of the New Covenant (Romans 2:29; 8:9; cf. Acts 2:38). Nevertheless, in the first century some Messianic Pharisees, who were pseudo-Christians, strongly aspired to keep Christianity in Judaism. In spite of James' ruling and the apostles' doctrines the Messianic Pharisee faction refused to recognize and rectify their error and resolutely visited and unsettled congregations in the Diaspora (Philippians 3:2-3; Ephesians 2:11; Titus 1:10).^F18

The early Christian church, consistently referred to in the New Testament as the Church of God, was not a monolithic structure any more than was traditional Judaism. There were many ideas tossed about. In a time when Christians were taught by word of mouth, as the New Testament did not yet exist, confusion was widespread and rumors rife. Hearsay resulted in embellished stories, inaccurate information, and doctrinal confusion. Recall the quickness of the members of early congregations, to argue and debate, as done in the traditional Jewish synagogue, when Peter faced the church at Jerusalem following the Cornelius� baptism and again in Jerusalem at the Acts 15 hearing before James.

Paul wrote to the Romans that he was a Jew who was inwardly circumcised in the heart (Romans 2:29). Ritual circumcision had been the symbol of the Sinaitic Covenant not the New Covenant. The Sinaitic Covenant, along with the Written Torah, had simply terminated at Jesus� death. These became sociocultural artifacts. They were relics of a way of life for which God no longer had any need as it had served its purposes. Christianity brought a new way of life where the people of God are spiritual Jews. The apostle Paul taught that real circumcision was of the heart, spiritual not physical (Romans 2:29). Christians were "cut off" from the world and no longer were of the world (John 17:14, 17:16). Even for the leadership of the Church, however, this realization appears to have been slow. Not until CE 50 had events occurred to turn the issue into a major controversy.

The Messianic Pharisees, later Ebionites, would not abandon the Jew-Gentile dichotomy. This, in sociocultural terms, is understandable. Their social conditioning was such that for their Pharisee minds to contemplate the Sinaitic Covenant, together with all its regimens and cultural implications, as ended was near impossible. How does one reared as an observant Pharisee emotionally let go of a way of life that existed for centuries? For Jews of that day it was quite difficult to let go of the Sinaitic Covenant. The apostles understood. Peter, writing from Babylon of Mesopotamia ca. CE 68, referred to the Judaism practiced in the first century as a "futile way of life" (I Peter 1:18 NASB). The rank-and-file were not so easily convinced.

Think about the matter from a first-century Jewish perspective. Would sincerely observant Jews deliberately sin�intentionally disobeying God in the most direct way�by declining to circumcise their baby boys and by refusing to follow the Law of Moses? Could first-century Jews contemplating becoming Christians really be sure whether or not the terms and conditions of the Sinaitic Covenant continued to bind them because of their Jewish heritage or did they now have the same freedom, rights, and obligations possessed by Christians of Gentile ethnicity? Did the New Covenant enjoin a dual standard upon the Church of God by differentiating between Jewish and Gentile Christians? Did the Sinaitic and New Covenants coexist? The ultimate split between the Ebionites from the Church of God, the Nazarenes, was likely over those issues and not over matters pertaining to the Gentiles. The personal decision making in this kind of religious split agonized many first century Jews, divided families, and estranged friends.

Subsequently, the Ebionites became quite critical of Paul and attempted to discredit him. Undoubtedly they blamed Paul for his role in taking the Church of God outside of Judaism by the way he dealt with the Sinaitic Covenant and the Law of Moses. In the Ascension of James, apparently an Ebionite writing ca. CE 150, its writer castigated Paul in a scathing attack:

Paul was a man of Tarsus-indeed, a Hellene, the son of a Hellenist mother and a Hellenist father. Having gone up to Jerusalem and having remained there a long time, he desired to marry a daughter of the priest and on that account submitted himself as a proselyte for circumcision. When, however, he did not obtain the girl, he became furious and began to write against circumcision, the Sabbath, and the law. (Epiphanius, Panarion, or Adv. Haer. 30.16; Longenecker 1990:26; Koch 1976.)

In apostolic Christianity, Christians of Jewish or Gentile origin were free, as they remain today, to adhere to the Ten Utterances and observe various Mosaic Covenant traditions such as observing the Sabbath, celebrating the annual Sabbaths and associated festivals, abstaining from unclean meats, paying tithes, and circumcision, but they were not bound to do so. Observing these customs, however, does not make anyone more righteous, sanctified, or pleasing in God's sight than Sunday observing, pork-eating, Christmas observing, 7-days-a-week working Christians�just a little bit different.

Comments from Our Viewers

Please send us your Comments by e-mail. All submissions must be signed and include your street or route address and telephone number, which we require for verification purposes only. We reserve the right to use or not use comments so addressed (in whole or in part, as deemed in the public interest), to include your name, and to edit or condense your comments for clarity and space. Click here to send us Comments.

The Torah

What scripture of the bible states that the Torah is null and void as the legal code?

--Worth Wray

The Sinaitic Covenant was a contract. In legal terms the phrase "null and void" simply means "not binding" and nothing more. The specific words are not in the New Testament but the doctrine they symbolize is (see our feature article above). The Sinaitic Covenant was a form of "marriage" agreement between the ancient nation of Israel and the Eternal God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Jeremiah 2:2; Ezekiel 16:8, 16:20, 16:32). In Christ, God became human. The death of Christ permanently terminated this "marriage" covenant and therefore the Law (the Torah) flowing from it following the nature and conditions of such agreements. It became null and void at his death. The two covenants did not coexist, for without the cessation of the Sinaitic Covenant God would not be free to enter into the New Covenant, for it contained a marriage provision as well. The Sinaitic Covenant, construed as a form of marriage agreement, also made it possible for God to divorce the house of Israel (Jeremiah 3:8). This dissolution of the marriage was sufficient in itself to discontinue the Sinaitic Covenant as to the house of Israel. As to the house of Judah, the death of Jesus of Nazareth brought the agreement to a permanent end. See also Sinaitic Covenant Terminated.

--editor

Ark of The Covenant under Golgotha?

Regarding your question from writer Knut Synnes inquiring of someone discovering the Ark of The Covenant under Golgotha: I believe the source of this story can be found on a website called Ron Wyatt's Biblical Treasures.

There is a rather detailed story on the site about Mr. Wyatt and his sons being allowed to excavate in the Golgotha (my recollection is that they claim "the Golgotha" was found in an overlooked rubbish or dump site) area perhaps ten or so years ago (maybe longer, I don't remember). He claims to have discovered the postholes for public-execution "cross" setup, and a crack near one of these holes in the bedrock. After much digging he claims to have discovered a hidden entrance to a room or cave beneath, which contained the Ark, and that this Ark had what he assumed to be blood stains on it. They closed their dig and have never revealed the exact entrance location to the discovery. Mr. Wyatt apparently had a number of explorations in the middle east and claims several other discoveries. One of which was the location of the "real Mount Sinai", Jabal Al Lawz, in Saudi Arabia. This apparently precedes by some time the much- advertised surreptitious visit to Jabal Al Lawz by Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams ( the video tape of this escapade can be obtained from Bible Archaeology, Search and Exploration Institute 800 680-3300). If Wyatt's story is to be believed, he found this site long before Cornuke and Williams. I have no idea of the veracity of Mr. Wyatt's claims, but the web site is interesting reading. He is now deceased, but his sons and his wife apparently maintain a museum related to his discoveries in Tennessee. Anyway, this is offered as a response as to where the information alluded to by your questioner is coming from as a source.

--Tim

Poor Joe, An Observant Jew or the Antichrist?

I think that it is very possible that Joe Lieberman is the Antichrist. The Antichrist must be a Jew (Daniel 11:37 KJV). The phrase "God of his fathers" and every other similar phrase like "God of your fathers, God of their fathers, etc." (a total of 51 times throughout the Bible) are ALWAYS in connection with the God of Israel and NEVER connected to any other god or gods. NEVER. The newer bibles are WRONG for putting "gods of his fathers" in Daniel 11:37.(There are other places as well which imply that the Antichrist is Jewish such as Jesus' statement in John chapter 5 which tells us that the orthodox Jews who rejected him are going to accept the false Messiah. They would never accept a GENTILE as their long awaited Messiah. The Jews know (and you should also) that the expected Messiah has to be a Jew!)

Ok, now that that's out of the way: The Antichrist gets 3 1/2 years of power (Rev. 13).Our President gets 4 years. If Gore gets elected and then dies after about 6 months (July of 2001) that would leave Lieberman with the remaining 42 months. That would fulfill Revelation 13. Daniel 11:20 describes the predecessor of the Antichrist. It says that he will end up dying after a short time. This would fit in perfectly.

If Gore gets elected, Lieberman would be the first Vice-President to actually fit the description of an antichrist in 1st John chapter 2.(denying that Jesus is the Christ, he is antichrist). Every President and Vice-President so far have all claimed to be Christians. Lieberman is an orthodox Jew who rejects Jesus. He is an antichrist according to 1 John chapter 2.If Lieberman does become President, the orthodox Jews will probably look at him as their long awaited Jewish Messiah riding to victory on the democratic donkey (Zech. 9:9) ! The Jewish translations of Zechariah 9:9 change the word "salvation" to "victory". So, he comes in VICTORY in their eyes, NOT with salvation as in our Christian Bible translations. The orthodox Jews expect their Messiah to rule the modern day Roman Empire. They would probably proclaim Lieberman as Messiah if he has anything to do with the rebuilding of the Temple. Daniel chapter 11 says that the Antichrist doesn't get the "honor of the kingdom" (the top seat in the kingdom) but he ends up getting in by flatteries. Gore picked Lieberman in order to flatter the American people and show them just how inclusive the Democrat party can be, and if Lieberman's the Antichrist, YOU CAN'T GET ANY MORE INCLUSIVE THAN THAT!!! Also, Daniel 11:17-19 may be describing Bill Clinton. (This is the leader right before the one who dies an untimely death, ---that is, Gore) It says that he corrupts a young woman and that she doesn't stand on his side (Liewinski). It also says that he has reproach (shame) on him.

So, if I am correct, then we are to expect the following:

1. Gore will win the coming election (this HAS TO occur in order for my view to be true).

2. Gore will be known for raising taxes. (Hebrew: "he causes an exacter to pass over" --- Maybe he'll put taxes on the internet or something? Democrats are known for raising taxes.)

3. Gore will then die an untimely death. ("neither in anger or in battle", ---possibly a health problem)---Gore would have to die about 6 months into his first term (July of 2001). The exact date of Lieberman's starting point would be July 11th)Subtract 42 lunar months [exactly 1260] days from when Gore's first term would end (Dec 31, 2004) and you come up with July 11th of 2001 as Lieberman's starting point.

4. Lieberman becomes President and fulfills the remainder of Daniel. (from 11:21 onward) I would keep a very close eye on Lieberman.

Just recently his 2nd cousin Rabbi Lieberman got killed in Israel while defending "Josephs tomb". Put Lieberman (the Rabbi) and Joseph (the tomb) together and you get Joseph Lieberman (Just something extra to think about.) If he does become President, I can easily see him getting revenge on the Palestinians somehow. I believe that the President of the USA represents the king of the North and the head Arab leader in the middle east represents the king of the South. Maybe Saddam Hussein.

--Sal Conte

This argument is either a joke or a classic example of eisegesis, that is reading into biblical text what one wants to believe rather than reading out of the text in context. As far as the Bible itself goes, there are only three texts that deal explicitly with this evil ruler-the book of Daniel, Paul's letter of II Thessalonians, and the book of Revelation. None of these picture the Antichrist as Jewish--far from it!

Daniel 11:36-40 deals with a political leader. This ruler will "consider himself greater than any god" and speak horrendous things against the God of Israel, invading the Holy Land, capturing Jerusalem, and oppressing the Jews. All biblical scholars know the model here is the notorious Antiochus Epiphanes, the Greek-Syrian ruler who oppressed Israel during the time of the Maccabees (165 BCE). His defeat is celebrated at Hanukkah. Antiochus, as the original archetype of the Antichrist, is surely about as non-Jewish as you can get!

In the second passage the apostle Paul alludes to this very text of Daniel when he offers his own interpretation regarding the arrival of this figure (II Thessalonians 2:3-11). He is to "sit in the Temple of God, claiming that he himself is God." Paul clearly has the actions of the Roman Emperor Caligula in mind here, who attempted to do just that in CE 41--ordering his own statue to be set up in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. At the time II Thessalonians was written all eyes were focused on the emperor Nero, who was expected to behave in similarly mad ways. Again, it is unmistakable that Paul does not have in mind a figure who would be Jewish.

The book of Revelation states the most about this evil figure of history, with "Rome" written all over the various descriptions of his reign of terror. His mysterious identifying number is 666 and the title Nero Caesar, spelled in Hebrew neron kasar which has numbers associated with each letter of the alphabet, adds up to just that sum. The standard Roman numerals--I, V, X, L, C, D, when added up, also total 666. The Antichrist does attack Jerusalem, and oppresses the people of God, but he rules from a city set on Seven Hills that controls the whole earth-clearly Rome. The writer of Revelation, like Daniel and Paul, understands the final oppressor as a Gentile-on the model of an Antiochus, a Caligula, a Nero, or a Domitian-who did oppose Jews and Christians.

None of these Bible texts offer the slightest possibility that the Antichrist is understood to be a Jew. For more information read the editorial by James D. Tabor.

--editor

Is Jesus God?

Jesus is not God, the bible clearly states that he mentioned God as his Father, why in the world would he pray to himself, and in the model prayer state ' our father'. And I'm not in the school of thought that it's oh, so a mystery that it's not meant for mere man to understand. The word of God was written precisely to de-mystify himself and be known by his earthly children as to who he is what his purposes are.

--dzsd

The teaching of the apostles was that Jesus was indeed God. Their writings claim that Jesus is the eternal Word, through whom and for whom God created all things. They taught that before his human birth, he existed eternally with God and as God (John 1:1-2, 1:14; Revelation 1:8). They held that God created everything in the universe by and through Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3). For the first Christians Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah, sent from God to be humanity�s Savior and redeemer (John 1:29; 3:15-17; Acts 4:12). They believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, engendered in the human flesh of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18�25; Luke 1:34�35).

The nature of God separated Jews and Judeo-Christians in the early years of Christianity. Paul held that Jesus was a stumbling block to unbelieving Jews. "For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (I Corinthians 1:23-24 NASB).

--editor

YHWH and Allah, One and the Same? 

With reference to your lead article on the website in 'Biblical Archaeology' magazine regarding the violence in Palestine, the statement is made: "Judaism and Islam are mutually incompatible religious systems -- YHWH and Allah are not the same God." How can you derive the one statement from the other?

Christian Arabs worship Allah the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (blessed be His name!). Christians believe that He is the same as the YHWH of Israel's prophets, as also does the Qur'an, quite emphatically.

Did I misread your intention? It is certainly true that the conservative elements in both "religious systems" are incompatible, but to state that these are therefore two different gods is NOT true religiously, as far as both Christian and Islam teaching is concerned, and it is certainly NOT true as far as the pre-Islamic history of Arabia is concerned.

--Lloyd Thomas, Cape Town

The word God can mean many different things to reasonable people. Christians claim to worship a monotheistic deity they refer to phonetically as God but some of them unknowingly worship false deities they believe is the true God of the Bible. The apostles taught that these deities are none other than manifestations of Satan, the god of this world, and as a result their religions are vain and demonic. Worshipping Satan and calling him God does not change the fact that Satan is not the true God of the Bible.

You indicate that Allah is the standard Arabic word for God, derived from Il�h the North Arabian longer form of El, predating Islam. Nevertheless, when people speak of God and claim their concept of God as the Creator and the one and only true God does not make the deity they worship the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Simply because they claim and declare their Jesus (often pronounced Gee-zazz) or their deity as the God of the Bible does not make it so. There is no God but one (I Corinthians 8:4) but there are thousands of counterfeit religions in the world, many of them masquerading as authentic Christianity, using the words Jesus of Nazareth, God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Similarly, the deity of Christian Arabs is not the deity of Islam. The phonetics may be the same but not the theological concept.

Our original point was that the deity worshipped by Jews and Muslims is not one and the same, irrespective of the use of the identical language, for their deity or in reference to the same Scriptures. The controlling evidence lies not in linguistics but in theology. In this case the Islamic concept of the deity they worship and the way of life that it entails as opposed to the deity Jews worship and the Jewish way of life. The nature of the three great monotheistic religions is that God is one but the question is which one? Those called by God and indwelled by the Holy Spirit have no doubt which is the true God and which are the counterfeits.

--editor

You Don't Believe Very Much

Just scanned through your section WHAT WE BELIEVE, and it seems that you don't believe very much. It would do you well to look into the scriptures a little more and do more study into the names of the father and the son. Their names are forever. YAHWEH the father and YESHUA the son and their names are forever. YAHWEH IS THE FATHERS NAME, and will remain his name forever. He remains the same yesterday today and forever. When Yeshua comes he is not coming to institute some new law. It will be the same law he kept when he was here on the earth. The Greeks have done a wonderful job on the new testament in hiding the name of Yeshua, the only name whereby we may be saved. The Greeks have substituted the name with the name Zeus. The letter J was not added to the English language till the 1700's. Prove all things, and if they are not true then don't print them on your site for all to read.

--Hank Hines

Sorry you don't like our statement of fundamental beliefs even though they come from God's Word. Well, we decided to revisit it and make some adjustments. We recognize that reasonable people can differ on the meaning of the Scriptures under the best of circumstances. At least we gave scriptural authority for those beliefs and will continue to refine our writing. Where, however, is your evidence? All we see in your e-mail is, in today's language, spin. The thrust of your argument reads like the sacred names heresy.

--editor

Our Words Screw Up?

You are going to screw up a lot of people's thoughts on God when you go against what the Bible says. IT says that there was nothing before God created everything and the Earth was bare before He created any beings. Get your facts straight.

--Kaerobani

We agree there was nothing but God before God created something, but where in the Bible do you find that the earth was bare? You don't. There was a time, however, when there were no lifeforms on the earth--millions of years ago when it was in the process of cooling down.

--editor

Questions & Answers

Please feel free to submit short questions. We reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be in the public interest. Click here to submit a question to the editor.

Divorces among Christians

Matthew 5:31-32. Your comment? I believe many divorces among Christians and others are caused by greed, abuse - emotional and physical - and many other reasons in addition to fornication. Does verse 32 mean it is acceptable to divorce and remarry for fornication only? I am not trying to start a discussion, or argument I would like to know you opinion.

--Vernon Rio

Some people interpret this passage as applying to fornication only. In other words the marriage was fraudulent in its inception. In such a case the usual legal rule is that the injured party can elect to be bound or to annul the marriage. Before the 1950s in the USA this was the general rule in divorce cases. Today it is no-fault dissolution of marriage.

Other people argue that the word in Greek translated fornication in the KJ includes conduct that we understand as adultery or fornication. In this understanding the aggrieved party would be free to put away the mate for adultery according to Jesus' words.

In either case Jesus addressed a group of unconverted Jews still bound to the Sinaitic Covenant and its Law of Moses. This makes any applicability to Christians difficult because it removes the teaching from its original context. The New Covenant was not applicable until after Jesus' death and the Acts 2 coming of the Holy Spirit (creation of the Church). The Law of Christ is a wholly different matter than the Law of Moses.

You might want to take a look at I Corinthians 7:8-16. The rule of law here appears to revolve around what a believer or an unbeliever is by definition. If a believer is one indwelled with the Holy Spirit then the converted party can put away an unbelieving mate under certain circumstances. I have known professing believers whose conduct (failure to support their family, physical and emotional abuse, repeated adultery, incest) is wholly inconsistent with conversion. In such cases the unbelieving partner, according to the apostle Paul (not the Lord as he says) can be put away and the believer is free to remarry. So-called believers who would connive to put away their mates are by definition not believers.

--editor

What happened to the Ark of the Covenant?

I was wondering if you guys know anything interesting about the Ark of the Covenant. Do you have any theories about it? Or if it was taken by Egyptians when they raided Jerusalem?

--James Kaerobani

The ark remains lost. It was lost even in Jesus' day. No one really knows when, how, or why it disappeared. Click here to view our answer to a similar question.

--editor

Were the Ten Commandments Found?

I have a friend who believes that the ten commandments (the original stone tablets written by God) have been found. I have tried to find proof, one way or the other, but have had no luck. Any information you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

--LaMarr Anderson

The original stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments were kept within the ark. The ark remains lost and with it the tablets. If they were found we would all hear about it. The problem is that you cannot really prove a negative but only show the improbability of it. Why not place the burden on your friend to produce the evidence?

--editor

The Second Coming

Do you think we will see the second coming in the near future? The European Union is developing fast. Where will the antichrist come from, Europe, Asia, the U.S., what biblical evidence is there?

--Pradip Joshi

Not in the near future, but it could occur in the lifetime of people now living, for there are important biblical prophecies that must be fulfilled before that time. Many Christians believe that the Third Temple must be built first and that there will be a rapture that will remove them from the world before the Great Tribulation. The latter was not the teaching of the apostles. It is a regrettable heresy read into the New Testament giving many people a false sense of security and an incorrect view of prophecy and biblical Christianity. The doctrine is of recent origin and was not a teaching of the Church in its first 1500 years of history. The Bible suggests that the antichrist will be a European leader claiming to be a Christian. Read our comments above on Poor Joe.

--editor

Was Herod Antipas a Jew?

Can you please answer this question for me? Am I right in assuming that Herod Antipas was a Jew and for this reason and as a descendent of Judea, the king of Galilee? Thank you

--Susy Woods

Herod Antipas, called Herod the tetrarch in the New Testament, was a Jew as the term was understood in Herodian times. He was the son of Herod the Great by Malthace and became the king of Galilee through succession on the death of his father Herod the Great.

--editor

Biblical Languages

I have a question about something in one of the articles on your site, this was the comment: The dominant language of the Roman empire was Latin, but its use was predominately in the West. The koine, meaning "common," Greek was spoken throughout the Eastern portion of the empire and in much of the West. While Aramaic was a common language of the Syro-Palestine region it was of limited consequence in the Roman Empire.

Of even less consequence was classical Hebrew, which had so fallen from use that it was archaic and relegated to formal religious matters. From the vantage point of CE 68 it was likely seen to be too limited as a result of the then-raging First Jewish Revolt and its probable consequences. Thus Hebrew was impractical, Aramaic was limiting, and Latin was far too removed. Yet Greek was used extensively throughout the Eastern portions of the empire.

My question is "when did this change?"

--A. Braxas

Language is dynamic and is always changing. From time to time languages become extinct. Scholars believe that the Jewish people adopted the language of the Babylonians when in captivity and brought Aramaic with them when they returned to Eretz Israel at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Hence, the prevailing view is that Aramaic was their primary language at the time of Herod and Jesus. Some Israeli scholars argue that Mishnaic Hebrew was the common spoken language by Judean Jews in the first century CE not Aramaic.

--editor

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often