Introduction
This reflection revisits the Council of Nicaea through Israel’s covenantal lens, contrasting the conciliar confession “Light from Light” with its later Constantinian distortion. It argues that Nicaea’s Christology remains kosher when re-read in continuity with Pharisaic, Davidic, and Netzar traditions that reveal Yeshua Sar ha-Panim—the Prince of the Presence—as the living bridge between Israel and the nations.
⸻
This reflection revisits the Council of Nicaea through Israel’s covenantal lens, contrasting the conciliar confession “Light from Light” with its later Constantinian distortion. It argues that Nicaea’s Christology remains kosher when re-read in continuity with Pharisaic, Davidic, and Netzar traditions that reveal Yeshua Sar ha-Panim—the Prince of the Presence—as the living bridge between Israel and the nations.
⸻
Metaphysics and the Problem of the Western Canon
While I was a student at Reformed Theological Seminary–Orlando, R. C. Sproul resigned in protest over Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I recall him saying Rome took “five hundred years to forge its Christology”—to which I added, “and fifteen hundred years to systematize its soteriology.” His admiration for Thomas Aquinas reinforced the metaphysical scaffolding that still defines the Western canon.
While I was a student at Reformed Theological Seminary–Orlando, R. C. Sproul resigned in protest over Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I recall him saying Rome took “five hundred years to forge its Christology”—to which I added, “and fifteen hundred years to systematize its soteriology.” His admiration for Thomas Aquinas reinforced the metaphysical scaffolding that still defines the Western canon.
The issue is not Aquinas himself, but what happens when Aristotelian metaphysics becomes the load-bearing wall of faith. Such an edifice tends toward sacramentalism and an imperial “deep history” homecoming to Rome—canonizing what the Rabbis call Edom. Revelation and redemption must stand above this. As Aquinas warned in De Ente et Essentia, following Aristotle: “A small mistake in the beginning becomes a great one in the end.” If theology starts metaphysically rather than covenantally, its finish line will tilt toward empire.
⸻
⸻
Nicaea’s “Kosher” Core
Nicaea’s confession—“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God”—was forged to defend the deity of Christ, not to sever Him from Israel. Read through a Jewish lens, its affirmation is kosher: the Light the Creed celebrates is the same Light that shone from God’s Face (Psalm 36:9) and walked with Israel as the Sar ha-Panim (Exod 23:20-21; Isa 63:9).
Nicaea’s confession—“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God”—was forged to defend the deity of Christ, not to sever Him from Israel. Read through a Jewish lens, its affirmation is kosher: the Light the Creed celebrates is the same Light that shone from God’s Face (Psalm 36:9) and walked with Israel as the Sar ha-Panim (Exod 23:20-21; Isa 63:9).
Long before philosophers debated ousia and hypostasis, Israel had encountered that Face—the mediating Presence of YHWH. To call Jesus the Messiah is to confess that this same Presence took flesh. Nicaea defended it doctrinally; Israel had lived it liturgically. When theology was later absorbed by empire, creed turned from covenantal life to metaphysical system.
⸻
Israel — The Cultivated Olive Tree
Among all Paul’s metaphors, none surpasses the olive tree. Calling Israel hē kallielaios—the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:17)—he retrieved Jeremiah’s image: “The Lord once called you a green olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit” (Jer 11:16). This tree is no institution but a living covenant, tended by God and rooted in His faithfulness.
Among all Paul’s metaphors, none surpasses the olive tree. Calling Israel hē kallielaios—the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:17)—he retrieved Jeremiah’s image: “The Lord once called you a green olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit” (Jer 11:16). This tree is no institution but a living covenant, tended by God and rooted in His faithfulness.
The Root and the Sap
The root is not ethnicity but promise—the covenant of Abraham, renewed at Sinai, confirmed in Messiah. Grafting, not replacement: “Do not boast over the branches… you do not support the root, but the root supports you.” The nations are grafted in, not planted anew.
Edom and the Return of Humility
In the vision of Torat Edom, redemption begins when Christendom lays down triumphalism and learns to receive.
In the vision of Torat Edom, redemption begins when Christendom lays down triumphalism and learns to receive.
The Two Olives of Zechariah
When the natural and grafted branches are reconciled, the lamp of the world will burn bright again. Zechariah 4 shows two olive trees feeding the menorah—a vision of priestly and royal anointing joined in one flame. The prophet asks, “What are these two olive branches that drip golden oil?” and hears, “These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of all the earth.”
When the natural and grafted branches are reconciled, the lamp of the world will burn bright again. Zechariah 4 shows two olive trees feeding the menorah—a vision of priestly and royal anointing joined in one flame. The prophet asks, “What are these two olive branches that drip golden oil?” and hears, “These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of all the earth.”
In covenantal pattern, the natural olive (Israel) and the grafted branches (the nations) both channel the same oil—the Ruach ha-Kodesh that keeps the lamp of testimony burning. Paul’s midrash in Romans 11 renews this vision: reconciliation, not replacement, restores illumination. When humility replaces boasting and the wild branch draws sap from the cultivated root, the menorah becomes eschatological—Jew and Gentile together bearing the Light of the Presence (Shemen Zayit Zakh, “pure olive oil,” feeding the lamp of the world).
The Tree as Temple
This tree is the living temple, the dwelling of the Shekhinah among His people; Yeshua Sar ha-Panim stands at its heart. The prophets saw a sanctuary not made with hands, rising from covenantal soil. Ezekiel’s river flows from beneath it; John’s Apocalypse calls it the tree of life in the midst of the city. Its trunk is covenant; its sap, Spirit; its fruit, mercy seasoned with justice. Every branch shares the same anointing oil that once consecrated Aaron’s beard (Ps 133). Humanity becomes again the dwelling place of the Name.
This tree is the living temple, the dwelling of the Shekhinah among His people; Yeshua Sar ha-Panim stands at its heart. The prophets saw a sanctuary not made with hands, rising from covenantal soil. Ezekiel’s river flows from beneath it; John’s Apocalypse calls it the tree of life in the midst of the city. Its trunk is covenant; its sap, Spirit; its fruit, mercy seasoned with justice. Every branch shares the same anointing oil that once consecrated Aaron’s beard (Ps 133). Humanity becomes again the dwelling place of the Name.
The Eschatological Harvest
Micah 4’s nations streaming to Zion and Isaiah 2’s house of prayer converge here. The olive tree blossoms into the harvest of the ages—peoples ascending the mountain to learn Torah from the King-Priest. The plowshare replaces the sword; vine and fig tree shelter the weary. Grace is the inner sweetness of obedience—the honey of the Word flowering within the law of liberty (Rev 22:2). Law and love, Israel and the nations, covenant and creed all find coherence in this living tree whose leaves heal the nations.
⸻
Micah 4’s nations streaming to Zion and Isaiah 2’s house of prayer converge here. The olive tree blossoms into the harvest of the ages—peoples ascending the mountain to learn Torah from the King-Priest. The plowshare replaces the sword; vine and fig tree shelter the weary. Grace is the inner sweetness of obedience—the honey of the Word flowering within the law of liberty (Rev 22:2). Law and love, Israel and the nations, covenant and creed all find coherence in this living tree whose leaves heal the nations.
⸻
Old Faith, Not New Religion
Between Judaism and Christianity lies a history riddled with strife and conflation. Christians must recover themselves as heirs to an old faith—not a novelty “initiated” by Christ against Israel, nor a replacement people invented by later dispensationalism. Nationalism and racialism regress from citizenship in heaven. True fulfillment theology honors a rabbinic lineage that validates the gospel’s Jewish coherence—not a Constantinian invention.
Between Judaism and Christianity lies a history riddled with strife and conflation. Christians must recover themselves as heirs to an old faith—not a novelty “initiated” by Christ against Israel, nor a replacement people invented by later dispensationalism. Nationalism and racialism regress from citizenship in heaven. True fulfillment theology honors a rabbinic lineage that validates the gospel’s Jewish coherence—not a Constantinian invention.
If we want real foundations around the Incarnation, begin at Sinai. Israel received Torah—written and oral—within a living covenant. The idea that the Temple’s fall meant divine rejection of the Jews is both historically and theologically bankrupt.
The Reformation never learned to trust observant Jews. Luther’s rants and Calvin’s curses are indefensible; even Calvin envisioned an ethnic future more than Paul’s cultivated olive tree. Yet Scripture’s own categories remain covenantal: Ezrah (by descent) and Ger (faithful sojourner). Better a believing Ger than an unbelieving Ezrah.
Are evangelicals still enthralled to Rome — or to Modernity? The Reformation neither defended nor trusted observant Jews; Luther’s rants and Calvin’s curses are indefensible. Calvin, like many, anticipated an ethnic future more than the “cultivated olive tree” (Rom 11). But what, precisely, is a “true Jew”—lineage alone, or covenantal fidelity?
The triumph of a Hebrew-only imagination in some quarters severed mission from the multilingual reality of Israel’s Scriptures. Jesus spoke Aramaic and likely Greek; the Septuagint (LXX) is part of God’s mission to the nations, with the Maccabean corpus embedded in that legacy—not as proto-Zionism, but as a religious revival (Megillah 9b; Yerushalmi Megillah 1:9; on Greek’s privileged role: “the beauty of Yefet in the tents of Shem”). When later Protestantism elevated a narrow “perspicuity” of the Masoretic Text (and “Textus Receptus” culture) detached from this larger matrix, it unknowingly set the stage for modern reductionisms.
Even so, voices within Christendom saw Israel’s ongoing witness. When Louis XIV asked Blaise Pascal for proof of God, Pascal replied: “Why, the Jews, my king.” In the Pensées he invokes Israel more than a hundred times, confessing—not the God of philosophers—but “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” He surely meant religion more than race; yet the historical intertwining of Jewish ethnicity and covenantal identity remains complex and inescapable.
Christian Hebraists like Franz Delitzsch grasped halakhic sensitivities better than many modern Messianics; converts such as Johann Kemper and Adolph Saphir wrestled with the Hebrew/Jew question but still within a triumphalist church frame. Serious dialogue waited for the Moravians.
Exile, Power, and the Mixed Multitude
Modernity’s will to power (Nietzsche) mocked revelation as weakness. The answer is not to make Christianity a “new religion,” but to restore it as a proselyte faith grafted into Israel’s covenant—an answer Rome missed when caricaturing evangelicals as fideists. The so-called “400 years of silence” never existed: Qumran protested a corrupt Jerusalem; Herod’s Idumean house—Edom’s line—bound Judea ever tighter to Rome. Yet even in exile, Torah organized a mixed multitude (erev rav), ha-gerim—resident sojourners bound by covenant (Exod 12:38; Ps 87). Zion’s gates (shaʿar, cognate with sharia) still hint at juridical inclusion for the nations within Israel’s praise.
⸻
Modernity’s will to power (Nietzsche) mocked revelation as weakness. The answer is not to make Christianity a “new religion,” but to restore it as a proselyte faith grafted into Israel’s covenant—an answer Rome missed when caricaturing evangelicals as fideists. The so-called “400 years of silence” never existed: Qumran protested a corrupt Jerusalem; Herod’s Idumean house—Edom’s line—bound Judea ever tighter to Rome. Yet even in exile, Torah organized a mixed multitude (erev rav), ha-gerim—resident sojourners bound by covenant (Exod 12:38; Ps 87). Zion’s gates (shaʿar, cognate with sharia) still hint at juridical inclusion for the nations within Israel’s praise.
⸻
Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Nations
Genesis 6:4’s “sons of God” culminate in Luke’s genealogy with “the Son of God.” Paul’s Second-Adam theology (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15) unites Jew and Gentile in Messiah. Hebrews calls pilgrims to the eternal Son through Moses’ twin pattern: Qahal authority within Israel, Derekh Eretz for the nations.
Genesis 6:4’s “sons of God” culminate in Luke’s genealogy with “the Son of God.” Paul’s Second-Adam theology (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15) unites Jew and Gentile in Messiah. Hebrews calls pilgrims to the eternal Son through Moses’ twin pattern: Qahal authority within Israel, Derekh Eretz for the nations.
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) did not invent minimalism—it reaffirmed the ancient Noahide path for Gentiles, echoed by Augustine (Contra Faustum 32.13 ) and even Qur’an 42:13’s “sharia of Noah.” The nations are welcomed without Judaizing.
When Jesus said, “Do what the Scribes and Pharisees say” (Matt 23:2-3), He affirmed Pharisaic halakhah while condemning hypocrisy. Among those schools, Hillel’s mercy prevailed over Shammai’s severity. Paul, trained under Gamaliel, stood with that stream.
When Jesus said, “Do what the Scribes and Pharisees say” (Matt 23:2-3), He affirmed Pharisaic halakhah while condemning hypocrisy. Among those schools, Hillel’s mercy prevailed over Shammai’s severity. Paul, trained under Gamaliel, stood with that stream.
In Matthew 16, “Cephas/Peter” and “petra” form a rabbinic pun: Jesus redeems Cephas—a sinner—as a petter chamor ‘first born’ (Exod 13:13), the donkey redeemed by a lamb. Even the Alexamenos graffito in Rome—mocking a crucified man with a donkey’s head—unwittingly testifies to this inversion at the heart of the gospel.
⸻
⸻
The Tangle of Texts — and What Nicaea Did (and Did Not) Do
For two millennia confusion has persisted over whether Yeshu ha-Notzri refers to Jesus of Nazareth or other figures. The Teliya Ye.Sh.U. tradition—a Jewish “Second Acts” preserved in fragments—was later distorted in Toledot Yeshu tales. Scholars such as C. A. Evans, D. Rokeach, Herford, Klausner, and Ziffer trace these overlaps.
For two millennia confusion has persisted over whether Yeshu ha-Notzri refers to Jesus of Nazareth or other figures. The Teliya Ye.Sh.U. tradition—a Jewish “Second Acts” preserved in fragments—was later distorted in Toledot Yeshu tales. Scholars such as C. A. Evans, D. Rokeach, Herford, Klausner, and Ziffer trace these overlaps.
Against that tangled backdrop, Nicaea (AD 325) did not mark a “parting of the ways,” but a watershed:
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.”
The term homoousios held; Athanasius prevailed over Arius. Yet Constantine soon fused theology to power—commissioning fifty Bibles and erecting basilicas on confiscated holy sites (see Eutychius of Alexandria, Patrologia Graeca 111.1012–13).
“Old” and “New Testament” labels can obscure Jeremiah’s promise of a new covenant—not replacing Israel but renewing her. Later Miaphysite streams (Armenian, Syriac, Coptic) preserved a more apophatic, doxological Christology—resonant with Adam Kadmon, Sar ha-Panim, and theophany language—without succumbing to dualist speculation.
⸻
Scripture, Mission, and the Multilingual People of God
Reducing the faith to “Creation – Fall – Redemption – Consummation” may teach structure, but the nations need not be Judaized to honor Israel’s vocation. The Septuagint and Pentecost (Acts 2) show that Torah’s wisdom was always for the world. As mentioned beforeYeshua Sar ha-Panim even appears in Jewish Machzorim—a powerful point of convergence.
⸻
Scripture, Mission, and the Multilingual People of God
Reducing the faith to “Creation – Fall – Redemption – Consummation” may teach structure, but the nations need not be Judaized to honor Israel’s vocation. The Septuagint and Pentecost (Acts 2) show that Torah’s wisdom was always for the world. As mentioned beforeYeshua Sar ha-Panim even appears in Jewish Machzorim—a powerful point of convergence.
True antisemitism is anti-HaShem-ism—rejection of the Name more than hostility to a race. Let love be our new commandment (John 13). The gospel remains what the Talmud calls the end of ungodliness—the easy yoke of the Sermon on the Mount, reaffirmed for Gentiles at Jerusalem’s council.
Read Galatians and Romans within their Jewish context (see Mark Nanos, Reading Galatians within Judaism). Beware “spiritual Israel” constructs that flatten Edom and Ishmael.
⸻
⸻
So — What Did Nicaea Give Us?
Nicaea gave us a crucial yet kosher confession: the Son shares the Father’s very being.
Nicaea gave us a crucial yet kosher confession: the Son shares the Father’s very being.
What it did not give us was the Constantinian merger of throne and altar—that came later and still shadows the faith. Our call is not to baptize empire but to receive the Jewish Messiah who is the Way (Derekh Eretz), Truth (Torah fulfilled), and Life—for Israel and the nations together.
If we keep that vision, the canon becomes witness, not cage. The Septuagint belongs in our hands; every tongue carries the Light outward. The Council of Jerusalem remains our Gentile charter. Across history, the Lord has kept Gerim at His gates—from the Judeo-Christians and God-Fearers to the Notzrim and Netzarim.
Seventeen centuries later, the Nicene faith still stands—best when rooted in Israel’s story, guarded against imperial capture, and extended to the nations as the easy yoke of the crucified and risen Son.
⸻
⸻
A Prayer for Renewal
Lord of the Covenant, Light of the Nations,
Rekindle within Your Church the fire of first love—
The Light that shines not from empire but from mercy,
Not from hierarchy but from the Face that forgives.
May we, grafted into Israel’s Root, bear fruit worthy of Your Name.
Let creed and covenant embrace again, that Your Presence may dwell among us.
Amen.
⸻ ⸻ ⸻
Lord of the Covenant, Light of the Nations,
Rekindle within Your Church the fire of first love—
The Light that shines not from empire but from mercy,
Not from hierarchy but from the Face that forgives.
May we, grafted into Israel’s Root, bear fruit worthy of Your Name.
Let creed and covenant embrace again, that Your Presence may dwell among us.
Amen.
⸻ ⸻ ⸻
Further Comments & Resources for Study
Judaizers / Yeshua Sar haPanim / Esavite Nation:
WikiNoah: Judaizers • Yeshua Sar HaPanim • Esavite Nation.
WikiNoah: Judaizers • Yeshua Sar HaPanim • Esavite Nation.
The “Trail of Blood” lineages (select groups): Magharians, Melchizedekians, Tazigane, Athiganoi, Paulicians, Passagians, Ebionite Gnostics (one of three types), Tsabians, Tarsakan, Alevis, Messianists, Bogomils, Albigensians, Arnoldists, Waldensians—plus many who moved back and forth to Africa across the centuries, and all the forgotten. Video overview: The Trail of Blood.
Judeo-Christians (overview): WikiNoah: Judeo-Christians.
“Pseudo-gnostic Independent Baptists” (descriptor): A phrase for Messianic Noahides (Hebrew Messianists) across the ages. Noahide Judaism often retrieves people drifting toward Gnosticism—engaging certain themes (e.g., Jesus patibilis) while correcting others (e.g., Luciferianism). The result is no longer Gnosticism, though it may look superficially similar.
Messianic Noahides working among such groups were often maligned for trying to remain faithful to the NT and for attempting to convert “Eliphas Levi”–style esotericists. In short: “Pseudo-gnostic Independent Baptists” are a sane counterpart to sects that embraced the “Dark Side” (e.g., the Hermetic Rosicrucian Order of the Golden Dawn).
Rebbe Yehoshuah Minzaret: WikiNoah: Rebbe Yehoshuah Minzaret (redirects to article).
Halakha (overview): WikiNoah: Halakha.
Modern Sanhedrin attempts: WikiNoah: Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin.
Blasphemy (Noahide): WikiNoah: Prohibition of Blasphemy.
Mark D. Nanos on Galatians (within Judaism):
Interview (Israel Bible Center): YouTube.
Four Views debate (with Thomas Schreiner, etc.): Zondervan Enhanced Edition.
(Nanos aligns with a robust HaGerim framing; he’s not pushing Orthodox Judaism, and his exchange with Schreiner underscores the need for better contextual framing on Judaizers.)
Ger Tzedek: WikiNoah: Ger Tzedek.
Jewish views of religious diversity: WikiNoah.
Proper Jewish genealogy (video): YouTube.
On atonement frames (Anselm vs. Christus Victor) and gospel prescription:
Calvin on Isaiah: John Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah (in Calvin’s Commentaries 8:269).
Judaism and languages (not anti-Greek): Acts 2; and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits Tanakh translation into Ancient Greek, “the beauty of Yefet in the tents of Shem” (Megillah 9b; Yerushalmi Megillah 1:9), Jerusalem Talmud tradition.
Moravian dialogue: Peter Vogt, “Count Zinzendorf’s Encounter with Judaism and the Jews: A Fictitious Dialogue from 1739,” Journal of Moravian History 6 (2009): 101–119.
Christian Cabala note: Intentionally omits the large stream via Italian humanists Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola.
Religious conversion (Noahide context): WikiNoah: Religious conversion.
God-fearers / Sabians:
A. Fratini & C. Prato, I Sebòmenoi (tòn Theòn): Una Risposta all’Antico Enigma dei Sabei (Rome, 1977).
WikiNoah: God-Fearers and the Identity of the Sabians.
Kaftorite Nation: WikiNoah.
Essenes: WikiNoah.
Edom / Idumeans: WikiNoah: Edom and Idumeans.
On “Jew” (Yehudi) as praise/thanksgiving, and Ezrah/Ger: Etymology rooted in Gen 29:35 (todah); caution against seed-doctrines in nationalist readings. Judaism recognizes two covenantal groupings from Sinai: Ezrah (maternal descent recognized by Scribes/Pharisees) and Ger (believer whose mother is not recognized as Jewish). Better a believing Ger than an unbelieving Ezrah. Within Orthodoxy there are two normative paths: Scribe/Pharisee Halakhah (Qehal) or Noahide/Ger Derekh Eretz (Edah). Avoid elitism; practice kiruv to restore the lost. (General synthesis; see related WikiNoah entries above.)
R. Jacob (Yakov Yisrael) Emden: WikiNoah. See also Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee, for Emden’s letter on Paul.
Rashi / Rambam: WikiNoah: Rashi and Rambam.
Menachem Mendel Schneerson / Chabad: WikiNoah: Schneerson and Chabad Lubavitch. See also Ashkenazite Nation.
Cathars context: Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980). (Primary sources; note “Cathars/Khazars” name echo, without implying identity.)
Eucharist for Messianic Noahites / Righteous among the nations:
WikiNoah: The Eucharist for Messianic Noahites and Hassidei Umot HaOlam.
Hebrew page: המשולמים.
Council of Jerusalem / Seven Commandments (Noahide):
WikiNoah: Council of Jerusalem and Subdividing the Seven Commandments.
Augustine on Noahide obligations: Contra Faustum 32.13 (Acts 15:29; Eph 2:11–22), noting an “easy observance” for Gentiles, shared with Israel, typologically prefigured in Noah’s Ark.
Qur’anic echoes (Noahide frame): Sharia defined once as the “Law of Noah” (Q 42:13). “Seven oft-repeated” (Q 15:87) and al-mesani (Q 39:23) suggest a prior, repeated corpus; bay‘ah in Q 60:12 enumerates core prohibitions (idolatry, theft, sexual immorality, murder, slander/blasphemy, disobedience in ma‘ruf). Some Muslim scholars accept “seven laws of Noah” as a plausible referent. “Mesani” parallels Hebrew mishnah (“repetition”).
— See Abraham Geiger, Judaism and Islam (1896; F. M. Young, trans.).
— WikiNoah: Ma’amad.
— Patricia Crone & Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge, 1977).
— Gavin McDowell, Ron Naiweld, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, Diversity and Rabbinization (Open Book, 2021).
— Hakim Yossi Koen interview (CIRA International / Al-Fadi): YouTube.
Magi / Pharisees (entries): WikiNoah: Mages; Pharisees.
Was Paul’s presence at Stephen’s stoning deliberate?
Halakhic procedure required the condemned to be stripped (m. Sanh. 6:4), but in Acts the executioners strip themselves—a legal irregularity (cf. Deut 20:18–19; Susanna 55, 59, 62; m. Makkot 1:6; m. Sanh. 11:6; t. Sanh. 6:5; 9:5; 14:17; Sifre Deut 190:4–5). The deeper fault line is Hellenism: Greek bodily discipline (gymnasium = “to exercise naked”) exacerbated intrajewish tensions (Acts 6:1; 9:29). Greek-speaking Jews (“Hellenists”) complained against Hebrew-speaking Jews. The church appointed deacons to serve emerging Messianic Noahides while apostles engaged Greek-born Jews. Paul then navigated both worlds as the mission expanded beyond its Jewish cradle.
Harvey Falk on Jesus and Hillel: Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee (Paulist, 1985; Wipf & Stock reprints, 2003). Amazon listing.
Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago, 1998).
Petter Ḥamor (donkey firstborn) and Peter pun: WikiNoah: Petter Chamor. Also general background: Wikipedia: Petter ḥamor.
Peter–Paul controversy (general): Cultural backdrop and mockery motif: Wikipedia: Alexamenos graffito
Constantine and post-Nicene coercion (pork at Passover): Eutychius of Alexandria as cited by Bellarmino Bagatti; Patrologia Graeca 111.1012–13.
On Romans 9 (Piper) and historical matrix: John Piper, The Justification of God (1983). The narrow “Jacob/Esau” reading often neglects Esau/Edom and Ishmael threads and the Claudian expulsion context shaping Rom 11’s warning to grafted-in Gentiles (Rom 11). See Suetonius, Claud. 25.4; Acts 18:2; Orosius, Hist. Adv. Pag. 7.6.5; Botermann (1996).
On “Yeshu ha-Notzri” conflations (Egyptian prophet, Ben Stada/Pandera):
Josephus, J.W. 2.13.5 §§261–263 (Whiston trans.).
C. A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” in Studying the Historical Jesus (Brill, 1994).
Scholarly debate: D. Rokeach (Tarbiz 39, 1969–70), Herford, Klausner, Goldstein, W. Ziffer (JBL 85, 1966), Maier, Meier (A Marginal Jew)—on whether Ben Stada/Pandera originally referred to Jesus.
The Teliyat Ye.Sh.U. (Ma‘aseh Ye.Sh.U., Talui, Toleh, Asham Talui) as a Jewish “second Acts” behind later Toledot Yeshu variants; noted by Rashi (on תליית ישו) and Hagahot Baruch Frankel (580). Its Nittel-nacht reception lore, “666” motifs, and later corruptions are part of a polemical, often confused textual afterlife—handle cautiously.
Notzrim / Netzarim / Apollos (entries):
WikiNoah: Notzrim • Netzarim • Apollos.
Jean Daniélou: Theology of Jewish Christianity (Westminster, 1977). Useful but often inattentive to Hillel/Shammai distinctions and Maccabean diffusion dynamics.
Philo (note via Daniélou SJ excerpt): Philo’s Alexandrian stance vs. Palestinian particularism; nephew Tiberius Alexander at Titus’s side in AD 70—standard narrative, but beware sweeping claims (e.g., “Essenes were swept along”). The Teliya frames Pharisees as suffering for not separating from Zealots/Sadducees/Notzrim who went to war; post-70 Pharisees then “did something” and commissioned the NT (claim within that tradition). Rabbi Akiva’s Bar Kokhba enthusiasm (135) and later caution illustrates the period’s volatility.
Methodological note: This paper argues for a coherent, received tradition of “grafting in the nations” across Tanakh and the LXX—against fragmentary approaches. Recent scholars (e.g., Hans Boersma, Brant Pitre) offer valuable insights but often underplay Pharisaic lineages (Hillel/Shammai) and Second-Temple legal/eschatological nuance—risking the imposition of later Christian frames on an earlier, fluid matrix.
Rebbe Yehoshuah Minzaret: WikiNoah: Rebbe Yehoshuah Minzaret (redirects to article).
Halakha (overview): WikiNoah: Halakha.
Modern Sanhedrin attempts: WikiNoah: Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin.
Blasphemy (Noahide): WikiNoah: Prohibition of Blasphemy.
Mark D. Nanos on Galatians (within Judaism):
Interview (Israel Bible Center): YouTube.
Four Views debate (with Thomas Schreiner, etc.): Zondervan Enhanced Edition.
(Nanos aligns with a robust HaGerim framing; he’s not pushing Orthodox Judaism, and his exchange with Schreiner underscores the need for better contextual framing on Judaizers.)
Ger Tzedek: WikiNoah: Ger Tzedek.
Jewish views of religious diversity: WikiNoah.
Proper Jewish genealogy (video): YouTube.
On atonement frames (Anselm vs. Christus Victor) and gospel prescription:
The tension within evangelicalism between substitution/sacrifice (Cross-event) and resurrection-centric expressions is real. No rejection of valid theological distillations is intended; rather, the call is to place them within the whole counsel of God from Sinai.
Jesus’ reading of Is 61 in Luke 4:14–30 announces favor now and reserves judgment for later (cf. Is 63)—not edited out, as some progressives imply. This also reflects Jesus’ likely use of the LXX and affirms the Romaniote minhag, with Judeo-Greek serving as a textual deposit for Messianic Qehal Pharisees while Aramaic addressed the Lost Sheep.
The Sermon on the Mount’s “peacemakers” (Meshulam / Noahites) frames the Gospel’s call to the wise (cḥokhmah) and the thirsty (ḥassidut). Hence the “easy yoke” (Matt 11:29–30) versus the heavy yoke (Acts 15) and the Seven Mitzvot for the nations vis-à-vis the 613 for Israel. Questions around the Lamb of God and Deut 21:23/Gal 3:13 remain in Jewish dialogue—some midrashim even depict Isaac as sacrificed and raised—worthy of fuller treatment elsewhere.
Calvin on Isaiah: John Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah (in Calvin’s Commentaries 8:269).
Judaism and languages (not anti-Greek): Acts 2; and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits Tanakh translation into Ancient Greek, “the beauty of Yefet in the tents of Shem” (Megillah 9b; Yerushalmi Megillah 1:9), Jerusalem Talmud tradition.
Moravian dialogue: Peter Vogt, “Count Zinzendorf’s Encounter with Judaism and the Jews: A Fictitious Dialogue from 1739,” Journal of Moravian History 6 (2009): 101–119.
Christian Cabala note: Intentionally omits the large stream via Italian humanists Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola.
Religious conversion (Noahide context): WikiNoah: Religious conversion.
God-fearers / Sabians:
A. Fratini & C. Prato, I Sebòmenoi (tòn Theòn): Una Risposta all’Antico Enigma dei Sabei (Rome, 1977).
WikiNoah: God-Fearers and the Identity of the Sabians.
Kaftorite Nation: WikiNoah.
Essenes: WikiNoah.
Edom / Idumeans: WikiNoah: Edom and Idumeans.
On “Jew” (Yehudi) as praise/thanksgiving, and Ezrah/Ger: Etymology rooted in Gen 29:35 (todah); caution against seed-doctrines in nationalist readings. Judaism recognizes two covenantal groupings from Sinai: Ezrah (maternal descent recognized by Scribes/Pharisees) and Ger (believer whose mother is not recognized as Jewish). Better a believing Ger than an unbelieving Ezrah. Within Orthodoxy there are two normative paths: Scribe/Pharisee Halakhah (Qehal) or Noahide/Ger Derekh Eretz (Edah). Avoid elitism; practice kiruv to restore the lost. (General synthesis; see related WikiNoah entries above.)
R. Jacob (Yakov Yisrael) Emden: WikiNoah. See also Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee, for Emden’s letter on Paul.
Rashi / Rambam: WikiNoah: Rashi and Rambam.
Menachem Mendel Schneerson / Chabad: WikiNoah: Schneerson and Chabad Lubavitch. See also Ashkenazite Nation.
Cathars context: Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980). (Primary sources; note “Cathars/Khazars” name echo, without implying identity.)
Eucharist for Messianic Noahites / Righteous among the nations:
WikiNoah: The Eucharist for Messianic Noahites and Hassidei Umot HaOlam.
Hebrew page: המשולמים.
Council of Jerusalem / Seven Commandments (Noahide):
WikiNoah: Council of Jerusalem and Subdividing the Seven Commandments.
Augustine on Noahide obligations: Contra Faustum 32.13 (Acts 15:29; Eph 2:11–22), noting an “easy observance” for Gentiles, shared with Israel, typologically prefigured in Noah’s Ark.
Qur’anic echoes (Noahide frame): Sharia defined once as the “Law of Noah” (Q 42:13). “Seven oft-repeated” (Q 15:87) and al-mesani (Q 39:23) suggest a prior, repeated corpus; bay‘ah in Q 60:12 enumerates core prohibitions (idolatry, theft, sexual immorality, murder, slander/blasphemy, disobedience in ma‘ruf). Some Muslim scholars accept “seven laws of Noah” as a plausible referent. “Mesani” parallels Hebrew mishnah (“repetition”).
— See Abraham Geiger, Judaism and Islam (1896; F. M. Young, trans.).
— WikiNoah: Ma’amad.
— Patricia Crone & Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge, 1977).
— Gavin McDowell, Ron Naiweld, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, Diversity and Rabbinization (Open Book, 2021).
— Hakim Yossi Koen interview (CIRA International / Al-Fadi): YouTube.
Magi / Pharisees (entries): WikiNoah: Mages; Pharisees.
Was Paul’s presence at Stephen’s stoning deliberate?
Halakhic procedure required the condemned to be stripped (m. Sanh. 6:4), but in Acts the executioners strip themselves—a legal irregularity (cf. Deut 20:18–19; Susanna 55, 59, 62; m. Makkot 1:6; m. Sanh. 11:6; t. Sanh. 6:5; 9:5; 14:17; Sifre Deut 190:4–5). The deeper fault line is Hellenism: Greek bodily discipline (gymnasium = “to exercise naked”) exacerbated intrajewish tensions (Acts 6:1; 9:29). Greek-speaking Jews (“Hellenists”) complained against Hebrew-speaking Jews. The church appointed deacons to serve emerging Messianic Noahides while apostles engaged Greek-born Jews. Paul then navigated both worlds as the mission expanded beyond its Jewish cradle.
Harvey Falk on Jesus and Hillel: Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee (Paulist, 1985; Wipf & Stock reprints, 2003). Amazon listing.
Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago, 1998).
Petter Ḥamor (donkey firstborn) and Peter pun: WikiNoah: Petter Chamor. Also general background: Wikipedia: Petter ḥamor.
Peter–Paul controversy (general): Cultural backdrop and mockery motif: Wikipedia: Alexamenos graffito
Constantine and post-Nicene coercion (pork at Passover): Eutychius of Alexandria as cited by Bellarmino Bagatti; Patrologia Graeca 111.1012–13.
On Romans 9 (Piper) and historical matrix: John Piper, The Justification of God (1983). The narrow “Jacob/Esau” reading often neglects Esau/Edom and Ishmael threads and the Claudian expulsion context shaping Rom 11’s warning to grafted-in Gentiles (Rom 11). See Suetonius, Claud. 25.4; Acts 18:2; Orosius, Hist. Adv. Pag. 7.6.5; Botermann (1996).
On “Yeshu ha-Notzri” conflations (Egyptian prophet, Ben Stada/Pandera):
Josephus, J.W. 2.13.5 §§261–263 (Whiston trans.).
C. A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” in Studying the Historical Jesus (Brill, 1994).
Scholarly debate: D. Rokeach (Tarbiz 39, 1969–70), Herford, Klausner, Goldstein, W. Ziffer (JBL 85, 1966), Maier, Meier (A Marginal Jew)—on whether Ben Stada/Pandera originally referred to Jesus.
The Teliyat Ye.Sh.U. (Ma‘aseh Ye.Sh.U., Talui, Toleh, Asham Talui) as a Jewish “second Acts” behind later Toledot Yeshu variants; noted by Rashi (on תליית ישו) and Hagahot Baruch Frankel (580). Its Nittel-nacht reception lore, “666” motifs, and later corruptions are part of a polemical, often confused textual afterlife—handle cautiously.
Notzrim / Netzarim / Apollos (entries):
WikiNoah: Notzrim • Netzarim • Apollos.
Jean Daniélou: Theology of Jewish Christianity (Westminster, 1977). Useful but often inattentive to Hillel/Shammai distinctions and Maccabean diffusion dynamics.
Philo (note via Daniélou SJ excerpt): Philo’s Alexandrian stance vs. Palestinian particularism; nephew Tiberius Alexander at Titus’s side in AD 70—standard narrative, but beware sweeping claims (e.g., “Essenes were swept along”). The Teliya frames Pharisees as suffering for not separating from Zealots/Sadducees/Notzrim who went to war; post-70 Pharisees then “did something” and commissioned the NT (claim within that tradition). Rabbi Akiva’s Bar Kokhba enthusiasm (135) and later caution illustrates the period’s volatility.
Methodological note: This paper argues for a coherent, received tradition of “grafting in the nations” across Tanakh and the LXX—against fragmentary approaches. Recent scholars (e.g., Hans Boersma, Brant Pitre) offer valuable insights but often underplay Pharisaic lineages (Hillel/Shammai) and Second-Temple legal/eschatological nuance—risking the imposition of later Christian frames on an earlier, fluid matrix.
