Dispensation of Grace

[Shimon]

The doctrinal teaching of “The Dispensation of Grace” originated with Marcion. The church echoes what Marcion spoke of, and yet Marcion was considered a heretic by his own Greeks. Even so, the church quotes from the pulpit the very same words that were heretical then.

A generation after the passing of Sha’ul of Tarsus there lived a highly influential church leader named Marcion (ca. 130 CE). “On the one hand, early church leaders condemned Marcion as a heretic (144 CE), but on the other, they were influenced by his theological reflection. Even today Marcion-like ideas continue to circulate, exerting influence in Christian teachings” [Paul, the Jewish Theologian, Brad Young, pp. 33-34]. One of these impressionable ideas was that he stressed calling the Hebrew Bible, “The Old Testament,” indicating that the contents of that book no longer have application for a believer in Yeshua. In addition, Marcion also taught that grace was first revealed in the B’rit Hadasha (“New Testament”) to counteract the legalism taught in the Tanakh.

How much have we been influenced by Marcion? The influence on believers of Bible teachers who have unwittingly expounded Marcion’s thoughts is greater than we think.

-- HaYesod Student Manual, First Fruits of Zion, pg 2.3

Marcion used his misinterpretation of Matthew 5:17 to declare an end to Yeshua’s Torah, when Yeshua’s own words said that He had not come to bring it to an end. Notice in Matthew 5:18 that Yeshua says the words “Verily I say unto you….” The word we translate as the word “verily” is the Hebrew word “Amen.” It means “you can take it to the bank,” “don’t even go there,” “don’t rationalize it, don’t spiritualize it, but take it for what it is.” It is a firm, uncompromisable declaration.

281 amen {am-ane'}

of Hebrew origin 0543; TDNT - 1:335,53; particle indeclinable

AV - verily 101, amen 51; 152

1) firm
1a) metaph. faithful
2) verily, amen
2a) at the beginning of a discourse - surely, truly, of a
truth
2b) at the end - so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled. It was a
custom, which passed over from the synagogues to the Christian
assemblies, that when he who had read or discoursed, had
offered up solemn prayer to God, the others responded Amen, and
thus made the substance of what was uttered their own.
++++
The word "amen" is a most remarkable word. It was transliterated
directly from the Hebrew into the Greek of the New Testament, then
into Latin and into English and many other languages, so that it is
practically a universal word. It has been called the best known word
in human speech. The word is directly related -- in fact, almost
identical -- to the Hebrew word for "believe" (amam), or faithful.
Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute
trust and confidence. – HMM

Marcion taught that the “grace of God” superceded Torah. Well, the Bible is all about grace from Genesis to Revelation. If there was no “grace” before Pentecost, then what was the Garden of Eden? What was Noah’s Ark all about?

Genesis 6:8: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

What about God leading the children of Israel out of Egypt? What about those 10 times they were tested in the wilderness, and failed all ten tests? Did God give up on them?

We’ve been under God’s grace from the very beginning – the word “grace” appears three times more often in the Tanakh than it does in the “New Testament.”

It was Marcion who declared that God had “rejected” His “Old Covenant” even though God had stated in very clear terms “I [am] the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). The scriptures also tell us that God declared the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10). The plan that He set forth from the beginning is the same plan we have today.

Matthew 24:35: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Hebrews 13:8: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever

Marcion declared that the “Old Covenant” was “inferior” to the “new,” and the first canon of the 2nd Century did not include the Tanakh and did not include the writings of John. The “Old Testament” was referred to as a “Book of Wrath” and the New Testament was a “Book of Love.” The body of believers were being taught the “Old Testament” depicted a series of rules and that the “New Testament” depicted “love, forgiveness and grace.” Marcion started a “Two-Diety Principle” because he reasoned that, if there was one God who declared one thing (Old Testament) and another God who declared another thing (New Testament) then there must be Two “Gods.”

Marcion refused point-blank to allegorise the OT text(37) instead he rejected it completely. For him it was the true account of the history of the Jews, but spoke of the Demiurge.(38) Paul, Marcion claimed, was the only true apostle and gathered together ten of his epistles, excluding 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus, from which he carefully removed any ‘Jewish corruptions’

http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Marcion.htm

Marcion's teachings departed from traditional Christianity in a number of ways. Most dramatically, perhaps, Marcion rejected the idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were the same being. Up until then, the traditional Church had considered the Old Testament to be sacred and assumed that Christianity was a fulfillment or continuation of Judaism. Marcion's rejection of that idea affected many different doctrines and beliefs.

Marcion faced an uphill battle with his revolutionary ideas. He faced a pretty obvious problem. For more than 100 years, Christians had been using the Old Testament as Christian Scripture, and even the most sacred documents of Christians referred to and relied heavily on, the Old Testament. The solution for Marcion was to completely reject the Old Testament and establish a canon that de-emphasized Christianity's Old Testament and Jewish roots as much as possible.

Paul, with his focus on free grace, was by far Marcion's favorite Apostle. As a result, he rejected the writings attributed to all the other Apostles and relied on forms of Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline epistles that he redacted. Although a small number of scholars have, from time to time, argued that Marcion may have had access to earlier forms of the gospels (especially Luke), even John Knox, the most prominent promoter of this theory, admits that Marcion intentionally and knowingly excised as much Old Testament and Jewish influence as he could find in the Paulines and Gospel of Luke. "That Marcion, for example, did not have the account of John the Baptist's announcement of Jesus as Messiah or the story of Jesus' temptation is almost certainly to be accounted for by Marcion's omission of these passages. Not only are they inconsistent with Marcion's theological position but (more important) they are also deeply imbedded in the Synotpic tradition, and to explain them as late additions to a Gospel which was already dependent (as Marcion's was) upon that tradition is next to impossible." John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, at 95.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/marcion-layman.html

Eusebius, whom we refer to as the “Father of Church History” wrote this about the teachings of Marcion:

But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets, and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

Here we have Eusebius, “The Father of Church History” stating emphatically that they were “denying the Law and the Prophets” and that by teaching “dispensation of grace”, they had “sunk to the lowest depths of perdition.”

Although Marcion was considered a heretic in his own day, his doctrines nevertheless sowed much confusion among the Christian community of the time. The church, having no training or instruction in the Torah whatsoever, was ill-equipped to handle such issues and straighten out the confusion that Marcion had sown. Although they rejected his Two-Diety Principle, they nevertheless found themselves powerless to answer his Dispensational ideas, and in the end, his "Dispensation of Grace" doctrine was adopted.

EDIT: When I say "church" (with an uncapitalized "e", I am referring to the entire Body of Believers -- NOT "the Catholic Church, whom I designate with a capital "C" -- "the Church.")

I posted the following in another thread, but it bears repeating here, as it relates to the topic at hand:

In what city were believers in Yeshua first called "Christians?" Luke tells us it was in Antioch:

Acts 11:26: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Why is it that the Apostles never referred to themselves as "Christians?"

The Aramaic form of the word “Christian” shows a Hellene or Greek form. “Chrestianos” means “follower of “Chrestos” (with an “e”). “Chrestos” is a proper name, referring to the idol “Chrestos” to which the Greeks felt very much at home in their idol worship, which goes back as far as Alexander the Great. The oldest Christian building which has been discovered was referred to as the “Synagogue of the Marcionites.” It was found on Mount Hermon and reflects Messiah’s title as “Chrestos.” Osiris, the sun-god of Egypt was also referred to as “Chrestos.” Evidence has also been found of a temple of “Chrestos” in Greece which existed 100 years before the birth of Yeshua.

It should be obvious why the apostles never referred to themselves as “Christians.” It seems that the gospel truth went forth from Jerusalem, while some leavened truth went forth from Antioch.


Shimon

 

[SonWorshipper]

VERY nice post Shimon! Can you give me more info on where you found the origin of Chrestianos?

Thank you so much for putting all that time into that post, I really enjoyed reading it. I hope that others see what was "changed" about their faith and come to a better understanding of that foundation, from the beginning of the world!