The Ebionites were universally bashed by the church fathers as heretics. “[T]hey received the name of Ebionites…for this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews” (Eusebius Church History III.27.6).
Epiphanius reports that the Ebionites reported they got their name due to their voluntary enlistment into an apostolic commune devoted to an extreme form of non-materialism. “They themselves, if you please, boastfully claim that they are Poor because they sold their possessions in the apostles’ time and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and went over to a life of poverty and renunciation; and thus, they say, they are called “poor” by everyone.” (Epiphanius Panarion I.17.2).
Is there Biblical evidence that Jesus referred to his religious group as the Poor? I would argue, yes.
The original Christianity during Jesus’ lifetime and during the earliest phase of the apostolic age was that of a communal group like the Essenes where members contributed all of their money and possessions into a collective pot and property was held in common.
“Now all who believed were together, and possessing all things in common. They sold their property and possessions, and divided them up to all, as anyone had need.” (Acts 2:44)
“for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid (the proceeds) at the apostles’ feet, and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (Acts 4:34-35)
Individual followers of Jesus did not retain any money or possessions, even food was portioned out communally: “there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists (Greek-speaking Jews), because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution (of food)” (Acts 6:1), and when asked to resolve this dispute, the “twelve (apostles) summoned the multitude of disciples and said “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.””(Acts 6:2)
“And Joses…having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:37)
The usage of the phrase “laid at the apostles’ feet” is unique to the Ebionites and to the form of Christianity practiced in the early chapters of Acts – I know of no other Christianity that uses this terminology.
Look at the Gospel of John:
“Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the Poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the Poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. But Jesus said, “Let her alone… For the Poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”(John 12:3-8).
Judas was outraged that Mary had withheld expensive anointing oil worth a year’s worth of wages when she was expected to sell everything and donate all proceeds into the Ebionites’ money pot that he was in charge of (and hence, could siphon money from), just as Peter was outraged that “Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the proceeds” (Acts 5:1-2).
Two thousand years ago, the ‘initiation fee’ for entering Jesus’ religious order was to sell off all of one’s material possessions and to donate the proceeds to the Ebionites – even the gospels confirm this.
“And Jesus … said to him, “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the Poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”” (Mark 10:21). The same phrase is repeated almost verbatim in Matthew 19:21 and Luke 18:22.
Perhaps it makes more sense now why Jesus said, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:24-25). Also see Matthew 19:23-24 and Luke 18:24-25. Discipleship at the expense of all of one’s material possessions is a big price to ask. The more you have, the harder it is to part from it all.
In exchange for giving away all of one’s worldly goods and leaving one’s family to join an itinerant Messianic movement, the Poor were promised a big reward at the “regeneration” (Matthew 19:28) – at the universal “resurrection of the dead, both just and unjust” (Acts 24:15) when the dead “will rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (John 11:23): “Assuredly I say to you…everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.” (Matthew 19:29)
Elsewhere in the Bible, there are indications that the Jerusalem church referred to itself as the Ebionites:
“And when James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the Poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.” (Galatians 2:9-10)
The original form of the Beatitudes pulled from the Q source was arguably a prayer by the Ebionites for the Ebionites. Someone who “worship(ed) God in Spirit” (Philippians 3:3) arguably interpolated the benediction in the Gospel of Matthew as it doesn’t match the Lukan Beatitude.
“Blessed are you Poor for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20)
“Has God not chosen the Poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom” (James 2:5)
“Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called” (James 2:7).
I would wager that the noble name that the author of the epistles of James is referring to in James 2:7 is the same name he mentioned two sentences earlier: “the Poor” (James 2:5). The Ebionites’ opponents in the orthodox branch of the church certainly poked fun at them for their name.
“this dreadful serpent with his poverty of understanding” (Epiphanius I.17.1)
“because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ” (Eusebius, Church History III.27.1)
The “poor and mean opinions concerning” Jesus the Ebionites held are summarized below:
The Ebionites believed “that Christ was conceived by sexual intercourse and the seed of a man, Joseph” (Epiphanius Panarion I.30.2,2). “They use the Gospel according to Matthew only” (Irenaeus. Adverses Haereses I.26.2,2), though Epiphanius adds that “what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel, but is corrupt and mutilated” (Epiphanius Panarion I.30.13,2). The Ebionites “repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the Law” (Irenaeus. Adverses Haereses I.26.2,2), and by extension, “reject all the epistles of the apostle (Paul)” (Eusebius III. 27.4). “They practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the Law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.” (Irenaeus. Adverses Haereses I.26.2,3).
The Jerusalem church during the early apostolic period was arguably composed primarily of Ebionites. The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were noted as “all of them belonging to the circumcision” (Eusebius IV.5.4) and that “their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles” (Eusebius. Church History IV.5.2).
The Christology of the Ebionities was quite theologically different from that of the proto-orthodox church that consolidated itself into Roman Catholicism. However, the Ebionites were arguably the original ‘Christians’ and their writings form a core backbone of the canonical gospels, Acts, the epistle of James, the epistle of Jude, the letter to the seven churches, and anywhere it says “anyone with ears to hear, let them hear.” Their writings, though, are arguably overlaid with the interpolations and redactions of later authors belonging to competing sects of early Christianity. It was the wildly successful, though divergent, ministries of Paul and Apollos that ultimately altered the course of Christianity in history and reduced the Ebionites to the ranks of heresy.
There is so much we wish we knew about Jewish Christianity. What was the Jerusalem community like in the years leading up to the First Revolt? Was there some sort of post-crucifixion Galilean Jesus community? My perception is that for scholars a direct line between the groups that came to be known as Ebionites and the original disciples of Jesus would be almost impossible to demonstrate but it seems likely that there were similarities in outlook. One can only note the irony that the groups whose practice most resembled that of the historical Jesus and his disciples later became considered heretics!
Nothing short of time travel can confirm definitively if the earliest Christians were Ebionites, but I would argue that the Bible does give a sneak peak into what the Jewish Christian community looked like during the Apostolic Age.
“For I say to you that unless your righteousness (in the Law) exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20).
Given that the scribes and Pharisees were known to be some of the strictest Jews of the time period, one could expect Jesus’ earliest followers to be even stricter in their observance of the Mosaic Law, BUT without any of the additional ordinances imposed by the Oral Torah (which would have significantly lightened the burden of compliance).
Within the gospels, it does look like Jesus required a tighter observance of the Law than required by the written code.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” (Matthew 5:21-22)
“Furthermore, it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31-32).
Jesus is in essence ‘fencing the Torah’ – if you want to use the technical term – by setting up a guard rail around a commandment, and thus ensuring one never even comes close to breaking it.
I would argue that there is textual contamination within the gospels concerning Sabbath observance and that Jesus’ original group actively observed the Sabbath because Luke let drop that “the women who had come with Him from Galilee” (Luke 23:55) interrupted his burial as “the Sabbath drew near…and they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:54-56) before returning early in the morning on the next working day to complete the task. It doesn’t make sense for Jesus’ mother and all of his female disciples to halt his burial rites unless it was for something they believed strongly in.
Following His crucifixion, it looks like Jesus’ disciples visited the Temple daily: “So continuing daily with one accord in the Temple” (Acts 2:46).
Notably, his congregation consisted of a sizeable number of prophets:
“Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also” (Acts 15:32)
Peter “fell into a trance. He saw the skies open” (Acts 10:10-11)
“Philip the evangelist…had four virgin daughters who prophesized” (Acts 21:8-9)
It looks like the original Jewish Christians initially only practiced the baptism of John and not the baptism of Paul.
“Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.
Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance…
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:1-5)
First of all, it is not possible for Jesus’ disciples to not have known about the Holy Spirit – the Holy Spirit makes an appearance in the third sentence of Genesis. These disciples were unfamiliar with being baptized with the Holy Spirit, instead of with water. Secondly, John the Baptist was a Hemerobaptist, otherwise recorded in the Clementine Homilies as a “Day-Baptist” (Clementine Homilies 2:23). Hemerobaptists were noted for “being baptized every day in spring, fall, winter and summer…[and] alleged there is no (eternal) life for a man unless he is baptized daily with water, and washed and purified from every fault.” (Epiphanius Panarion I,17.1.2-3). John’s “baptism… [was] not for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness of some sins, but for the purification of the body, since the soul had previously been thoroughly cleansed by righteousness (in the Law)” (Josephus. Antiquities 18.5.2). Repentance means you feel sorry for doing something wrong; forgiveness is something else entirely. These are different baptisms.
The Ebionites’ version of “the so-called Travels of Peter written by Clement … (notes that)… he (Peter) was baptized daily for purification as they are” (Epiphanius I.II.15.1-3).
On baptism as well, the Ebionites religious practices resemble the earliest, pre-Pauline disciples of the Apostolic Age.
I would go as far as proposing that Paul was attacked for inventing his own baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:13-16 and that he responded in the epistle to those accusations by saying that he himself had physically baptized only Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas… a response that would have infuriated his attackers as it would have been viewed as a deflection (assuming that such an accusation was made in the first place, of course).
James 2 says “listen my brethren … you have dishonored the poor”
Here James is neither including himself nor the beloved brethren he’s writing to as part of “the poor”.
Irenaeus in against heresies discusses two heretical sects. 1) The marcionites who believe the god of the old testament was evil and that christ came to abolish the law and prophets. They use mutilated version of Luke and Paul. And 2) the ebionites, “who use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law”.
At least one of these two sects must be heretical. However neither the marcionites as a heretical sect of the ebionites nor the ebionites as a heretical sect of the marcionites makes sense.
Both though would make sense as heretical sects of NT catholic orthodoxy.
I would argue that there is textual contamination within the gospels concerning Sabbath observance and that Jesus’ original group actively observed the Sabbath because Luke let drop that “the women who had come with Him from Galilee” (Luke 23:55) interrupted his burial as “the Sabbath drew near…and they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:54-56) before returning early in the morning on the next working day to complete the task. It doesn’t make sense for Jesus’ mother and all of his female disciples to halt his burial rites unless it was for something they believed strongly in.
I wouldn’t draw any historical conclusions from the burial narrative, as the whole thing is very suspect.
@brenmcg
I would argue that James 2:6 may have been textually contaminated back in the first century when the followers of Paul were fighting it out with the pro-circumcision Jerusalemites. When you look at the sentence following it, the author goes back to referring to the beloved brethren as being the victims who were dragged into court by the rich.
James 2:5-7 NKJV
“Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the Poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the Poor. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?
I would propose that the original wording was “The rich, however, have dishonored the Poor.”
I Corinthians 4:8 NKJV
“You are already full! You are already rich!”
I Corinthians 6:6-7 NKJV
“But brother goes to court against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you have lawsuits against one another.”
If the Ebionites called themselves the Poor, it’s not inconceivable they referred to their opponents as the Rich. I don’t necessarily agree that all the saying in Q were original to Jesus, I would argue that Q was a tranche of writings, prayers, parables, sayings, etc. belonging to the Ebionites that was released into public circulation to both propagate their own beliefs and to address what they considered to be heresies.
The Four Woes that complimented the Lukan Beatitudes may have been deliberately removed from the Matthean Beatitudes because one of Paul’s followers felt threatened by that passage.
Luke 6:24-26 NKJV
“But woe to you who are rich, For you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full, For you shall hunger.
Woe to you who laugh now, For you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets.”
Concerning the orthodoxy of Catholicism, one can definitely argue that there are doctrinal tenets within Catholicism that are Biblically unsupportable. Catholicism maintains that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, but the Gospel of Matthew records that “Joseph…did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son” (Matthew 1:25).
“[T]o come near” and “to know” are sometimes Hebrew idioms for having sexual relations.” [1]
“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain” (Genesis 4:1)
Before she gave birth, “Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”” (Luke 1:34)
According to Matthew 1:25, Joseph had sex with Mary after she gave birth to Jesus. One can argue that the Gentiles followers that consolidated themselves to form the proto-orthodox church obtained the Scriptures of other Christianties and interpreted them in the language that they were most familiar with, as best as they could. Concerning Mary’s perpetual virginity though, Catholicism misinterpreted. Thus, one could argue that Catholics, and by extension, Irenaeus were the heretics.
The canonical gospels do not all agree. The gospel of Mark and the gospel of John do not have a nativity story. I don’t believe the writers forgot to mention it. I believe they belonged to Christianities that didn’t believe in the virgin birth.
John the Baptist is considered the Elijah in the Gospel of Matthew: “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come” (Matthew 11:13).The author of the Gospel of Luke goes further and strengthens the claim by having the angel Gabriel declare the not-yet-born John to be Elijah by saying “He will go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).
In contrast, the author of the Gospel of John refutes the claim by having John deny it altogether: “Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you”…And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.”” (John 1:19-21).
One can make the argument that the proto-orthodox aggregated the writings of multiple, theologically divergent Christianities, without fully comprehending the theology of any. The gospels in circulation in the first century were not complimentary gospels: they were competing gospels.
[1] Bivin, David; Blizzard, Ray. Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus. Pg. 63.
@Robert
So just for some background, Jews in the first century avoided interacting with or eating at the same table as Gentiles because it was thought that Gentiles were unclean because they ate unclean foods. As Peter stated in Acts, “You know how unLawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation” (Acts 10:28). Elsewhere, Peter experienced backlash following his revelation and eating with Cornelius: “when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” (Acts 11:2).
I take Acts seriously as the “first 15 chapters of Acts show some of the same textual evidence as the Synoptic Gospels of being originally communicated in Hebrew”[1], though I acknowledge that the edits made by the hand of the author of the Gospel of Luke was heavy. The version of the Acts of the Apostles currently included in the Bible was historically contested as Epiphanius notes “They (the Ebionites) speak of other Acts of Apostles in which there is much thoroughly impious material and from them arm themselves against the truth in deadly earnest.”(Epiphanius. Panarion I.II.16.6). The question remains, was the canonical version of Acts adulterated or was the Ebionites’ version of Acts adulterated? Both sides had motive to make alterations.
Long after Jesus’ crucifixion, Peter reported that he had not eaten any unkosher food: “I have never eaten anything defiled or unclean” (Acts 10:14). However, because of his vision of the 4 footed animals in Acts 10:10-16, Peter concluded that “God has shown me that I should not call any man defiled or unclean” (Acts 10:28) and that may have made him and those who believed in his prophecy amenable to eating with Paul’s Gentile converts.
Galatians notes that Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jews withdrew from eating with Paul’s Gentile followers in Galatians following the arrival of “certain men from James” (Galatians 2:2) – most likely Judas and Silas from Acts 15:27 – arguably because these emissaries from the Bishop of Jerusalem carried a missive from the Jerusalem Council with “decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4) ordering believers to “abstain from food sacrificed to idols” (Acts 15:29) – food that Paul permitted his followers to eat.
“I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of food, you are no longer walking in love.” (Roman 14:14).
The version of this letter preserved in the Clementine Homilies uses the phase “to abstain from the table of devils, that is, from food offered to idols” (Clementine Homily 7 VIII:1). If true, then the author of Acts abbreviated the letter or summarized it in a way that would make sense to Gentile audiences. The term “abstain from the table of devils” arguably broadens the decree from not just eating food sacrificed to idols, but also avoiding eating at the tables of those who ate meat sacrificed to idols.
“[W]hen they (James’ emissaries) came, he (Peter) withdrew and separated himself” (Galatians 2:12) because the Jerusalem Church had ordered followers ‘to abstain from the table of devils.’ As Paul allowed his followers to eat meat sacrificed to idols, the table of his followers qualified as ‘the table of devils’ because their tabletops would have been populated with meat sacrificed to idols. Their rejection angered Paul and he lambasts Peter and the other Jewish Christians for trying to “compel Gentiles to live as Jews” (Galatians 2:14) and that “by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified” (Galatians 2:16). Avoiding meat sacrificed to idols counts as doing the work of the Law. Though the Jewish Christian crowd resembled Gentiles in many ways because they followed none of the precepts of the Oral Torah, the Jerusalem Church was – arguably – Written Torah observant, certainly concerning meat sacrificed to idols at the very least.
If you read carefully, you’ll notice that there is extensive dialogue within Paul’s epistles where he permitted his followers to eat meat sacrificed to idols (so long as they didn’t ask if it had been sacrificed to idols or not).
“So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.… [thus] we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:4-8). Paul granted members of his congregation strong in his faith the “liberty” (1 Corinthians 8:9) to “eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake” (1 Corinthians 10:25), presumably questions about whether or not the animal had been sacrificed at the altar of a pagan god as meat markets were often stocked with meat leftover from temple sacrifices to local deities. “For one who believes, he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables” (Romans 14:2). “If any of those who do not believe (presumably a pagan) invite you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’s sake.” (1 Corinthians 10:27).
To be fair, Paul did try to take a nuanced approach to the Jerusalem Church’s Jewish sensitivities. He instructs his congregation that “if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’s sake…”Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other [the Jewish Christians]” (1 Corinthians 10:28-29). However, it appears that taking a ‘what I don’t know can’t hurt me’ approach to eating meat sacrificed to idols was not enough to mollify the Jewish Christians as Paul bemoans “For why is my liberty judged by another’s conscience?” (1 Corinthians 10:29) and “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” (Romans 14:4).
The dietary schism wrought over diverging guidance concerning meat sacrificed to idols (among other things) within the early church was deep, with Paul warning James’ adherents, “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” (Romans 14:20).
I would argue that this schism never healed and that by the time the epistles to the Corinthians were written, the Jerusalem Church had outright cut off Paul and his followers from the fold because they “defile the flesh (with meat sacrificed to idols) and reject authority (of the Bishop of Jerusalem and his emissaries)” (Jude 1:8). It appears that James tried to contain the heresy of Paul by instructing followers not to trust any apostle or teacher of Christ unless they had a letter of recommendation from him confirming the accuracy of their teachings.
“Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him. For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ, – unless, I say, he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us. (Clementine Recognitions XXXV)
It is of note that in 2 Corinthians Paul was missing a letter of recommendation.
“Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God” (2 Corinthians 3:1-3)
“Am I not an apostle? … Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you.” (1 Corinthians 9:1-2)
One does have to take a moment to note that all of Paul’s original followers and their theological descendants were pushed into the ranks of heresy by the proto-orthodox because they continued eating meat sacrificed to idols and prophesizing.
[1] Bivin, David; Blizzard, Roy. Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective. Pg. 5.
@brenmcg
Alternatively, if James 2:6 is treated as an extension of the argumentation in James 2:1-4 where the author is accusing the brethren of favoritism within its ranks, then James 2:6 can be considered an admonition for individual members’ disappointing bias that reflects badly on the group.
“Have you not shown partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts” (James 2:4)
If so, then “But you have dishonored the Poor” (James 2:6) can be interpreted as “You, however, have brought shame to the group as a whole” or “You, however, have disgraced the Ebionites” much as someone can dishonor their family through behavior that is out of line.
When “a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in” they show partiality “among yourselves” by giving the rich man a good seat and the poor man no seat at all.
So the rich and poor can both be part of the assembly. James is saying to treat both the same.
The claim that James is defining himself and his fellow believers as “the poor” is a false one.
That would be true only if James 2:2-3 was a peshat teaching where the meaning of the verse is interpreted literally. But Jesus teaches only in parables, why would it be unexpected for James to speak allegorically? Was Nathan talking about a poverty stricken man’s ewe lamb? Was Jotam referring to talking trees?
Members of the apostolic community described in Acts didn’t retain any valuable possessions. That was the price of discipleship. There were no gold rings or fancy clothes for James’ congregants to wear to an assembly for there to be “partiality amongst yourselves”(James 2:4), because everything had already been sold off and they were all equally broke.
Is James not the bishop of Jerusalem? Is he not the “bishop of bishops…[of] all churches anywhere” (Epistle of Clement to James 1:1)? Is he not the leader of the religious order, whether to the Poor or to the Rich? If internal “wars and fights (erupt) from among you” (James 4:1) over disagreements concerning the Mosaic Law, is James not allowed to use the term “among yourselves” in James 2:4?
If members of his congregation found Paul’s gospel more appealing than the Poor’s religious communism, is James not allowed to admonish them for favoring one party over another just because one side appears nicer on the surface?
Did God not promise the Poor a resurrection and to make them princes?
I Samuel 2:8 NKJV
“He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He has set the world upon them.”
To be clear, only the members of the apostolic church that sold all their belongings and laid them at the feet of the apostles were arguably referred to as the Poor: “for the Poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:26). The broader church, especially the satellite congregations preaching different gospels, appears to have preferred the term saints (Revelation 8:2, 1 Corinthians 14:33, Colossians 1:4, etc).
And yes, the Poor would have been impoverished. But it looks like even in their poverty they rejected Paul’s material assistance noted in Romans, which was arguably a reconciliation attempt following the idol meat eating fiasco.
“they went forth for His name’s sake, taking nothing from the Gentiles.” (3 John 1:7). The term simony may have originated from this incident.
And it looks like Paul eventually gave up trying to reconcile:
“For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly (because of their injunction against eating food sacrificed to idols), and who glory (boast) in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things.” (Philippians 3:18-19)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)