Defining Apostasy

Via Markus Oehler comes this definition of apostasy from a work by B. J. Oropeza

The phenomenon that occurs when a religious follower or a group of followers turn away from or otherwise repudiate the central beliefs and practices they once embraced in a respective religious community.

The Greek term apostasia simply means rebellion, revolt, and it was not necessarily religious. There is much, however, to commend this definition.

Apostasy in 1 Maccabees

Anyone who is at all familiar with the basic story of the revolt of the Maccabees will not be surprised that the book opens up discussing apostasy. The successors of Alexander, according to the author, "filled the earth with evil" (1 Maccabees 1:9):

In those days [the days of Antiochus Epiphanes] wicked sons came from Israel and persuaded many saying: We will go and make a covenant with the nations round about us, since we have abstained from them many evils have come upon us. And the saying was good in their eyes. And some of the people were pleased and went to the king, and he gave them authority to enact the standards of the Gentiles. And they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the custom of the Gentiles. And they made themselves uncircumcised and apostatized from the holy covenant and joined themselves to the heathen and sold themselves to do iniquity. (1 Maccabees 1:11-15)

So the author sets up the opposition, one can make a covenant with God or with the Gentiles, one cannot keep both. Those who wanted to accommodate the world are depicted as apostatizing from their covenants. Unlike some uses of the verb apostatize in Greek, the apostates are depicted as not revolting against the king, but their covenants. The king, who has already been identified as wicked, gives them authority to do what they want. So, for Maccabees, apostasy may be perfectly compatible with possessing authority. They also have standards, but those standards are those of the Gentiles rather than those deriving from the covenant.

Of course, one of the historical ironies of the Maccabees is that while the Maccabees revolted against a corrupt monarch, they became equally corrupt in their turn. Apostasy is a constant problem.

The Apostasy of Sodom and Gomorrah

The wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah are proverbial. Still, the phrasing of the Targum Onkelos for Genesis 14:4 is amusing:

Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and the thirteenth year they apostatized.

The Aramaic term here, maradw, means to rebel but it also means to apostatize. Jews around the time of Jesus who listened to the Targum would have understood it in that sense, but it is not clear that they would have distinguished between rebellion and apostasy the way we do in English. They seem to have had a clearer notion than we do.

From the January 18th Mormon Odditorium

The editor of the Mormon Odditorium must have been inspired. Here is yesterday's entry:

I recollect when I first began to discern the operation of the spirit of apostacy [sic]. A small company of us started for Zion. One of the company (Norman A. Brown) lost a horse. This man had been baptized for the remission of sins, rejoiced in the light of truth, and started to gather with the Saints; but his horse died. "Now," said he, "is it possible that this is the work of God? If this had been the work of God, my horse would not have died when I was going to Zion." He apostatized, fought against the work of God, and died a miserable, lingering, and unhappy death; and all because of so great a trial as the loss of a horse. Joseph H. Wakefield, who baptized me, after having apostatized from the Church, announced to the astonished world the fact that, while he was a guest in the house of Joseph Smith, he had absolutely seen the Prophet come down from the room where he was engaged in translating the word of God, and actually go to playing with the children! This convinced him that the Prophet was not a man od God, and that the work was false, which, to me and hundreds of others, he had testified that he knew came from God. He afterwards headed a mob meeting, and took the lead in bringing about a persecution against the Saints in Kirtland and the regions around about. (George A. Smith, January 1858, JD 7:112-113.

Cry "Apostasy!" and Let Slip the Dogs of War

The second chapter of Esdras in the Septuagint is remarkable for its compression of history. It begins with Cyrus (585-550 B.C.) allowing the Jews to return and build a temple (1 Esdras 2:1-11 = Ezra 1:1-11). Then it shifts to events in the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC) about a century later (1 Esdras 2:12-26 = Ezra 4:6-24). The third chapter of Esdras begins with the reign of Darius (550-486 B.C.) leaping backward in time. The chronological jumps are disorienting unless one is familiar with some basic Persian history.

During the reign of Artaxerxes, attempts to build the temple were delayed when Rehum and Shimshai wrote to the king saying, among other things:

The Jews have come up from you to us, coming to Jerusalem they have founded the apostate (ἀποστάτιν) and wicked city (1 Esdras 2:14 = Ezra 4:12).

The Aramaic term translated by Greek ἀποστάτιν is mārādtā', which means rebellion or disobedience. The Samaritan leaders accused the Jews of being apostate, when they were actually following an old and established decree of the Persian king. But just as there arose a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph (Exodus 1:8), so these rulers either did not know about the decree (it had been nearly a century) or refused to recognize it and hoped everyone else had forgotten about it. They were temporarily successful and got the work on the temple to stop until the ruler changed (1 Esdras 2:26). The interesting thing is that the Samaritans were actually in rebellion against the earlier royal decree but managed to persuade the powers that be that the Jews were the ones in apostasy rather than themselves. It worked for a time but not in the long run.

Ahaz's Altar

The apostasy of Ahaz has already been mentioned. One aspect that I neglected to cover was his altar.

When Ahaz was in the process of selling out to the Assyrians, he made a trip to Damascus to meet with Tiglath-Pileser III:

10 And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.
11 And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against king Ahaz came from Damascus.
12 And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon.
13 And he burnt his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar.
(2 Kings 16:10–13, KJV)

The previous altar was a crude thing, the stones were unpolished (Exodus 20:25), but it had been in the service of the Lord for a long time and had served well. Ahaz apparently wanted it to follow more in the fashion of the world rather than be distinctively Israelite. He wanted a trendy and polished altar, even if he had to pollute it to get his way.

God let Ahaz have his way but even so no one would consider Ahaz righteous.

Alternate Theories

Almost any historical occurrence can be explained in multiple ways. For example, consider the results of any recent election and the variety of explanations of what caused the election and what it means. Sometimes more than one factor is a work. For ancient history, the amount of information we have is less and the variety of theories that can explain the available information increases. In such a case, a flimsy theory that has no rivals shows a lack of imagination on the part of scholars.

During the reign of Josiah, he renovated the temple (2 Chronicles 34:8-13). During the course of the renovation, workers discovered a scroll of the law of the Lord written by Moses (2 Chronicles 34:14).

Scholars have often equated the scroll with the book of Deuteronomy. To them the philosophy of history in Deuteronomy is similar to that found in Kings, whose history extends to the early part of the Babylonian exile. They therefore conclude that Deuteronomy was written about the same time as Kings, which must be about the time of the exile. Therefore, the scroll that Josiah discovered must be that of Deuteronomy which was written (forged) at the same time.

On the other hand, the philosophy of history in Deuteronomy is also similar to that of the Hittites who disappeared at the time contemporary with the traditional date of Moses. If Deuteronomy was written early, then the rest of the case collapses.

One alternate theory to explain what the discovery of the scroll is to remember that it takes only one generation for a tradition to be lost. As Jeffery R. Holland has pointed out, the Church is only one generation away from apostasy. Manasseh and Amon (Josiah's grandfather and father) were not righteous. There is no reason to think that they paid any attention to the law of Moses or encouraged its study or application. They are an example of a generation that neglected the scriptures. Their example probably spread down the line. Josiah had no positive example and need not have had any knowledge of the written law or any knowledge that the law was written before the discovery of the scroll. Written texts were comparatively rare, and knowledge of them seems to have been comparatively restricted in ancient Judah. So the scroll could have contained the Torah, as has been traditionally assumed, and this is at least as plausible an explanation as the current scholarly fad on the subject.

There are other possibilities that might equally explain the evidence. There is no reason to posit that the scroll was only Deuteronomy or that Deuteronomy was forged at that time. We are limited only by the evidence and our imagination.

Was Josiah Evil?

Margaret Barker has produced a number of insightful pieces, more than I can keep up on. One basic element of Barker's overall thesis that I have always had trouble with is that she assumes that Josiah is an evil man who corrupted the religion and scriptures of ancient Judah. I have never found any evidence to support this key presupposition in Barker's thesis. While I believe that there were corruptions of both the religion and the scripture, I have a hard time seeing that Josiah is the or even a guilty culprit.

My friend, Bill Hamblin, has addressed the issue on his blog and the analysis has now extended to seven parts, which those who are interested may read here:

Parts 1-2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

This is precisely the kind of analysis that Barker needed and still needs to do to support her assertion. Unfortunately, it supports the opposite.

Another Apostasy in Chronicles

To anyone familiar with the history of the kingdom of Judah, it is not much of a surprise that Manasseh

did evil in the sight of the Lord from all the abominations of the nations which the Lord had exterminated before the face of the children of Israel (2 Chronicles 33:2 LXX).

Hezekiah had set an example of what to do and the Chronicler said that he did the "truth" (2 Chronicles 32:1). Manasseh set off in a new direction. Specifically he wanted to imitate the nations around him. He seems to have thought that if he just kept in the middle of the nations round about him neither excelling nor doing much worse, that he would be doing well. The Chronicler ends his discussion of Manasseh's reign by talking about

all his sins and his apostasies (2 Chronicles 33:19 LXX).

The plural form of the word here is unusual since one usually sees the singular in Greek. The Hebrew has the singular and uses the term ma`al signaling treachery or covert betrayal.

So being like everyone else is, in the Chronicler's eyes, apostasy.

More Apostasy in Chronicles

While 2 Chronicles 21 uses the term apostasy in a political or military sense, it later uses the term in a religious sense. The Septuagint for 2 Chronicles 28:19 says that:

Because the Lord humbled Judah because of Ahaz, the king of Judah, since he completely apostatized (ἀπέστη ἀποστάσει) from the Lord.

In his afflictions he continued to apostatized against the Lord (2 Chronicles 28:22). In the next chapter, it refers back to

all the implements which Ahaz the king polluted in his reign and in his apostasy (2 Chronicles 29:19)

The Septuagint is translating a different term as apostasy in this passage.The Hebrew term is ma`al, which means to act unfaithfully or to act treacherously. Thus Ahaz, even though he is the king, is a traitor to his God and acting treacherously against God. The temple implements were given by the funds of individuals and dedicated to the Lord for holy purposes. Ahaz, however, decided to put them to purposes other than those originally intended by those who donated them. He also abandoned the worship of the Lord to attempt to curry favor with other worldly powers (2 Chronicles 28:22-25). As a result, the Lord delivered him to his enemies.

It took a different king, Hezekiah, to set things right again and to rededicate the offerings back to their original purpose. Apostasy requires a restoration.

Apostasy in Chronicles

Some people have a tendency to minimize apostasy. This can be seen, for example, in the King James translators' choice of words in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 where Greek ἀποστασία is translated as "a falling away." While it is certainly possible to dwindle in unbelief and go slowly, surely, incrementally, and inevitably to hell, one can also do so dramatically, drastically, and definitively.

A good gauge for what the term would have mean to Paul and his converts from Judaism can be found in the Septuagint version of 2 Chronicles 21. The Septuagint was the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. For most Mediterranean Jews of Jesus's day, the Septuagint was the holy scriptures. In Chronicles it reads that "In these days Edom apostatized (ἀπέστη) from Judah" (2 Chronicles 21:8). Here it is clear that Edom did not just "fall away;" Edom revolted or rebelled and declared its independence. The Hebrew verb used here, pāšaꜥ, simply means to rebel. Thus "Edom apostatized from/rebelled against Judah until that day" (2 Chronicles 21:10).

Apostasy is thus an open rebellion, a revolt, a mutiny. While we use the English term in a religious context, the Greek term originally had a military or political context.

Edom doubtlessly depicted their actions as merely a reorganization and reorientation that would align their territory among the nations in a way that would better serve its goals, as a new beginning and new direction for Edom, but the Chronicler was more blunt: Edom was in apostasy.

Reading the Gospel of Judas VIII: Judas's Legacy

It is clear from the gospels that during Jesus’s life, many groups persecuted Jesus and his followers and they wanted to kill Jesus and end his Church. The outside persecution could be endured, what made a difference was the treachery inside and its conspiracy with the persecutors. As I have noted before:

The most deadly combination for the Church in its first century was apostates within colluding with persecutors without. Judas Iscariot had used that combination to kill Jesus, and others found it equally effective in killing his Church.[1] 

This was Judas’s legacy to the first century Church.

Whenever 3 John was written, probably in the last half of the first century, John notes Diotrephes would not permit him to come to the Church because Diotrephes wanted to be in charge (3 John 1:9).

In the seventies and eighties, a number of Christians left their faith, although the man who recorded this did not care why they did so only that they did so.[2]

Jude’s grandsons were denounced as politically dangerous in the late eighties or early nineties, but they were released even though they were Christians.[3] This means that someone had to make accusations to Roman authorities about them, accusations so serious that they carried the death penalty.

At the end of the beginning of the Second Century, Pliny writes to his friend, the emperor Trajan, and notes that he is receiving anonymous accusations against individuals accusing them of being Christians.[4] Pliny wants to know whether simply being a Christian is automatically sufficient cause for execution, and it seems that whoever wrote the accusation must have thought so.

Hegesippus records that also about this time a certain faction of Christians at Jerusalem accused Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, to the authorities and had him put to death.[5] Hegesippus also says: “until that time, the Church had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin since until that time those who corrupted it lay undeclared in darkness.”[6]

Clement of Rome says that in Trajan’s day the Church was filled with “unholy sedition,”[7] as proof of that he pointed to “everyone abandoning the fear of God, and becoming blind to his faith, neither walking in the ordinances of his appointment, nor comporting according to the Christian duty, but walking according to wicked lusts of his own heart.”[8]

This tale of Christianity to the beginning of the second century shows that various individuals tried to sabotage the Christian faith, often by betraying the leaders to get gain or imagined power. Between the betrayal of Jesus and the similar betrayals of local Christian leaders lies about a half century hiatus. Other betrayals may have occurred, obscured from our view. The legacy of Judas was alive and well at the end of the first century.

---

[1] John Gee, “James, First and Second Peter, and Jude: Epistles of Persecution,” in The Life and Teachings of the New Testament Apostles: From the Day of Pentecost through the Apocalypse, ed. Richard Nietzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 190.

[2] Pliny, Epistles 10.96.6.

[3] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.19.1-20.8.

[4] Pliny, Epistles 10.96.2.

[5] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.32.1-3.

[6] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.32.7.

[7] Clement of Rome, Corinthians, 1.1.

[8] Clement of Rome, Corinthians, 3.4.

Mesoamerican Apostasy

Mark Wright has a way of providing sensitive readings of the Book of Mormon from a Mesoamerican perspective and he has a recent article available over at Interpreter.