|
Calvinist-Arminian Controversy: Does your ministry have a position on Calvinism or Arminianism?
Hebrews 6:4-6 tells us, “For
in the case of those who have once been
enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift
and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the good word of God and the
powers of the age to come, and then have
fallen away, it is impossible to renew them
again to repentance, since they again crucify to
themselves the Son of God and put Him to open
shame.”
These verses have probably had
the most overall impact on theological
discussions and debates outside of the text of
Hebrews. What does it mean concerning “those who
have once been enlightened” who “have tasted the
good word of God”? As many of you are probably
aware, this is a strongly debated Scripture
among Calvinists and Arminians in Protestant
Christian theology pertaining to concepts such
as predestination, the free will of humans, and
God’s elect. Is it possible for the emerging
Messianic movement to have its “own” position on
the Calvinist-Arminian controversy?
The major issue of man’s responsibility and God’s redemptive power
in the salvation experience actually goes back
to the Fifth Century with the Pelagian
Controversy. The British monk Pelagius (354-415)
advocated that human beings were embodied with a
complete free will, and he completely denied the
sovereignty of God in worldly affairs. Salvation
in the Pelagian schema is soley a human work,
and something that is not in any capacity
accomplished by God. Augustine (354-430), bishop
of Hippo, refuted Pelagius’ heresies, but in so
doing focused extensively on God’s sovereignty
and His work in salvation. Augustine was right
to emphasize that salvation was a work of God,
largely focusing on John 15:5: “apart
from Me you can do nothing.” As Alister E.
McGrath summarizes, “Augustine understood grace
as the real and redeeming presence of God in
Christ within us, transforming us; something
that was internal and active” (Christian Theology: An Introduction,
p 447).
Augustine rightly rejected Pelagius’ view that
grace was something outside of us that was
passive.
Moving forward to the Protestant Reformation, the French Reformer
John Calvin (1509-1564) was largely influenced
by Augustine’s view of Divine grace, with his
followers often emphasizing it as “irresistible
grace,” something that one could not refuse.
Calvin was certainly a brilliant scholar and
able exegete of the early Reformation, and much
is to be gained by examining his works. Calvin’s
theology is noted by his emphasis on the
sovereignty of God and His predestination of all
human events. Followers of Calvinistic theology
believe that salvation is entirely a work of
God. However, the Calvinistic theology of
election emphasizes that God has chosen only
some to be redeemed, and others He has selected
to be damned. In the schema of God having
predestined all events in human history is the
debate over whether God is the author of the
Fall and thus the author of sin (supralapsarianism),
or God’s predestined choices come after the Fall
(infralapsarianism). Calvin’s system of
theology is generally known as Reformed, and in
America is largely adhered to in the
Presbyterian Church and many sectors of the
Baptist Church.
A major issue arose in the Reformation when challenges to Calvin’s
theology of specific foreknowledge arose in
Holland. Dutch pastor Jacob Arminius
(1560-1609), who had been trained as a strict
Calvinist, was asked to refute Dirck Koorenhert,
who did not believe in specific foreknowledge.
Arminius examined his beliefs and became
convinced that Yeshua the Messiah did not just
die for the elect, but for all the world. Justo
González summarizes Arminius’ principal view
that “the final destiny of each individual was
based, not on the sovereign will of God, but
rather on divine foreknowledge, by which God
knew what each person’s response would be to the
offer of salvation” (Justo L. González, The
Story of Christianity, Vol. 2, p 180).
Arminius argued for a general foreknowledge in
that God has certainly predestined particular
events to take place in human history, but has
left individuals to decide for themselves
whether or not they want to receive His
salvation or reject it. The Remonstrance
movement in the Netherlands issued what would
become known as “the open decree of
predestination.” While often confused with
Pelagianism, the Remonstrance movement
emphasized “that humans can do nothing good on
their own account, and that the grace of God is
necessary in order to do good” (Ibid., 181). In
America today, forms of Arminian theology are
largely present in the Methodist Church, and
various Pentecostal denominations and sects such
as the Assemblies of God.
The major difference between Calvinists and Arminians today
pertains to the issue of salvation. Did Yeshua
die only for the elect? Or, did He die for all
the world? Both views rightly emphasize that
salvation is to be a work of God via His Holy
Spirit. But Calvinists largely emphasize that
salvation is something that remains permanent
and cannot be lost, often referred to in the
vernacular as “once saved, always saved.” They
frequently base this on John 10:27-29: “My
sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they
follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and
they will never perish; and no one will snatch
them out of My hand. My Father, who has given
them to Me, is greater than all; and no one
is able to snatch them out of the
Father's hand.” Calvinists argue that God knows
who His chosen ones are, and no one is capable
of removing them from Him—even the people
themselves.
Arminians, in stark contrast to this, will argue on the basis of
Hebrews 6:4-6 that an individual can be
enlightened and spiritually regenerated, having
received salvation, but can then reach a point
where this salvation is lost. Arminians argue
that salvation is a work of God, but that the
free will of humans can interrupt that
salvation. Case studies such as Ancient Israel
in the wilderness, Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus,
and perhaps even King Solomon can be offered as
examples of those who experienced God’s
salvation, but then at a later point rejected it
because of sin. Arminians are generally in
agreement with Calvinists over the fact that God
has certainly decreed particular events to occur
through the prophecies of His Word, but would
not make the argument that God has decreed that
every event of every single second has been
decreed from eternity.
We are infrequently asked if there is a distinct Messianic view of
the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Based on our
family’s experience in the Messianic movement
since 1995, there is no distinct view
at this point in time. Almost anyone taking a
position as either a Calvinist or an Arminian is
taking that position because he or she was
raised or trained in a denominational setting
that adhered to a Calvinist theology or an
Arminian theology. Sometimes Calvinistic or
Arminian theology is moderated by Messianics as
the “nature of God’s universe” is something that
cannot be fully understood by us as humans. As a
former United Methodist and student of the
teachings of John Wesley (1703-1791), the
editor is no exception to being affected by this
debate, having been in an Arminian
environment. He believes in the general
foreknowledge of God, but also that people can
lose their salvation. Wesleyan-Arminianism,
however, does emphasize the personal holiness
and sanctification of the individual—concepts
that should be emphasized in today’s Messianic
movement through Torah observance—as well as
experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit. In
stark contrast to most Calvinists, Wesleyan-Arminians
believe in the continuance of the gifts of the
Spirit, but may not emphasize it to the same
degree of many of the new “charismatic”
movements today.
While we should respect some of the theological tenets of Calvinism
and the benefits that it has brought to Western
society—in particular its emphasis on hard
work—we have two principal problems with
Calvinism. Our first problem with Calvinism is
its doctrine of limited atonement. This is the
belief that Yeshua the Messiah only died
for the elect, and thus He did not die for all
mankind. Surprisingly, this teaching is actually
based on the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 9-11
on the olive tree of Israel, where he writes
that “those
who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were
hardened” (Romans 11:7). Wesleyan-Arminianism
does differ from other forms of Arminianism in
that it does advocate that certain individuals
may be chosen by God for damnation, such as
Pharaoh, Judas Iscariot, and the coming
antimessiah/antichrist, but this is few and far
between. A question each of us has to ask is
whether or not Yeshua the Messiah died for the
whole world, or only a small sector of chosen.
Some in the Messianic movement believe that
Yeshua died only to save Israel, and not
the whole world, and in their own way are
actually supporting some form of Calvinist
dogma.
Our second major problem with Calvinism is its
emphasis on eternal security, lived out in much
of modern Christendom by people “making
decisions for Christ” and then living ungodly
lives inconsistent with that of our Lord. Many
believe that salvation is not something that
needs to be maintained by holy living and the
sanctification process, much like one would
maintain one’s own car, house, or yard. Where is
the evidence of our salvation? John Wesley
summarizes it well for us by stating, “we
know that we truly and savingly know him—As he
is the advocate, the righteous, the
propitiation. If we keep his
commandments—Particularly those of faith and
love.” Our faith is to be evidenced by our
works, and those works—most importantly love for
God and one’s neighbor, emphasized by Yeshua
(Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-31; Luke
10:25-28)—are to give us the assurance we need
that we are in the Lord.
Calvinists are right to a degree, in that Yeshua died only for the
elect, or we might even say “only for
Israel”—but in a somewhat different sense. The
Prophet Isaiah attests that “You
are My Servant, Israel, in whom I will show My
glory” (Isaiah 49:3). Yeshua the Messiah is this
“Israel.” We as Believers become a part of
Israel by becoming one with Him who is the
epitome of Israel. In other words, we become the
elect by becoming one with Him who is the elect,
Yeshua the Messiah.
The argument over whether or not a person can lose his or her
salvation, however, may ultimately be solved by
personal experience. Many moderates on the issue
believe that it is pointless trying to figure
out whether or not someone falling away was once
“saved,” or had a false conversion, because the
point of Hebrews 6:4-6 is to never be in the
position of even thinking of leaving the faith.
We generally agree with this statement, because
most who deny Yeshua the Messiah have never
known Him as their personal Lord and Savior or
have experienced the Holy Spirit. Still, does
this mean that every single person who denies
Him never knew Him? In the Messianic
community today, we sadly encounter an
increasing number of people who question and
deny the Divinity of, and later the Messiahship
of, Yeshua. Are they all “unconverted”? We must
see to it that these people never question the
work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
It is notable that the debate over God’s foreknowledge and man’s
free will is not given as much attention in
Jewish theology as it is in Protestant Christian
theology. There are certain examples of these
two facets of existence that are often given for
discussion, such as Abraham’s binding of Isaac
(Genesis 22) and the hardening of Pharaoh’s
heart (Exodus 9). The Jewish Philosophy
Reader notes, “In the volume of the Mishnah
known as the Pirke Avoth (‘Sayings of the
Fathers’) Rabbi Akiba proclaimed: ‘Everything is
seen, yet freedom is given’ (3.19). It is clear
from this brief statement that already in the
2nd century Jewish theology had at least
recognized, if not solved, the apparent
incompatibility between divine omniscience and
human freedom” (Seymour Feldman, “The Binding of
Isaac: A Test-Case for Divine Foreknowledge,” in
The Jewish Philosophy Reader, p 122).
When it comes to the issues as presented by both
Calvin and Arminius, the Jewish position is much
more “let God be God.”
Messianics who are either Calvinist or Arminian in their
orientation are often so because of their
upbringing or theological training. Certainly,
we have the responsibility to foster a Messianic
environment where those leaning toward Calvinism
or Arminisiam are both welcome, so a more
distinct Messianic viewpoint can be developed
over time. One’s ultimate decision regarding the
loss of salvation may have to be experiential,
which was a critical part of Wesley’s theology
(Scripture, tradition, reason, experience). This
is an old debate, and only time will
determine if developing a distinct Messianic
position is possible. In the meantime, we need
to make sure that people truly do have salvation
in Messiah Yeshua, have experienced the
regenerative power of the Holy Spirit, and are
strong in their faith so that they do not even
consider abandoning the Lord.
(This entry has been adapted from the Excursus “Calvinism,
Arminianism, and the Emerging Messianic
Movement” in the editor’s commentary
Hebrews for the Practical
Messianic.)
posted 14 July, 2006
Chanukah, Actions of Antiochus: In what way did Antiochus Epiphanes commit the “Abomination of
Desolation”? I thought this was a future event.
The event describing the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus,
even though it actually was carried out by an
Athenian senator (2 Maccabees 6:1), was in
fulfillment of the Prophet Daniel’s words in
Daniel 11:31: “Forces
from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary
fortress, and do away with the regular
sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination
of desolation.” It may seem confusing for us
because the eschatological term that often
describes “the Abomination of Desolation” in
most pre-millennial prophecy circles is used to
refer to another event, that of Daniel 9:27:
“And he will make a firm covenant with the many
for one week, but in the middle of the week he
will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering;
and on the wing of abominations will come
one who makes desolate, even until a complete
destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out
on the one who makes desolate.”
Without a doubt, what happened in the period of
the Maccabees was an abomination before the God
of Israel. But it was not the final abomination
spoken of by Daniel that occurs at the end of
the seventy-weeks prophecy. A future leader,
much like Antichous, eager to unite the world as
one people worshipping him, will make all of the
previous abominations that have occurred on the
Temple Mount seem like nothing. The text uses
the plural kenaf shiqutzim (~ycWQv
@nK),
indicating that there have been multiple
abominations committed, but this one will be
the extreme abomination, topping all the
others. The Apostle Paul describes this in
greater detail in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4:
“Let
no one in any way deceive you, for it will
not come unless the apostasy comes first,
and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son
of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself
above every so-called god or object of worship,
so that he takes his seat in the temple of God,
displaying himself as being God.”
From Paul’s
vantage point, the Abomination of Desolation has
yet to occur; and from our view today, it
likewise has yet to occur. Yeshua the Messiah
makes this clear in His Olivet Discourse of
Matthew 24:
“Therefore when
you see the
abomination of desolation which was
spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing
in the holy place (let the reader understand),
then those who are in Judea must flee to the
mountains. Whoever is on the housetop must not
go down to get the things out that are in his
house. Whoever is in the field must not turn
back to get his cloak. But woe to those who are
pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in
those days! But pray that your flight will not
be in the winter, or on a Sabbath” (Matthew
24:15-20).
Some have claimed
that the Abomination of Desolation occurred in
ancient times when Jerusalem and the Temple were
destroyed in 70 C.E. But that is contingent on
several things. While Yeshua has Daniel’s
description of the Abomination in mind, His
statement is preceded by the ever-critical,
“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
the whole world as a testimony to all the
nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew
24:14). Even today, almost 2,000 years later,
this word has yet to be fulfilled. Furthermore,
we see the statement “let the reader understand”
inserted into the text, presumably by Matthew
when he composed his Gospel. When Matthew wrote
his Gospel also tells us quite a bit as to
whether or not this has occurred. If Matthew’s
Gospel post-dates the destruction of the Temple
in 70 C.E., as most conservative and liberal
scholars believe, then it is indeed an
indication that this Abomination of Desolation
is to occur in the future.
There has been no
leader like Antiochus, or even an emissary of
his, who has entered into the Temple in
Jerusalem to be worshipped as God. In fact,
there is no Temple in Jerusalem today where this
prophecy could even be fulfilled. The
seventy-weeks prophecy of Daniel has yet to be
completely fulfilled, as when it is all over we
are to see the restoration of God’s Kingdom on
Earth, stated clearly in Daniel 9:24:
“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people
and your holy city, to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin, to make atonement for
iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the
most holy place.”
We are still awaiting to see everlasting
righteousness established in the Earth. That has
not happened, and any claim by theologians or
teachers that it has is totally misguided.
The example of Antiochus Ephiphanes is very,
very important to understand. It lays the
historical precedent as being one of the many
abominations that has occurred on the Temple
Mount in Jerusalem. This abomination in 167
B.C.E. was followed by the Roman destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and the subsequent
erection of a temple to Jupiter. Likewise, when
Islam expanded throughout the Middle East the
Dome of the Rock was built on the Temple Mount.
Today, we await the reconstruction of the Temple
by many of the Temple Mount faithful groups in
Israel, and then we can see the climax of all of
these abominations. Unlike those who committed
abominations in the past, though, the man of
lawlessness will be able to broadcast himself to
the world, so everyone, not just those in
Jerusalem, will be able to see him declare
himself as God. Do you think Antiochus
Ephiphanes would have liked to do this? Well,
the same spirit of antimessiah that was in him
will be in someone else in the future.
added 31 December, 2005
Virtual Chanukah
Chanukah, Celebrated instead of Sukkot: What can you tell me about the Feast of Dedication being
celebrated in place of Sukkot by the
Maccabees when they rededicated the Temple?
When the
Seleucid-Greek invaders occupied the Land of
Israel, it was forbidden for any of the Biblical
holidays to be celebrated, possibly under the
threat of death. Obviously, this would have
included Sukkot or the Feast of
Tabernacles. Many Jews continued to celebrate
the appointed times in secret, or in some
limited way without being caught.
Some in the
independent Messianic community, who largely
frown on observing Chanukah, say that
when the Maccabees rededicated the Second Temple
that the eight-day festival they celebrated was
Tabernacles, which they were unable to celebrate
prior to this time. They base it on statements
made in 2 Maccabees 10:5-6:
“It
happened that on the same day on which the
sanctuary had been profaned by the foreigners,
the purification of the sanctuary took place,
that is, on the twenty-fifth day of the same
month, which was Chislev. And they celebrated it
for eight days with rejoicing, in the manner of
the feast of booths, remembering how not long
before, during the feast of booths, they had
been wandering in the mountains and caves like
wild animals.”
The REB actually
says “they recalled how, only a short time
before, they had kept that feast while living
like wild animals in the mountains and caves.”
Did the Maccabees actually try to “keep
Sukkot” while evading the Seleucid armies in
the wilderness? We might never have an answer to
this question. But what we do know is that while
there were some elements of Sukkot
brought in to the first Festival of Dedication,
it was celebrated and mandated as its own unique
holiday. The text continues, clarifying what the
Jews assembled in Jerusalem were actually doing:
“Therefore bearing
ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and
also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of
thanksgiving to him who had given success to the
purifying of his own holy place. They decreed by
public ordinance and vote that the whole nation
of the Jews should observe these days every
year” (2 Maccabees 10:7-8).
We are told that
this new holiday, commemorating the rededication
of the Temple, was “decreed by public edict,
ratified by vote, that the whole nation of the
Jews should observe these days every year” (NRSV).
This makes Chanukah something new and
unique that was not intended to be a substitute
for Sukkot.
added 29 December, 2005
Virtual Chanukah
Chanukah, Eight Days of Oil: Where can I find information about the menorah being lit
for eight days, on one cruse of oil, following
the Maccabees’ rededication of the Temple?
The Maccabees drove the Seleucids
out of the Land of Israel in the month of Kislev
165 B.C.E., which is in about the month of
December. They had the task of cleaning up the
mess that the Seleucids had left, notably in the
city of Jerusalem and in the Temple complex.
Antiochus’ forces had completely ransacked the
Temple and made it into a haven of idolatry. The
Temple needed to be cleansed of its defilement
and restored to its previous position so proper
sacrifices could once again be performed. Of all
of the items of Temple furniture that had to be
cleansed and rededicated, one of the most
important was the great lampstand or
menorah.
The menorah
required special consecrated oil in order to be
lit. Some historical traditions actually
indicate that the Maccabees had to setup a
“makeshift
menorah”
out of iron bars covered with zinc (Scholium
to Megillat Ta’anit; cf. Moshe David
Herr, “Hanukkah,” in EJ), while a new
gold menorah (hrAnm)
was being crafted.
The Festival of Dedication or Chanukah,
as attested in the historical record, was
mandated as a national celebration so that the
community could remember the sacrifice of the
Maccabees, and the rededication of the Temple in
Jerusalem:
“Then
Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of
Israel determined that every year at that season
the days of dedication of the altar should be
observed with gladness and joy for eight days,
beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month
of Chislev” (1 Maccabees 4:59).
The historian Josephus wrote
about the establishment of
Chanukah
as a new, national celebration for the Jewish
people in his work
Antiquities of the
Jews:
“Now Judas
celebrated the festival of the restoration of
the sacrifices of the temple for eight days; and
omitted no sort of pleasures thereon: but he
feasted them upon very rich and splendid
sacrifices; and he honored God, and delighted
them, by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so
very glad at the revival of their customs, when
after a long time of intermission, they
unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their
worship, for eight days. And from that time to
this we celebrate this festival, and call it
Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this
liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and
that thence was the name given to that festival”
(12.323-325).
The Greek name for this holiday
as recorded by Josephus was
phōta (fwta),
meaning “Lights.” The connection of Chanukah
to the lighting of the menorah goes all
the way back to the First Century B.C.E. Talmud
tractates b.Shabbat 21b and 23a detail
various halachic rulings from this period
regarding the lighting of the chanukia,
and debates between the Rabbinical Schools of
Hillel and Shammai. These rulings date anywhere
from 50-100 years before Messiah Yeshua.
The wonderful story that enlivens
our
Chanukah
celebration concerns the fact that when the
Maccabees were cleansing the Temple, only one
cruse of consecrated oil was found to light the
menorah.
The Torah says that the oil used in the Tabernacle/Temple service was to
be “clear oil
of beaten olives for the light, to make a lamp
burn continually” (Exodus 27:20; cf. Leviticus
24:2), and the prevailing halachah of the
day required eight days for this oil to be
produced. While there was plenty of olive oil
present to use in the Land of Israel, only
special consecrated oil could be used for
burning in the menorah.
The
miracle of the eight days of oil is spoken of in
the Talmud, in the midst of the arguments about
how the chanukia was to be lit:
“What is [the
reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On
the twenty-fifth of Kislew [commence] the days
of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a
lamentation for the dead and fasting are
forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the
Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and
when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and
defeated them, they made search and found only
one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the
High Priest, but which contained sufficient for
one day’s lighting only; yet a miracle was
wrought therein and they lit [the lamp]
therewith for eight days. The following year
these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the
recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving” (b.Shabbat
21b).
This story can be
certainly deduced from the historical events
recorded for us in 1-4 Maccabees, the writings
of Josephus, and others. While some people today
brand the miracle of the oil remaining lit for
eight days as only a “legend,” the fact of the
matter remains that Orthodox Jews, most
Conservative Jews, and the vast majority of the
Messianic Jewish community today, believe with
great faith that it actually happened. The
challenge for some in the independent Messianic
Two-House movement today is the fact that many
are unwilling to accept Jewish works like the
Mishnah or Talmud as having any valid history
(or for that same matter, the writings of the
Church Fathers). Many are disrespectful to
Jewish custom and tradition, and assert that it
has no place in their interpretation and
application of God’s Word.
The social Sitz
im Leben (Ger. situation in life) of the
Biblical text plays no part in the hermeneutics
of some in the independent Messianic community,
which is very sad because a critical part of
returning to the faith of the First Century
Disciples and Apostles of Yeshua is knowing the
history of the times. In order to do this we
have to piece together information from the
Biblical texts, Jewish history, Greco-Roman
history, early Christian writings, and
archaeology. We also have to take much on faith,
and make some value judgments. For some, custom
and tradition are not important in determining
how we should live our lives. But for many,
especially in the Jewish community, custom and
tradition are very important factors. As
Messianic Believers who live in the Twenty-First
Century, we have to ask ourselves what the
Apostles would do regarding Chanukah if
they lived in our time. We believe that they
would celebrate it. Others believe that they
would not. The debate is not going away until
Yeshua returns.
added 28 December, 2005
Virtual Chanukah
Chanukah, Nine-Branched Menorah: Why is there a nine-branched menorah used for Chanukah,
when there was a seven-branched menorah
used in the Temple?
By and large in Judaism, there is a prohibition
on recreating objects used in Tabernacle/Temple
worship to be used in the local synagogue. This
tradition developed during the time when the
Temple was still in operation, and the synagogue
was largely a place of assembly for teaching. As
Chanukah
developed as a holiday, the
chanukia
was formulated as an emblem that looked
substantially similar to the seven-branched
menorah,
but it was intended to be lit for eight days to
memorialize the miracle of the oil, mimicking
the
menorah,
but not to be exactly like it. Today, of course,
there are many kinds of
chanukias,
which range from traditional ones looking
similar to the Temple
menorah,
to others that only allow eight candle spaces
for lighting that are anything but traditional.
added 30 December, 2005
Virtual Chanukah
Christianity, Negativity Toward Two-House
Teaching:
When I share the Two-House teaching with my
evangelical Christian friends, they do not seem
to “get it.” Why can I not get my Christian
friends to be reasonable and sit down and
examine the Scriptures?
As is frequently the case, getting a Messianic Jew to sit down and
examine the prophecies of Israel’s restoration
is often difficult enough—so getting an
evangelical Christian to examine the same
prophecies is usually much more difficult. Why
this is the case has an entire host of varied
reasons, most often relating to how a Christian
sees himself related to—or not related
to—Israel. Christians who obviously believe that
“the Church” has replaced Israel in God’s
economy will probably not see the relevance of
examining prophecies that relate to Israel in
the end-times, when they can be conveniently
interpreted as something other than what they
mean. Likewise, Christians who believe in
dispensationalism and that God has two groups of
elect think that Israel is just the Jewish
people, and that as part of “the Church”
Scriptures that apply to Israel do not apply (or
perhaps even relate) to them.
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block as it relates to the Two-House
teaching and Christians examining it has nothing
to do with the prophecies of Israel’s
restoration as much as it has to do with the
Messianic, Torah observant lifestyle. This is
where the bulk of criticism against the teaching
rests from evangelical Christians that we have
interacted with as a ministry. Ultimately, the
Two-House teaching advocates that all Believers
in Yeshua, be they Jewish, or scattered
Israel/Ephraim, or the nations, are a part of
Israel and are obligated to live as Israel in
obedience to the Torah. The “Two-House” part
relates to how God will restore Israel in the
end-times to be culminated at Yeshua’s return,
with many of the specific details to be
left in His hands.
In time, it would be our prayer that more and more evangelical
Christians will awaken to their Hebraic Roots
and be convicted about the same things that we
have been. This will only occur, though, as we
mature and are able to testify to others how the
Lord has brought us into a more vibrant and
active relationship with Him by adopting a
Messianic style of faith. Our positive testimony
of becoming more like Him—more than anything
else—will cause our Christian brethren to ask us
questions of how they too can acquire these
blessings.
For a further discussion of these issues, consult the editor’s
article “Christian
Problems With the Two Houses of Israel.”
posted 18 December, 2006
Christian, Title:
Is it true that the early Believers did not call
themselves “Christians”?
In Acts 26:28, the Apostle Paul is called before King Agrippa who
asks him, “Do you think that in such a short
time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (NIV).
This statement is made after Paul defends
himself for believing in the resurrection of the
dead and for the decisions that he made as a
Jewish Believer who preached in the name of
Yeshua. But was Paul going out and making
“Christians” of those to whom he preached? Many
people believe so, and would say that if you are
not a “Christian” then you cannot be a Believer
in the Anointed One or Christos (Cristoß).
Another place where the term “Christian” is seen in the Bible is in
1 Peter 4:15-16: “Make
sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or
thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler;
but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he
is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in
this name.”
This is a very perplexing statement made by this disciple of
Yeshua’s, who many consider the preeminent of
the original twelve. Peter says “let him glorify
God in this respect” (YLT), in reference to
Believers being called “Christians.”
The third location that this title appears is in Acts 11:25-26: “And
he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he
had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And
for an entire year they met with the [assembly]
and taught considerable numbers; and the
disciples were first called Christians in
Antioch.”
There is considerable debate among theologians regarding what
context “called” means in this passage from
Acts. LS defines the verb crēmatizō
(crhmatizw),
as “to
take and bear a title
or name, to be called or styled so
and so” (p 894).
Many today readily assume that “Christian” is a
title that was given by God to identify those
who have placed their trust in His Son. However,
this title, Christianos (Cristianoß),
only appears three times in the Bible. AMG
indicates, “It does not occur in the NT as a
name commonly used by Christians [i.e.,
Believers] themselves...The believers first
became known as Christians as an appellation of
ridicule” (p 1483). Vine adds that “the
Christians do not seem to have adopted it for
themselves in the times of the Apostles…As
applied by Gentiles there was no doubt an
implication of scorn…” (p 643). The Greek seems
to indicate that the term “Christian” was used
by outsiders as a term of insult to the early
Believers.
By the beginning of the Second Century, however, the assembly of
Believers, predominantly made up of non-Jewish
people, had taken this title as one of honor and
it subsequently remains to this day. It is
possible that the term “Christian” began to be
used in great numbers at the time following the
destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and when
anti-Semitism in the Roman Empire rose in great
numbers because of the Jewish revolt. It was
also at this time when many Believers in Yeshua
began being barred from the Jewish Synagogue,
and Jewish animosity toward them was enflamed.
Many non-Jewish Greek and Roman Believers
probably wanted to separate themselves from the
Jewish Believers. But it is notable that the
term “Christian” was never applied or used by
the Apostles. You never see them calling
themselves “Christians.”
The inherent problem here with the term “Christian” is that it was
not given by God to His people. It was given as
an insult by outsiders to the early Believers in
Yeshua and consequently it stuck in certain
communities. Christian is not a title that God
gave to His people, but it is ultimately a
man-made title.
What the Apostle Peter said in 1 Peter 4:15-16 concerning the title
“Christian” was that if you suffer for the
Messiah being called this, do not be ashamed.
But “Christian,” which was originally implied as
a term of insult, is compared to “a
murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a
troublesome meddler.”
Peter does not say that we are to readily call ourselves
“Christians.” When we as Messianic Believers are
asked whether or not we are a “Christian,” we
should change the focus of the discussion to the
Messiah and the work that He has done in our
lives—not whether we are “this” or “that.” This
is because a born again Believer is one who has
been spiritually regenerated by the power of God
via His Son Yeshua, and continually trusts and
believes in Him. This is what each of us must
be known by. What a person is called is
entirely irrelevant if there is no faithful life
of obedience to the Lord, and the love of God
emanating from one’s heart toward others.
posted 17 July, 2006
Christian, Website: Is TNN Online a Christian website?
Many Christians we have encountered would not consider TNN a
“Christian” website by the simple fact that we
prefer to use “Yeshua” rather than “Jesus,” and
promote an understanding of our faith’s Hebraic
origins. However, we do believe in the
foundational orthodox principles such as the
final authority of Holy Scripture, the Divinity
of the Messiah, and salvation by grace through
faith, consistent with what most evangelical
Christians believe.
We do disagree with common mainstream Christian beliefs as they
relate to things such as the Torah, the
seventh-day Sabbath, the appointed times, and
the dietary commandments of Scripture, believing
that these and other things still apply today.
But, we first try to focus on what we
have in common with our Christian brethren and
what unites us, recognizing that we do have a
shared theological heritage with the Christian
Church, every bit as much as we do with the
Jewish Synagogue. Yet, we are fully a Messianic
website and are best considered as such.
We do our best to be fair and respectful where we disagree with
some of the practices and teachings of today’s
Church. We do not unfairly criticize or condemn
Christians mercilessly as is the pattern of some
Messianics, and readily speak against it. We
encourage fair and tactful dialogue with
Christians, constructively working through those
issues where we may not currently see eye to
eye. We engage with evangelical scholarship,
rather than tossing it aside as though it has no
value.
updated 14 September, 2006
Christianity, Pagan?: Do you believe everything in Christianity is pagan?
We believe that
evangelical Christianity, as it stands today,
has some non-Biblical practices which stem from
Roman Catholicism that need to be eliminated.
But we are not prepared to say that every aspect
of Christianity is “pagan,” although certain
practices that are not found in Scripture are no
doubt of questionable origins (i.e., Christmas
trees, Easter eggs, etc.). If everything in
Christianity is “pagan,” does that suddenly make
all things in Judaism “kosher”? No.
Those who try to make pagan connections with virtually “all”
aspects of Christian doctrine and practice are
fooling themselves. Satan is the Father of Lies
and is going to mimic God on all plains. We must
recognize that while there are non-Biblical
elements of Christianity, Satan is also a
masterful counterfeiter.
We have serious concerns for those who try to equate “everything”
that Christianity has stood for as being “pagan”
because in the future such individuals may deny
that Yeshua is God, or perhaps even deny His
Messiahship because these beliefs are from “the
Church.” There is a plethora of pagan myths that
speak of gods (“mighty ones”) coming down from
the sky to help humans, and who is to say that
the early Believers in Messiah did not just
“copy off the pagans”? We cannot accept this
and neither should you. (See the editor’s
article “Is
the Story of Yeshua Pagan?”)
Furthermore, what parallels exist between the
Hebrew Tanach and Ancient Near Eastern
mythology? Such people need to hold all
of the Scriptures to the same standard if they
are searching for connections to paganism.
We recognize that there are areas of Christian doctrine that need
serious reevaluation in the light of the
understandings that the Holy Spirit is leading
many of us into as Messianic Believers. But to
say that “everything” that Christianity has
stood for is “pagan” is inaccurate and absurd,
and is certainly not something we advocate.
updated 28 July, 2006
Christian Scholars:
Why does today’s Messianic movement generally
frown on the works of Christian Biblical
scholarship?
Today’s Messianic movement does have a significant challenge when
it comes to considering the theological
contributions made by Christian Biblical
scholarship. The reasons for this are varied and
complex, but they largely have to relate to
perceived Christian animosity toward the Torah.
It is very true that many Christian theologians
have a negative and pessimistic attitude when it
comes to the Torah or Law of Moses and how it is
talked about in the Apostolic Scriptures (New
Testament). But this is certainly not all
Christian theologians, and theological works and
commentaries from the past thirty to fifty years
have become increasingly more Jewish-sensitive
and cognizant of Jewish theological views of
Scripture. The problem with this is not that
there are theologians who are writing
commentaries with more Jewish opinions in mind;
it is that your average pastor and/or layperson
is unaware or uninformed of these resources.
Ignorance of knowing about important trends such as the New
Perspective in Pauline studies—a renaissance of
understanding Paul as a First Century rabbi—even
carries over into the Messianic movement. While
it is true that New Perspective advocates are
not going to teach that today’s Christians
should follow the Torah as Messianics do, they
will teach that Paul had a much more moderate
view on the Torah than is perceived by much of
today’s Christianity. This is certainly a step
in the right direction! The rise of so-called
“Karaite” interpretations of the Torah in the
independent Messianic movement comes as a direct
result of not recognizing and interpreting Paul
as a First Century Pharisee—something that many
Christian theologians are beginning to
recognize.
One of the things that Messianics today are often not aware of is
the fact that Jewish Biblical scholarship—which
often is consulted by Messianic teachers—is
largely polarized between the extreme-Right and
extreme-Left. If one reads the Orthodox
Jewish ArtScroll Chumash, and then
compares it to the Jewish Study Bible, he
or she will see two largely different points of
view on an issue. One will advocate that Moses
wrote every single letter of the Torah, and then
the other will tell you that Moses may not have
existed. One will advocate that the Israelites’
conquest of Canaan included more than is
mentioned in the Biblical text, and the other
will say that it never took place. Consequently,
many Messianics today will only examine Orthodox
and/or Chassidic Jewish opinions on certain
subjects that often disregard ancient history
and criticism from skeptics.
Conservative, evangelical Christian scholars often compose the
middle position between the Right and the Left
on these issues. While affirming the historicity
of a key event like the Exodus, evangelicals are
willing to place the Exodus in the context of
Ancient Egypt. Evangelicals are willing to
engage with liberal criticism, and place a much
higher value on historical and linguistic
studies of the Scriptures than most in the
Orthodox Jewish community. Interestingly enough,
there are more Christian commentaries on the
books of the Torah than there are Jewish
commentaries. Casting these aside as though they
have no value is ill-advised in a movement that
will have to increasingly deal with more
criticism against the Scriptures—particularly
the Torah or Pentateuch because of the “modern
age” in which we live. Furthermore, these same
commentaries will point out Messianic symbolism
that is fulfilled in the life of Yeshua, whereas
most Jewish commentaries—if not ignoring
them—will discredit the life of Yeshua.
Our ongoing challenge as the Messianic community and our own
Biblical scholarship relates to how we can
incorporate the best of Jewish and Christian
scholarship and make it our own. We have a
shared theological heritage with both the
Synagogue and the Church. We cannot
disregard either one, but have to recognize the
strengths and weaknesses of both. Doing this
properly will admittedly take time.
posted 08 January, 2007
Christmas: Do you celebrate it?
Christmas is, without question, a very sensitive subject for many
Believers—and we would emphasize understanding
between those who do not celebrate it, and those
who celebrate it in ignorance. We cannot find in
Scripture where God mandates that we observe a
holiday with decorated trees, mistletoe, holly,
Santa Claus, and presents. On the contrary, the
Prophet Jeremiah tells us that we are to not be
as the heathen who adorn trees:
“Thus says the Lord,
‘Do not learn the way of the nations, and do not
be terrified by the signs of the heavens
although the nations are terrified by them; for
the customs of the peoples are delusion; because
it is wood cut from the forest, the work of the
hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They
decorate it with silver and with gold;
they fasten it with nails and with hammers so
that it will not totter’” (Jeremiah 10:2-4).
This same concept is reemphasized for us in Deuteronomy 16:21: “You
shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any
kind of tree beside the altar of the
Lord
your God, which you shall make for yourself.”
We do not celebrate Christmas, nor do we endorse a “substitute” for
it, either. We do not believe that the
celebration of Christmas was God’s original
intention. Christmas today is highly
commercialized and is often more about
self-indulgence than anything else. Of course,
we are not against “giving gifts,” but the
purpose of Christmas today for many people,
including Believers, is about self rather
than about seeing the Messiah lifted up.
We do not celebrate Christmas. But, we are not against people
remembering the birth of Yeshua, either,
although it probably did not occur during the
Winter. The birth of Messiah Yeshua is a part of
the Bible that is to be remembered and taught
upon, something appropriate for any time
of year. So with this in mind, it is important
to remember that at “Christmas time,” people are
relatively free to talk about Yeshua and the
gospel, and many are presented to Him who would
normally not be during the rest of the year.
Obviously, in spite of the questionable origins
of December 25, God is going to work through
those who sincerely believe that they are
honoring Him.
Without question, this issue will continue to baffle many Messianic
Believers in years to come, as we learn to
properly deal with those who celebrate Christmas
in ignorance, not knowing where it comes from.
As a faith community we will need to change all
the “Christmas is pagan!” rhetoric to something
less sensationalistic, yet still be able to
properly communicate that we do not celebrate
it. We also must emphasize understanding and
fairness for others in this area. Christmas as
it is known today is not a Biblically mandated
holiday, and on this basis we do not celebrate
it. But there is also the Biblical reality of
the Child born at Bethlehem who is our Savior,
so with this issue, let us truly not “throw out
the Baby.”
Consult the editor’s article “The
Christmas Challenge” for a
further discussion of this issue.
added 19 December, 2005
Chronicles, Books of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Books of Chronicles?
The Hebrew title of the Books of Chronicles is Divrei HaYamim
(~ymyh
yrbd), meaning “the Events/Annals of the Days/Years.” Similar
terminology appears in Kings (1 Kings 14:19, 29;
15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:45). The
Greek Septuagint actually titled this text
Paraleipomenōn (PARALEIPOMENWN) meaning “things omitted,” which some consider “not a very
suitable name” (NBCR, 369). Its
translators likely considered the text to be a
supplement to Samuel-Kings, and they were the
first to divide the text into two books. Jerome
suggested that the Latin title Chronicon
totius divinae historiae, “a chronicle of
the whole of sacred history” (Harrison, 1152;
EXP, 4:304), be used. It has since been
adapted as “Chronicles.”
Chronicles is a very unique text when compared to its predecessor,
Samuel-Kings. It does not focus on the Northern
Kingdom of Israel, except in passing (EDB,
243; ECB, 282). This work attempts to
summarize events beginning with Adam all the way
to Cyrus the Great of Persia. Chronicles jumps
over and overlooks many people and events seen
in Samuel-Kings, which is undeniably the
author’s main source of information. Because of
its irregular style of composition “The
Chronicles have long been among the most
neglected books in the Hebrew Bible” (Dillard
and Longman, 169)
Protestant Christian tradition, following the order of the
Septuagint and Vulgate, places 1&2 Chronicles
among the Historical Books between 2 Kings and
Ezra-Nehemiah. 1&2 Chronicles is actually the
last book of the Tanach in the Jewish order,
placed among the Writings.
The questions that Chronicles asks largely pertain to the Jewish
people having returned from Babylonian exile
(Dillard and Longman, 173). Is God still
interested in His people? Is He still faithful
to His covenants? What do the Jewish people do
under foreign (Persian) rule? Was God going to
fulfill His promises? As a result of these, and
other questions, the history presented in
Chronicles presents itself with a more definite
“slant” than Samuel-Kings, as it is designed to
be uplifting and a message of hope to those who
read it. Chronicles attempts to answer the
question of who the returned Jewish exiles are
as the people of God. The occasion for writing
Chronicles is probably to call the people back
to the Instruction of God (cf. Ezra 7:10) so
that they may fulfill His Divine purpose.
Jewish tradition in the Talmud regards the priest Ezra as the
author of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah (b.Bava
Batra 15a). This cannot be established with
certainty as the text does not state an author
directly (NIDB, 210; ECB, 282;
Dillard and Longman, 170). It may be that Ezra
was the principal composer of an early draft of
the text. Harrison indicates, “Ezra [presumably]
carried the narratives down to his own time”
(Harrison, 1153). If Ezra were the principal
composer, then it is no surprise that the
various priestly genealogies seen in 1
Chronicles 1-9 carry their way to him.
Ezra-Nehemiah does pick up where Chronicles
leaves off, and many conservatives believe that
these two texts once made up a single work (NBCR,
369; ISBE, 1:667; EXP, 4:305-307;
Dillard and Longman, 171).
There is a trend among conservative scholars today to not consider
Chronicles a unified work with Ezra-Nehemiah
(Dillard and Longman, 172), as there have likely
been redactions made to the text. In the
original composition, the Chronicler indicates
that he considered many sources, notably
Samuel-Kings. Additional sources used by the
Chronicler probably included the Torah, Judges,
Ruth, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations,
and Zechariah (although probably not in their
final, current form). References are made
throughout Chronicles to other sources,
including: the Book of the Kings of Israel (1
Chronicles 9:1; 2 Chronicles 20:34), the Book of
the Annals of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24),
the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel/Israel
and Judah (2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26; 27:7;
28:26; 32:32; 35:27; 36:8), and the Annotations
on the Book of the Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27).
These sources are all admittedly vague and no
longer extant (IDB, 1:578-579; Harrison,
1159-1161; NIDB, 210; ISBE, 1:668;
EXP, 4:309-311; ABD, 1:996-997;
EDB, 242). A number of non-extant prophetic
writings are also mentioned throughout
Chronicles.
Conservative theologians often date the composition of Chronicles
in the late Fifth Century B.C.E., although a
date in the late Fourth Century B.C.E. is
probable if one accepts a unified composition
with Ezra-Nehemiah (NBCR, 369; ISBE,
1:670). It is asserted that the text had to have
been written during the Persian period as there
are no references to either Hellenism or the
rise of Alexander the Great (ECB, 282).
Liberal theologians largely deny any kind of unified composition
for Chronicles. Earlier liberals considered
Chronicles to be a kind of sequel to P or the
so-called Priestly Code (IDB, 1:573-574)
seen in their documentary hypothesis of the
Pentateuch (see
Genesis
FAQ entry for a summarization of the JEDP
documentary hypothesis). It has been advocated
that Chronicles reflects a distinctly religious
history from a Levite (IDB, 1:575;
Harrison, 1161-1162; IDBSup, 157; ECB,
283), placing the Levites in a very positive
light and “glorifying Judaism and the Jews
through the centuries beyond all
possibilities…[rewriting] the history from David
to Cyrus: he freely omitted from his sources,
added to them, modified them, being blissfully
unaware of anachronisms and impossibilities” (IDB,
2:577).
Liberals have commonly argued that Chronicles was composed over a
broad period of time from the Fourth-Third
Centuries B.C.E., and was intended to be the
“first apology for Judaism” (IDB, 1:577;
cf. ABD, 1:994-995). Some liberals even
place the composition of Chronicles as late as
the Second Century B.C.E. (ISBE, 1:670).
Generally, liberals agree that Chronicles itself
is pieced together from sources, such as the
sections dealing with David and Solomon, as well
as other individual kings, and over time were
strung together and unified.
Liberal criticism against Chronicles has been immense. Most
consider it to have some severe theological
inconsistencies (Jewish Study Bible,
1712). Criticism against Chronicles is nothing
new, going back to the time of the writing of
the Talmud, with many considering Chronicles to
be “didactic or homiletical in nature”
(Harrison, 1163). Most liberal problems with
Chronicles concern its historicity and
reliability (Harrison, 1157-1158; Jewish
Study Bible, 1712).
Conservative theologians have largely responded to liberal
criticism with our need to consider Chronicles
as first theological, then historical. Harrison
indicates, “it should be noted at once that the
writings of the Chronicler did not lay claim to
be considered as history in the contemporary
occidental sense of that term” (Harrison, 1158).
Our interpretation of Chronicles is directly
connected to Samuel-Kings, and one must consider
their unique vantage points: one before or
during the Babylonian exile, and one after it.
The way the Chronicler records Israel’s history is not inconsistent
from what we see among the documents at Qumran (ISBE,
1:667; ECB, 284). A modern reader cannot
subject Chronicles to his or her expectations of
historical accuracy, recognizing that among its
contemporary ancient histories Chronicles
demonstrates a strong level of affinity. “What
the reader of the Chronicler needs is
sensitivity to the method of writing history in
biblical times together with some knowledge of
the milieu in which the work came into
existence, the need which it was intended to
fill, and the audience to which it was
addressed” (ISBE, 1:669). Current trends
in liberal studies of Chronicles indicate an
“emphasis…more on the Chronicler’s use of
additional material, rather than upon that
material’s historical value” (ABD,
1:997).
Both Aramaic and Hebrew are present in the Books of Chronicles. Its
Septuagint Greek translation is important, but
is often considered to be “paraphrastic…[and]
bears witness to an older and often shorter form
of the text” (ABD, 1:995). Others
consider its LXX version to be extremely literal
(EXP, 4:311). The Hebrew MT witness of
Chronicles is in a “fair state of preservation”
(Ibid.), but due to its young date among Tanach
books infrequent copying may have actually
caused more textual errors (Ibid.) that could
have been redacted—particularly with its
numbering system. “[S]maller numbers [are]
supplied by the LXX [and] seem to indicate that
the larger ones of the Hebrew have not been
transmitted in their original form, or that the
compiler was scaling them down in the interests
of factual reality” (Harrison, 1170).
The author of Chronicles affirms a continuity to the past, with the
Temple in Jerusalem being rebuilt by the
approval of the Persian king (2 Chronicles
36:22-23), mirrored by his earlier references
regarding Kings David and Solomon. The author
focuses on the successes and failures of
Israel’s earlier kings, and emphasizes how being
faithful to the Torah and Prophets is more
important than whether the Jews of his
generation have a king. The author also probably
considers his Jewish people to represent “all
Israel,” as the Southern Kingdom had absorbed a
sufficient number of Northern Kingdom Israelites
(2 Chronicles 34:9; 35:17-18). This can present
some problems to those who overemphasize the
Two-House teaching and fail to recognize the
Jews as being “Israel,” not placing the
prophesied restoration of all Israel into a
Jewish eschatological framework.
The author of Chronicles wants to sustain a hope for a Deliverer to
come, i.e., a Messianic son of David (2 Samuel
7). He indicates that God has been faithful to
His people going back through the recorded
generations (1 Chronicles 1:1). God has chosen
Israel for special purposes, but Israel’s
relationship to God is contingent upon their
obedience. As a result, the Chronicler is also
concerned with God’s retribution upon His people
(ISBE, 1:671-672).
The dominant parts of Chronicles are dedicated to David (1
Chronicles 11-29) and Solomon (2 Chronicles
1-9), with negative information regarding these
two kings largely omitted (ABD,
1:999-1000; Dillard and Longman, 174-175). This
has led to intense speculation that this is
intentional, with the Chronicler portraying the
“Messianic” qualities of these two leaders (ISBE,
1:672; Jewish Study Bible, pp 1715-1716).
It may be that the author intends to use the
lives of David and Solomon to address some
serious post-exilic questions (ISBE,
1:669-670; EDB, 243).
Issues in interpretation largely regard the relationship of
Samuel-Kings to Chronicles, and how to
synthesize Samuel-Kings’ accounts of Ancient
Israel’s history with how they are often
“explained” in Chronicles (EXP, 4:315).
“It is clear that Chronicles read by itself
would give an unbalanced view of Israelite
history” (NBCR, 370) as the author has a
definite theological agenda (NIDB, 211).
Genealogies in Chronicles (1 Chronicles
1:1-9:44) are segmented in places compared to
their listings in other Tanach Scriptures
(Dillard and Longman, 173-174), with the process
of telescoping purposefully omitting names to
make an important theological or ideological
point (cf. Matthew 1; Luke 3).
Furthermore, there are serious issues in Chronicles regarding
numbers and census accounts that may be a result
of textual corruption. A notable one appears in
2 Chronicles 14:9 which refers to a million man
army accompanied by only 300 chariots (IDB,
1:574; Harrison, 1165; ISBE, 1:669;
NIDB, 211; EXP, 4:562). The Greek
Septuagint is sometimes helpful in providing a
more realistic number, but not always.
Difficulties such as the spelling of proper
names is a challenge to modern readers, but not
to the Ancient Near Eastern worldview.
The Apostolic Scriptures do occasionally quote from Chronicles (EXP,
4:312), and undoubtedly formed an important part
of the worldview of Yeshua and His Disciples.
Messianic handling of Chronicles is difficult to determine at the
present time, concurrent also with its handling
of Samuel-Kings, largely due to the overemphasis
on the Torah in our Biblical studies. Too
frequently, when interpreters do examine
Chronicles, the witness of Samuel-Kings is not
considered, or vice versa. Even more issues may
have to be considered with the possible unity
between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah that is
often proposed. Parallels are most certainly
seen between characters in the Torah (i.e.,
Moses and Joshua) and how they are compared to
some figures in Monarchist Israel (i.e., David
and Solomon). The Chronicler is undeniably
influenced by his position as a Southern Kingdom
Jew, and is one who is ultimately interested in
giving the returned exiles hope for the future
in the covenant faithfulness of their God.
Bibliography
Ackroyd, P.R. “Chronicles, I and II,” in
IDBSup, pp 156-158.
Coggins, Richard J. “1 and 2 Chronicles,” in
ECB, pp 282-312.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Chronicles,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 169-177.
Ellison, H.L. “1 and 2 Chronicles,” in NBCR,
pp 369-394.
Harrison, R.K. “The Books of Chronicles,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1152-1171.
Hasel, G.F. “Chronicles, Books of,” in ISBE,
1:666-673.
Klein, Ralph W. “Chronicles, Book of 1-2,” in
ABD, 1:992-1002.
Knoppers, Gary N. “Chronicles, Books of,” in
EDB, pp 242-244.
Payne, J. Barton. “Chronicles, 1 and 2,” in
NIDB, pp 210-211.
_____________. “1, 2 Chronicles,” in EXP,
4:303-562.
Pfeiffer, R.H. “Chronicles, I and II,” in IDB,
1:572-580.
Rothstein, David. “First Chronicles,” in The
Jewish Study Bible, pp 1712-1764.
______________. “Second Chronicles,” in Ibid.,
pp 1765-1825.
Throntveit, Mark A. “1 Chronicles,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 571-608.
_________________. “2 Chronicles,” in Ibid., pp
609-651.
posted 22 March, 2007
Church, missing after Revelation 4:1: As post-tribulationists, how do you respond to the fact that the
word “church” does not appear after Revelation
4:1? This means that the Church is missing and
has been raptured to Heaven.
In the opening chapters of Revelation (chs. 1-3), the Apostle John
is given specific instruction by Yeshua the
Messiah that he is to deliver to the seven
assemblies of Asia Minor (Ephesus,
Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis,
Philadelphia, Laodicea). After John relays
Yeshua’s messages to these congregations, John
is told by the Lord, “Come up here, and I will
show you what must take place after these
things” (Revelation 4:1b). Notice what John says
as this command is given to him: “After these
things I looked, and behold, a door standing
open in heaven, and the first voice which I
had heard, like the sound of a trumpet
speaking with me” (Revelation 4:1a). This is a
directive that is given only to the Apostle
John, as he is called to step into the Heavenly
realm, and be shown a vision of the future that,
as far as Yeshua and those assembled are
concerned, has already taken place. John is
asked to step forward in time and be shown
things that he does not know about.
This is not a command that is given to “the
Church.” As Messianics are keen to emphasize,
the Greek word ekklēsia (ekklhsia)
should be properly translated as either
“assembly” or “congregation” in our English
Bibles, as opposed to the anachronistic term
“church.” Likewise, ekklēsia was used in
the Greek Septuagint to render the Hebrew word
qahal (lhq),
referring to the congregation or assembly of
Israel, and the Apostolic writers most often use
ekklēsia with this understanding in mind.
In Johannine literature (John, 1-3 John, Revelation) ekklēsia
is never used to refer to the Body of Messiah at
large, but instead the localized assembly.
Douglas J. Moo poignantly remarks in Three
Views on the Rapture, “John, himself, never
uses
ekklhsia
other than as a designation of a local body of
believers. Moreover, it is important to note
that John never in chapters 4-19 calls any group
in heaven the church” (p 201). The reason
that ekklēsia
does not appear after Revelation 4:1 is because
the letters Yeshua has John write to the seven,
localized assemblies of Asia Minor are complete.
It is not because “the Church” has been raptured
to Heaven. In fact, at the end of Revelation, we
are told that the apocalyptic revealing of
Yeshua to John is for the ekklēsia,
indeed implying that the Body of Messiah will be
on Earth when these events take place:
“I,
Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you
about these things for the churches. I am the
root and the descendant of David, the bright
morning star” (Revelation 22:16, ESV).
It is notable that
there is an urban myth that frequently
circulates among Messianic post-tribulationists
relating to Revelation 4:1. It often goes along
the lines of, “The Church is mentioned after
Revelation 4:1—and it is the whore of Babylon!”
Unfortunately for those who adhere to this line
of reasoning, it is not based in a sound
exegesis of the text, neither in a sound
examination of what end-time Babylon actually
is. While there are religious elements of the
end-time Babylonian system, there are also
political and economic elements. To simply say
that that end-time Babylon is “the Church,” is
to misidentify end-time Babylon, which is the
multifaceted, anti-God world system.
added 12 January, 2006
Church, word of pagan origin: I have heard that the English word “church” is of pagan origins.
Is there any substantiation to support this?
There is debate over the origins of the English word church, but
before we can address this, we need to have a
proper understanding of the Greek word ekklēsia (ekklhsia), which in our Bibles is commonly rendered as
“church.” Is “church” an appropriate translation
of this word?
LS defines ekklēsia
as “an assembly of the citizens regularly
summoned, the legislative assembly” and “in
N.T. the Church, either the body, or
the place” (p 239). In the Apostolic
Scriptures, ekklēsia
is used as a term to define the Body of Messiah,
and thus by extension, is rendered as “church”
in most English translations of the New
Testament. TDNT remarks that “Since the
NT uses a single term, translations should also
try to do so, but this raises the question
whether ‘church’ or ‘congregation’ is always
suitable, especially in view of the OT use for
Israel and the underlying Hebrew and
Aramaic…‘Assembly,’ then, is perhaps the best
single term, particularly as it has both a
congregate and an abstract sense, i.e., for the
assembling as well as the assembly” (K.L.
Schmidt, “ekklēsía,” p 397). This Christian commentary says that “assembly”
would be the best, consistent translation for
the word ekklēsia.
The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanach, the Septuagint
(LXX), produced approximately 300 years before
Yeshua the Messiah, frequently translates the
Hebrew word qahal (lhq),
or assembly/congregation, as ekklēsia.
TWOT tells us that “usually qāhāl
is translated as ekklēsia
in the LXX” (Jack P. Lewis, “qāhāl,” 2:790).
When the Apostolic writers used the Greek word
ekklēsia,
often rendered as “church” in our English
Bibles, they did not see the ekklēsia
as a separate assembly or group of people away
from Israel. Rather, they considered the ekklēsia to be Israel. It is not surprising by any
means that one of the definitions given for the
word ekklēsia
does in fact include “Israel.” Thayer
states that “in the Sept. often equiv. to
lhq, the assembly of the Israelites” (p
196). It is unfortunate that ekklēsia
in most Bibles has been translated as “church,”
whereas it would be best rendered as either
“assembly” or “congregation.” Two Christian
translations that render ekklēsia
as “assembly” include Young’s Literal
Translation and the Literal Translation of the
Holy Bible by Jay P. Green. The Power New
Testament by William J. Morford renders ekklēsia
as “congregation,” and the Complete Jewish Bible
by David H. Stern mostly uses the phraseology
“Messianic community.”
As it relates to whether or not the English word “church” is of
pagan origins, there are a number of differing
opinions. ISBE indicates that it comes
from “Gk. kuriakós—‘belonging to the
Lord’; NT ekklēsia—‘gathering’;
Lat. ecclesia” (G.W. Bromiley, “Church,”
1:693). NIDB confirms this opinion,
stating, “The English word derives from the
Greek kuriakos (belonging to the Lord),
but it stands for another Greek word ekklēsia
(whence ‘ecclesiastical’), denoting an assembly”
(Bromiley, “Church,” p 218). Smith’s Bible
Dictionary has a slightly different view of
the origins of the English word “church,”
remarking, “The derivation of the word is
generally said to be from the Greek kuriakon,
‘belonging to the Lord’. But the
derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is
probably connected with kirk, the Latin
circus, circulus, the Greek kuklos, (kukloß),
because the congregations were gathered in
circles.”
Regardless of if you believe that the English word “church” comes
from the Greek kuriakos, meaning
something that belongs to the Lord, or the Latin
circus via circulus, because the
early congregations gathered in circles, there
is no substantial proof that it is from a word
of pagan religious origins.
There are Messianics, in their criticism of our Christian brothers
and sisters who are not Torah observant, who say
that they are part of “the kirk” or “the kirch”
and that the English word “church” is of pagan
origins. (Die Kirche, pronounced
keer-kay, is simply the German word for “the
church.”) Their problem, aside from this being a
non-substantiated belief, is that they are
trying to insult others and incite them, rather
than reason with them from the Word of God about
who the true assembly is. The true assembly or
qahal/ekklēsia
is the Commonwealth of Israel. While we believe
that ekklēsia
is properly rendered as either “congregation” or
“assembly” in English, saying that the word
“church” is of pagan origins is a poor excuse in
light of a bigger problem. The bigger problem is
getting people to theologically see that there
is no separate assembly of elect called “the
Church,” and that there is only one ekklēsia,
the assembly of Israel. This has to be proven
from more than just vocabulary, but specifically
from the calling and mission the Lord has placed
upon His people—a separate “Church” or
not.
updated 06 July, 2006
Church Fathers: What is your opinion of the writings of the “Church Fathers”?
The writings of
early Christianity from the late First to Fourth
Centuries C.E., commonly termed the writings of
the “Church Fathers,” is a body of religious
literature not unlike the Jewish writings of the
same period. These writings demonstrate the
various theological opinions and controver |
