|


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 Antiochus, 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,[a]
but this one will be the extreme abomination,
topping all the others. This is perhaps
reflected in the NLT rendering, “And
as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will
set up a sacrilegious object that causes
desecration.” 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 Epiphanes 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 Epiphanes
would have liked to do this? Well, the same
spirit of antimessiah that was in him will be in
someone else in the future.
updated 09 December, 2009
Virtual Chanukah
NOTES
[a]
While many interpreters connect kanaf
(@nK) or “wing” (NASU) to a part of the Temple, it
can also relate to the extremity of a
garment or the wing of a bird (BDB,
489). Because of the ambiguity of
prophecy, while kenaf shiqutzim
has most often been interpreted as “a
wing of the temple” (NIV), we
should be inclined to remember how
kanaf is used to speak of a cloak
spread out or the extreme ends of the
Earth (H.F.W. Gesenius: Gesenius’
Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament, trans. Samuel Prideaux
Tregelles [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979],
406), connecting it to how this final
Abomination of Desolation will stretch
far over the other abominations
previously committed on the Temple
Mount.
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 various elements and
themes of Sukkot brought into 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, even
though Sukkot may have served as a
template for much of it to be based upon.
updated 09 December, 2009
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),[a]
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).[b]
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’s
the point of Hanukkah?
It is in line with what our rabbis have taught
on Tannaite authority:
On the twenty-fifth of Kislev the days of
Hanukkah, which are eight, begin. On these days
it is forbidden to lament the dead and to fast.
“For when the Greeks entered the sanctuary, they
made all of the oil that was in the sanctuary
unclean. But when the rule of the Hasmonean
house took hold and they conquered them, they
searched but found only a single jar of oil,
lying with the seal of the high priest. But that
jar had enough oil only for a single day. But
there was a miracle done with it, and they lit
the lamp with it for eight days. The next year
they assigned these days and made them festival
days for the recitation of Hallel psalms [Psa.
113-118] and for thanksgiving” (b.Shabbat 21b).[c]
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.
updated 09 December, 2009
Virtual Chanukah
NOTES
[a]
Cf. Moshe David Herr, “Hanukkah,” in
EJ.
[b]
The Works of Josephus:
Complete and Unabridged,
328.
[c]
The Babylonian Talmud:
A Translation and Commentary.
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.
updated 09 December, 2009
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 article “The
Christmas Challenge,” for
a further discussion of this issue.
updated 09 December, 2009
Christmas, Dinner:
Should I attend Christmas dinner with my
extended family?
Many of today’s Messianic Believers, who once
celebrated Christmas, still have to interact
with their Christian family during the Winter
holiday season. The Spring holiday season is
admittedly much easier, because Easter does not
have the same kind of commercialism associated
with it as Christmas, and many churches today
hold some kind of Passover sedar meal. It
is much easier to tell Christian family, who are
familiar with the Passover sedar to some
degree, that you remember Yeshua’s resurrection
in conjunction with your Messianic
congregation’s Passover remembrance.
How you answer your family’s request as to what
Messianics do to remember Yeshua’s birth is not
as easy, not only because there is no agreement
in today’s Messianic community as to what is to
be done, but even more so because of the
significant commercialism during this time of
year. Christmas parties are held throughout the
month of December, and traditionally extended
family does get together for some kind of
Christmas dinner. It is easy for Messianics who
do not live close to extended Christian family
to say that it will be difficult to attend
Christmas dinner, but this is not everyone.
Too frequently, our ministry has heard stories
of Messianics who will write mean-spirited
letters to Christian family, telling them not to
send them any Christmas presents or invite them
to Christmas dinner as they “are not pagans
anymore.” This implies to extended family, who
are God-fearing Christians who love Jesus, that
they really do not know the Lord. The damage
that this has done, and the bad reputation this
has given our faith community, is immense.
A person can always choose his or her friends,
but a person can never choose his or her family.
When you face the most difficult seasons in your
life such as when a member of your immediate
family dies, or when you are facing severe
financial problems, your extended family will
often be there to help, whereas your friends may
not. You have the responsibility to always have
good relations with your extended family, beyond
the Fifth Commandment’s requirement to honor
father and mother (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy
5:16).
So when the month of December comes, should you
turn down an invitation to Christmas dinner?
Only you can decide this for yourself. Some
will answer “No!” But some will attend. They
will recognize that this might be the only time
of year to see all of their extended family,
especially those who are aging and who may not
live long. Many of us just recognize Christmas
dinner as yet another meal, and will keep our
comments regarding “Christmas” to “Did you have
a good holiday?” Some of us desire good
relations with our extended family. And, in
demonstrating a degree of good will to them, we
actually find it appropriate to invite them into
our homes during one of the nights of
Chanukah—even if it might be under the
“guise” that we will be eating some rather tasty
fried foods!
added 09 December, 2009
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 controversies
that existed in early Christianity, the
persecution that the Believers experienced at
the hands of the Roman Empire, and the overall
challenges that they faced.
There are some in the Messianic community who readily criticize the
writings of the “Church Fathers,” as it was
during this period that the ekklēsia
largely divorced itself from its Hebraic Roots.
But in total fairness, it is necessary to
consult these writings to understand the
development of the early Church, and to
understand that not all of the Church Fathers
were “bad.” Many of the “Church Fathers” had
good, Spirit-inspired things to say and were
sincere Believers. Many of them have spiritual
insight on Biblical matters just as do many of
the Rabbis of Judaism. With all things, we are
called to use wisdom and discernment and
remember the circumstances in which these people
lived. We cannot afford to over-simplify things.
updated 10 July, 2006
“Churchy,” Why is your website: Why is your Messianic website “churchy”?
(This is
a common question asked by critics of our
approach to Messianic ministry, particularly
from those who would prefer us to “beat” on
Christians and the Christian Church, rather than
show them grace and mercy.)
When objectively
reading the information and articles on the TNN
Online website, how could you come to the
conclusion that TNN Online is a “churchy”
website? We are actually quite Messianic,
meaning that we are very pro-Torah and
pro-Jewish. We encourage all Believers to live a
Torah obedient lifestyle like Yeshua and His
Apostles, we encourage regular study of the
Torah, and we advocate that all Believers in
Yeshua are a part of the Commonwealth of Israel.
These, and other beliefs we hold to, run
contrary to a great deal of today’s evangelical
Christian theology.
It is true that some believe that TNN Online is a “churchy” website
because we try to be fair to those in mainstream
Christianity, as opposed to many other
“independent” Messianic websites. We do not
unfairly criticize Christians, insulting and
harassing them, as is the pattern of others. We
focus on areas of common agreement with our
Christian brethren. We do our best to treat
Christians with love and respect, encouraging
reasoned dialogue and discussion from the
Scriptures so that we can all learn something
and bring glory to the Lord. We treat Christians
as fellow brothers and sisters in the faith,
unless they say otherwise.
Our website is not “churchy,” but we are fair to the Church, which
is something that sadly is not evident among
enough Messianics today. We do recognize that
the Messianic community does have a Christian
spiritual and theological heritage, just as it
has a Jewish spiritual and theological heritage.
updated 14 September, 2006
Circumcision: Do you believe that males should be circumcised?
We are aware that the issue of circumcision is extremely
controversial in the Messianic world, whereas
most Christianity has decided to largely ignore
circumcision as an “Old Testament rite” entirely
unimportant for Believers today.
Circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:11).
The Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were
all circumcised. Yeshua the Messiah was
circumcised (Luke 2:21). The Apostle Paul was
circumcised (Philippians 3:5). If we intend to
follow the example of these men, then men should
not look down on the practice of circumcision,
and they should be encouraged to have this sign
as a matter of simple obedience. Yet, being
circumcised as a male adult must always be
tempered with knowing that Abraham was
considered righteous while uncircumcised (Romans
4:9-10; cf. Genesis 15:6), later being
circumcised (at the age of ninety-nine) as he
advanced in faith (Romans 4:11; cf. Genesis
17:1, 10-11).
We do not consider circumcision to be a
salvation issue at all, as the power of the gospel is blind in
saving males who are either circumcised or
uncircumcised (Colossians 3:11). We do, however,
encourage circumcision for the appropriate
reasons (concurrent with the example of
Abraham). The reason circumcision was such a
controversial issue in the Apostolic Scriptures
(New Testament) is that the non-Jewish males
coming to faith were not circumcised as infants
as the Scriptures prescribe. Had they been
circumcised as infants, then the controversy may
not have really arisen. The foolish Galatians
believed that circumcision of the flesh would
assure them a place among the righteous, to
which the Apostle Paul said, “Behold I, Paul,
say to you that if you receive circumcision,
Messiah will be of no benefit to you” (Galatians
5:2; cf. Acts 15:1). To these people he said
that if you think circumcision will save you, do
not even bother receiving it. (Note that
circumcision was required of proselytes to
Judaism, and there is good cause for us to
believe that the phrase “receive circumcision”
in Galatians is more concerned with being
“converted to Judaism.”)
Circumcision has become a common medical practice for non-Jews in
North America and in other parts of the world
since the late 1800s. We do not believe this is
by coincidence. As the Father is in the process
of restoring all of Israel, it is probably not
by happenstance that many non-Jewish males in
the United States and elsewhere have been
circumcised as a simple medical practice not
looked at as strange or taboo. (Please note that
this is not to exclude those elsewhere who are
not circumcised; we are only making an
observation). Yet, in recent days in Western
Europe, legislation has been proposed that would
make infant circumcision illegal under the guise
of it being “genital mutilation.” Sadly, many
Christians are in support of making infant
circumcision illegal.
We believe that Messianic families—either Jewish or
non-Jewish—should be encouraged to circumcise
their infant males. Although the practice of
circumcision is not a salvation issue, it does
have medical and health benefits, and it can be
employed as a simple memorial of the Abrahamic
Covenant. Circumcision for all
Believers—male and female—should be of
the heart (Deuteronomy 10:6; 30:6; Romans 2:29)
more than anything else, but this is in no way
nullifies the benefits of a male being
circumcised in the flesh. Being circumcised as
an adult male should be an issue of maturity, as
Believers are called to “continue” (Grk. menō,
menw) in the faith (1 Corinthians 7:20). It may not
be necessary to be physically circumcised in
order to be saved, but going through the
procedure as a simple act of obedience (not as
some kind of proselyte procedure) should not be
discouraged. This kind of obedience would be no
different than a urologist advising a man that
circumcision would be useful for his penile
health.
The issue of circumcision is especially touchy during the Passover
season,
as the Torah clearly specifies that “no
uncircumcised person may eat of it” (Exodus
12:48). Within the Messianic community, there
are some groups that do not let uncircumcised
males attend their Passover sedars. Is
this right or is it wrong? We do need to keep in
mind the fact that a Messianic Passover sedar
conducted today is often just a memorial of the
Passover, and there are many elements that are
not observed because there is no Temple to go to
where the sacrificial lamb can be offered.
Because we are in the Diaspora, there are things
that the Torah originally specified that cannot
be followed. And in our Passover memorials, we
have to not only weigh in the difference of
venue, but also the reality of the
post-resurrection era in which we live.
We do not believe that it is necessary for males to be circumcised
to attend a Messianic Passover memorial.
However, it should be encouraged that
participation of individuals within the order of
service or events at a Messianic sedar
could be limited to only those males who are
physically circumcised. (And, by extension, it
would be appropriate to require any males within
the leadership structure of a Messianic
congregation to be physically circumcised.)[a]
updated 23 February, 2010
NOTES
Colossians, Epistle of: What can you tell me about the composition of the Epistle of
Colossians?
The Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Colossians has not
been significantly disputed by many
evangelicals, even though it
is doubted by most liberals. The letter to the
Colossians is unique, because the Biblical
record does not attest the Apostle Paul as ever
having any personal encounter with the
Colossians, and there is a great amount of
personal involvement in his letter. Paul is not
personally acquainted with the Colossians, and
he never visited them (Guthrie, 564). Paul does,
however, learn a great deal about the Colossian
assembly through Epaphrus, attested as being a
dedicated servant who took the time to visit
Paul during his imprisonment to inform him of
the situation that the Colossians were facing
(Ibid., 165).
The city of Colossae was located in Asia Minor on the trading road
between Ephesus and the Euphrates River.
Apparently, the gospel message had been carried
to Colossae by Epaphrus, who was a native of the
city (4:12), during Paul’s three-year ministry
in Ephesus (1:7-8; cf. Acts 19:10). Colossae was
originally a Phrygian city, but later
Hellenized. It was a major trading center for
many centuries prior to Roman expansion, but in
the First Century had become secondary to cities
like Laodicea (ABD, 1:1089).
Most conservative theologians consider Colossians to have been
written in the same general time frame of
Ephesians and Philippians, likely between 60-62
C.E. from Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. The
actual composition of Colossians is uniquely
tied to that of Philemon: “both letters mention
Timothy, Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphrus, Luke,
Demas, Archippus, and Onesimus (Col. 1:1 and
Philem. 1; Col. 4:10-14 and Philem. 23-24; Col.
4:17 and Philem. 2; Col. 4:9 and Philem. 10ff.)
The duplication of so many names must indicate
that Paul writes and sends both letters at the
same time and from the same place” (Gundry, pp
392-393).
Paul’s audience in the Colossian assembly was predominately
non-Jewish. The people in Colossae were mostly
of Phrygian origin. The Phrygians were a
subjugated people mentioned all the way back in
works such as Homer’s Iliad (ABD,
3:806). In the Fifth Century B.C.E. when Colossae
was as its peak, the people would have largely
spoken Phrygian (IDB, 1:658), but
Hellenization brought Greek as the dominant
language of business: “During the Hellenistic
and Roman periods the use of the Greek language
naturally spread in this region” (Ibid., 3:806).
There were apparently a large number of Jews in
Phrygia, possibly as many as 50,000, including
7,500 freemen (ABD, 1:1089). “The Jews of
this region were known for their laxity in
observing their law” (IDB, 3:807). The
claim by some Messianics that Paul would have
written to the Colossians in Hebrew or Aramaic
is without historical merit, especially when the
Jews of Colossae, largely lax in their
observance of the Torah, would not have been
using it. A written Greek origin for Colossians
is well-assured.
The Colossian congregation became a hub of doctrinal problems, all
of which necessitated a personal visit from
Epaphras to Rome to meet with Paul. The
religious background of the Colossians would
have been consistent with the standard
Greco-Roman pantheon of deities, but there is
some evidence of worship to Egyptian deities as
well (ABD, 1:1089). This likely came from
Colossae having been a center of trade. A
dominant issue that theologians have debated
about is what the major crisis that the
Colossians faced was. Conservative theologians
are in general agreement that the issue is
Gnosticism, but probably not the more developed
Gnosticism that we see the Second and Third
Century Church Fathers combat in their writings.
“This was probably an incipient form of what
later became known as Gnosticism, a very complex
system that reached its zenith in the second
century. This incipient Gnosticism—some use the
expression proto-Gnosticism—was essentially a
religio-philosophical attitude, not a well
defined system” (EXP, 11:166).
We see a variety of issues at hand that Paul must address in his
letter, all of them critical to place in their
historical context: (1) asceticism (2:18); (2)
angel worship (2:18); (3) depreciation of
Yeshua’s Divinity (1:15-20; 2:2-3, 9); (4)
secret knowledge (2:18); (5) a reliance on
worldly wisdom (2:4, 8). Paul urges the
Colossians to be compliant with God’s Word,
telling the Colossians not to let outsiders
judge them for keeping the Sabbath, appointed
times, or dietary laws (2:16-17), and be led
astray by their worldly philosophies. There
might be some doctrinal parallels between
Galatians and Colossians, if indeed the
Judaizers influencing the Galatians were Jewish
mystics, and those influencing the Colossians
had an even greater mix of Jewish mysticism,
Gnosticism, and pagan philosophy. The evil
influences we can see present in Colossians are
“syncretistic influences including ideas from
neo-pythagoreanism, Iranian and Egyptian
influences, and also…Jewish mysticism” (Guthrie,
571).
Many of the heresies and false practices that we see addressed by
Paul in Colossians are addressed in greater
detail in 1 John, penned near the end of the
First Century and addressing a more developed
Gnosticism. One element that Paul refutes, that
of angel worship, apparently continued well into
the Fourth Century in the surrounding region, with worship of
the Archangel Michael. Paul refutes the
Colossian heresy by emphasizing the supremeness
of Yeshua as the image of God (1:15), the
Creator (1:16), the preexistent One (1:17), the
head of the assembly (1:18), and a fully Divine
member of the Godhead (1:19; 2:9). This is in
contrast to the meaningless humanistic
philosophy of the Colossians, which was leading
them astray and away from believing that Yeshua
was Divine (2:8). The most direct statement
regarding Yeshua’s Divinity appears in
Colossians 2:9: “For
in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in
bodily form.”
Some Christian theologians have claimed that “Basically the heresy
was Jewish” (ISBE, 1:733). However, with
the growing research in the field of First
Century Judaisms, and other ancient religions,
theologians are beginning to see that the
problems the Colossians faced were largely pagan
or humanistic in nature, not Jewish or Hebraic.
These ungodly influences would have affected the
local Synagogue, though.
From a distinct Messianic viewpoint, the
Colossians were being led astray by pagan
beliefs and philosophies, clouded in Gnostic and
mystical thought, away from the Torah foundation
in which the Jerusalem Council wanted the
non-Jewish Believers to be instructed. This is
Paul’s whole perspective in Colossians 2, often
a problem chapter for Messianic Believers
lacking an historical framework for the text.
Bibliography
Arnold, Clinton E. “Colossae,” in ABD,
1:1089-1090.
Banks, E.J. “Colossae,” in ISBE,
1:732-733.
Barabas, Steven. “Colossians, the Letter to,” in
NIDB, 227.
Bruce, F.F. “Colossians, Epistle to the,” in
ISBE, 1:733-735.
Filson, F.V. “Phrygia,” in IDB,
3:806-808.
Furnish, Victor Paul. “Colossians, Epistle to
the,” in ABD, 1:1090-1096.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
390-408.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the
Colossians,” in New Testament Introduction,
pp 564-584.
McCullough, W.S. “Colossians, Letter to the,” in
IDB, 1:658-662.
Mellink, M.J. “Colossae,” in IDB, 1:658.
Vaughn, Curtis. “Colossians,” in EXP,
11:163-226.
updated 06 February, 2006
Communion:
Do you think that Messianic congregations should
practice communion with bread and wine on a
regular basis? I have noticed that some do, and
some do not.
When Paul writes the Corinthians, “For
as often as you eat this bread and drink the
cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He
comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26), he delivers this
instruction in the context of speaking to them
about the yearly Passover meal (cf. 1
Corinthians 5:8-9). Many over the centuries,
though, having been separated from the Hebraic
Roots of our faith, have interpreted this as
relating to the sacrament of communion.
Certainly, while Christian communion has been a
spiritually beneficial practice for many to
remember the Last Supper, it is often removed
from its First Century Jewish context, or its
origins in the Passover. What we are to remember
is the point in the sedar meal where
Yeshua lifted up the afikoman and said:
“This is My body which is given for you; do this
in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19; cf. Matthew
26:26; Mark 14:22).
It is our opinion that the Lord’s Supper, our
remembering of when He said “This is My body,”
should be observed
once a year during Passover at a very solemn
point in the sedar meal. However,
with this said we should understand why many
Christians observe it more frequently.
Remembering Yeshua’s Last Supper is by no means
something that is wrong or “evil.” But, most
Christians’ understanding of this is separated
from the Last Supper being a Passover meal, and
that is why communion is often observed with
leavened bread in many churches (even though
various Christian traditions do use some kind of
leavenless bread).
Some Messianic congregations observe a form of “communion” with
matzah or unleavened bread. This would be
more accurate than what many churches do, but it
is still a definite holdover from Christian
observance. It is not “wrong” to partake of a
communion when it is offered, especially if you
are visiting a church with a friend or relative.
Yet, proper halachah for the Messianic
community should more closely try to keep it in
line with the season of Pesach. If
Messianic congregations serve a communion with
leavened bread, typically challah, and
wine, it can only be taken as kiddush and
not a true remembrance of Yeshua’s Last Sedar
where matzah was used. If you are in an
environment that observes this kind of an
observance weekly, then partake of it, but if
not and you are leading a home fellowship or
study group, then we recommend you keep it
consigned to Passover.
posted 10 July, 2006
Concubines:
Can you explain to me what a “concubine” is in
the Bible?
When your average person encounters the subject of concubines in
the Tanach or Old Testament, it can be difficult
if the reader is not informed as to what a
concubine was in ancient times. The term
pilegesh (vglyP)
“seems clearly to be a word of non-Semitic
origin…The fact that there are clear cognates in
Greek (pallakís/pallekē) and Latin (paelex)
suggests that the word is Indo-european in
origin, borrowed into all three languages”
(Peggy L. Day, “Concubine,” in EDB, 273).
Concubinage in the Tanach is often associated with some kind of
slavery, as Bilhah was called both a slave
(Genesis 29:29; 30:3) and a concubine (Genesis
35:22). Likewise, Gideon’s unnamed concubine
(Judges 8:31) is also called his slave (Judges
19:19), with him actually being considered her
“husband.” TWOT explains, “A concubine
was a true wife, though of secondary rank…the
concubine was not a kept mistress, and did not
cohabit with a man unless married to him. The
institution itself is an offshoot of polygamy”
(Victor P. Hamilton, “pilegesh,” in TWOT,
2:724). Among those who practiced concubinage,
the concubine was “A female slave regarded as
part of the Israelite family, generally
designated as bearing children…In addition to
providing offspring and sexual activity (Eccl.
2:8), concubines were responsible for care of
the those (2 S. 15:16; 16:21; 20:3…)” (Allen C.
Myers, “concubine,” in ISBE, 1:758).
As concubinage is connected to polygamy, it was often only the rich
and/or powerful who were able to afford
concubines, as most of those who had concubines
were kings (i.e., Esther 2:17; Song of Songs
6:8; Daniel 5:3, 23). Keturah, taken as
Abraham’s wife after Sarah’s death, was
considered both his wife (Genesis 25:1) and
concubine (1 Chronicles 1:32), perhaps as a way
to honor Sarah as Israel’s matriarch with
Keturah being considered of lesser status.
Unlike those women who would have been
considered wives, “concubines were of a lower
status than primary wives because no brideprice
(mōhar) was paid for them, or they
brought no dowry (šillûḥîm),
or both” (Day, in EDB, 273). As a result,
any children born of concubines only inherited
land at their father’s discretion (i.e., Genesis
25:6), rather than those children born of actual
“wives.”
The Torah’s legislation is mute on regulating the practice of
concubinage, as “Concubines are mentioned almost
exclusively in the patriarchal period and early
monarchy” (Allen, in ISBE, 1:758). “The
fact that the word pîlegeš is nowhere
mentioned in the legal collections of Exodus and
Deuteronomy, nor in the lists of proscribed
sexual relationships in Lev. 18, 20, should
further caution against too quickly positing
that this form of connubial arrangement was
widely practiced” (Day, in EDB, 273).
Indeed, the fact that the families of Israel’s
kings suffered from polygamy—with concubinage as
an extended form of this practice with added
“lesser-wives”—demonstrates that it was indeed a
practice never blessed or sanctioned by God.
With the unfortunate rise of a sector of Messianic polygamist men
among us today, it should not be surprising that
some are now discussing whether or not
concubinage is also acceptable. If polygamy is
unacceptable given the Genesis ideal of marriage
being between one man and one woman (Genesis
2:24), a principle upheld by Yeshua and His
Apostles (Matthew
19:5; Mark 10:7-8; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians
5:31)—then just as polygamy would be absolutely
unacceptable in view of the equality of the
genders He has restored (Galatians 3:28), so
would concubinage be even more unacceptable!
Messianic men today wanting to take concubines
to themselves or “lesser-wives” into their homes
are doing so only for the purpose of having a
sexual outlet. They forget the fact that the
Hebrew Tanach depicts both the ups and the
downs of its chosen people, and simply
practicing polygamy or concubinage because the
Patriarchs or kings of Israel did it fails to
consider the severe negative consequences that
both brought upon their households and the
Kingdom as a whole.
(For a further discussion, consult the editor’s
articles “Is
Polygamy for Today?” and “Addressing
the Frequently Avoided Issues Messianics
Encounter in the Torah.”)
posted 23 November, 2008
Conspiracy Theories: I have seen some prophetic end-time websites, some of which are
Messianic, which advocate various conspiracy
theories regarding groups like the Illuminati or
Freemasons. What do you think of these theories?
Is there any merit to them?
We do not engage
in these types of theories. For quite some time
there have been people associated with Messianic
beliefs who believe that the Illuminati and
Freemasons are trying to take over the world,
and in actuality control all of the world’s
politics behind the scenes. We do not doubt the
fact that these groups may exert some influence
behind the scenes, as the Scriptures are clear
that there is a conspiracy against the Lord
(Psalm 2:1-3). However, most of those people who
address these groups, and try to connect them to
end-time prophecy, have been discredited due to
either failed end-time projections or outright
distortion of facts or lack of primary evidence.
Because of this and the strong connection to
fear that is often associated with these
theories, we choose not to address them and are
often skeptical of those who do. We believe that
there is little merit to them, especially if
fear is the primary motivation. God’s people
need to spend more time on the work of His
Kingdom, recognizing that the Kingdom of
Darkness responds to us.
updated 18 December, 2006
Corinthians, Epistle of First: What can you tell me about the composition of the Epistle of 1
Corinthians?
There is no controversy among conservative theologians that the
Apostle Paul is the author of the first Epistle
to the Corinthians. Paul is plainly identified
as being the author in the text (1:1-2; 16:21).
There was no controversy in ancient times
surrounding Pauline authorship, attested to by
Clement of Rome in 96 C.E. Writing the
Corinthians, Clement attests, “Take up the
epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he
write to you at the time when the Gospel first
began to be preached?” (1 Clement 47:1).
1 Corinthians, in fact, is Paul’s second letter
to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 5:9 indicates,
“I
wrote you in my letter not to associate with
immoral people,” indeed attesting to the fact
that there was a first letter written by Paul
that is no longer extant. 1 Corinthians is his
second out of (at least) three letters,
indicating that the Corinthian congregation had
many problems.
The composition of 1 Corinthians is often dated in either 56 or 57
C.E., toward the end of Paul’s three-year
residency in Ephesus (16:5-9; cf. Acts 20:31).
This was during Paul’s Third Missionary Journey.
Having received several envoys from the assembly
of Believers in Corinth, Paul finds it necessary
to address their questions and issues—and he
does this very directly. 1 Corinthians has been
called “the most business-like of all Paul’s
epistles” (Guthrie, 440).
It would be impossible to understand the scope of 1 Corinthians
without understanding a bit about Ancient
Corinth. In the mid-First Century Corinth was
the chief city in Greece, the capital of Achaia.
It had become a major metropolis on the isthmus
connecting the Greek mainland with the
Peloponnesus. Corinth was a newer city when
compared to Athens or Sparta, having a mixed
population of both Romans and Greeks (IDB,
1:685). Corinth was a major center of Greek
philosophy, but probably not as significant as
Athens. Of the twelve temples in Corinth, the
major one was dedicated to Aphrodite, the Greek
goddess of love.
When Paul was writing his epistle, Corinth had a very broad ethnic
community. “Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, and
Orientals of other races had settled among the
earlier Italian and Greek colonists and had
brought with them their diverse cultural
heritage, their distinctive religious customs,
and their differing religious beliefs and
practices” (Ibid). Some archaeological finds in
Corinth have revealed the ruins of temples to
Egyptian, Phrygian, and Syrian deities (Ibid).
Corinth had a sizeable enough Jewish community
to have at least one synagogue, where the
community of Messianic Believers first met.
More than anything else, Corinth was known as a place for gross
sexual immorality. The verb Korinthiazomai
(Korinqiazomai)
or “to live as a Corinthian” in Greek had become
synonymous with “to practice sexual immorality.”
Not surprisingly, admonitions against
fornication are a common theme throughout Paul’s
epistle. “Even at a time when public morality
everywhere in the Empire was at a low ebb,
Corinth in Paul’s day was notorious for lax
morals” (Ibid).
Considering Paul’s Greek-speaking Corinthian audience, no
scholastic claim has ever been made trying to
suggest a Hebrew or Aramaic origin for his
epistle. There are very few quotations made from
the Tanach in this letter, so even the amount of
possible Septuagintisms is low. That does not
mean that there are not Hebraic undertones to
his writing, but other than a few Messianics
wishing the letter were written in Hebrew, there
is no scholastic or historical proof able to
substantiate it. Paul’s audience included “Jews
with their love of the OT, and pagans who were
so dissatisfied with their paganism that they
had gone as far as to attend the Jewish house of
worship” (ISBE, 1:776). On the contrary,
the fact that Paul wrote this letter in Greek is
understood overwhelmingly by the fact that all
of the people in the Corinthian assembly,
especially the Jewish members of his audience,
all had proper names of Greek and Latin origin:
i.e., Gaius, Fortunatus, Crispus, Justus,
Achaius, Sosthenes, Aquila, Priscilla (EXP,
10:177).
Paul himself had actually helped found the assembly in Corinth, via
the association that he had with Priscilla and
Aquila, two Roman Jews who were forced to leave
Rome at the decree of Emperor Claudius (Acts
18:2). Acts 18:11 indicates that Paul probably
stayed in Corinth for a year-and-a-half.
Originally, this group of Believers met in the
local synagogue. When the group was forced out
of the synagogue, they met in a home next door
to the synagogue (Acts 18:8). Many of the early
converts also included non-Jewish pagans, whose
adoption of faith in Yeshua would prove to have
many challenges. The Alexandrian Jew Apollos
made his way to Corinth, where he was tutored by
Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:24).
The text of 1 Corinthians indicates that the Corinthian assembly
was spiritually very immature (3:1-4). Paul
wrote his letter to correct them on their sinful
behaviors, addressing specific questions that
had been brought to him via courier. Paul is
forced to rebuke the Corinthians about the
factions that have arisen among them (1:11). 1
Corinthians 5 is spent by Paul warning the
Corinthians about the dangers of incest, indeed
indicating that they were ignoring the
foundational principles of the Torah. Paul is
shocked that the Corinthians are taking their
fellow Believers to the pagan Corinthian
courts to determine their disputes (ch. 6). He
is also forced to comment about the proper place
of marriage between a man and a woman, and urges
some of the unmarried to stay unmarried in light
of their circumstances. A person who is married
to an unbeliever is urged to stay married and
lead that person to faith through good conduct (ch.
7). 1 Corinthians 10 is a treatise on meat
sacrificed to idols, and how Believers must be
consciously aware that what they are doing is
observed by others.
Paul also must address the issue of women’s clothing in the
assembly (11:2-16), likely in direct response to
the reversed gender roles between men and women
that were common in parts of Ancient Greece. He
also issues instruction regarding the Lord’s
Supper (11:17-34). Chs. 12-14 are spent
analyzing the proper usage of the spiritual
gifts, with love being the greatest of them all
(ch. 13). Writing to a predominantly Hellenistic
audience, Paul spends ch. 15 laying out the
Biblical doctrine of resurrection. Throughout
Paul’s letter, he must spend a significant
amount of time defending his spiritual authority
(ISBE, 1:776-777).
Unlike some of Paul’s other letters, 1 Corinthians offers no major
exegetical challenges regarding Torah
observance. Paul spends so much time addressing
the sinful behavior of the Corinthians, that one
is forced to turn to the Torah to know why Paul
does not explain “why” their actions are sinful.
The Apostle assumes that his readers know enough
of the Law of Moses so that he does not have to
go into great detail about their sin. Paul
simply addresses their sin, the problems that
they have caused, and tells them to stop.
1 Corinthians is an excellent piece of Scripture to examine and
heed when it comes to how sin can destroy both a
person and the community of faith. For Messianic
Believers, 1 Corinthians is a superb case study
for understanding a broad-sweeping letter in
historical context and why the early Believers
in Yeshua were indeed admonished to follow the
Torah.
Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “Corinthians, 1 and 2,” in
NIDB, pp 235-236.
Betz, Hans Dieter, and Margaret M. Mitchell.
“Corinthians, First Epistle to the,” in ABD,
1:1139-1148.
Gilmour, S.M. “Corinthians, First Letter to
the,” in IDB, 1:684-692.
Gundry, Robert. “The Major Epistles of Paul,” in
A Survey of the New Testament, pp
359-389.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Corinthian Epistles,” in
New Testament Introduction, pp 432-464.
Mare, W. Harold. “1 Corinthians,” in EXP,
10:175-297.
Morris, L. “Corinthians, First Epistle to the,”
in ISBE, 1:774-779.
updated 06 February, 2006
Corinthians, Epistle of Second: What can you tell me about the composition of the Epistle of 2
Corinthians?
The text that is often called 2 Corinthians is unanimously agreed
to have been written by the Apostle Paul (1:1;
10:1). Unlike any of his other letters, 2
Corinthians contains more autobiographical
material, and we learn much about Paul the
person in this epistle (NIDB, 236).
Pauline authorship of 2 Corinthians has not been
challenged, but it was not as well known to the
Second and Third Century Church as some of
Paul’s other letters. Only those who challenge
Pauline authorship of all of his letters do not
believe that Paul wrote this text (ISBE,
1:779).
There is some debate among theologians regarding whether 2
Corinthians is a single letter, or actually a
composition of several letters. Conservatives
generally argue for the unity of this epistle,
whereas liberals tend to believe that it is a
compilation of several letters (ABD,
1:1148).
According to some scenarios, 2 Corinthians may be the fourth letter
that Paul wrote the assembly in Corinth. Harris
validly points out, “There is probably no part
of Paul’s life more difficult to reconstruct
accurately than the period of thirty or so
months he spent in and around Ephesus (perhaps
from the fall of A.D. 53 to the spring of A.D.
56)” (EXP, 10:302). For certain, the bulk
of Paul’s writing the Corinthians was to rebuke
them for problems that they were facing. 2
Corinthians 2:4 states, “For
out of much affliction and anguish of heart I
wrote to you with many tears; not so that you
would be made sorrowful, but that you might know
the love which I have especially for you.” This
does indicate that a previous piece of writing
preceded his writing in 2 Corinthians, but what
that piece of writing is has been debated.
Some believe that the piece of writing referred
to is 1 Corinthians. Others believe it is a lost
letter of stern rebuke. Gundry notes, “After
writing 1 Corinthians from Ephesus, Paul found
it necessary to make a ‘painful visit’ to
Corinth and back—painful because of the strained
relation between him and the Corinthians at the
time. Luke does not record this visit in Acts.
It is to be inferred, however, from 2
Corinthians 12:14; 13:1-2, where Paul describes
his coming visit as the ‘third’” (Gundry, 369).
The existence of 2 Corinthians as a “fourth
letter” creates some problems for exegetes
trying to recreate the circumstances under which
2 Corinthians was composed (Guthrie, pp
451-452). Of course, more than anything else, if
2 Corinthians were indeed the fourth letter that
Paul wrote to the Corinthians, it indicates once
again how spiritually immature they were and
that they had some major problems.
Another proposal that some have suggested is that 2 Corinthians chs.
10-13 are the sorrowful letter that Paul refers
to earlier in the text. While most conservatives
are agreed that chs. 10-13 are part of the
original text, or yet another piece of text
written later, this is a distinct possibility
and deserves some consideration when examining
the whole of 2 Corinthians. In the most extreme
case, this would mean that Paul wrote a total of
five letters to the Corinthians (the non-extant
first letter, 1 Corinthians, a non-extant third
letter, 2 Corinthians chs. 1-9, 2 Corinthians
chs. 10-13).
If we can assume that 1 Corinthians 16:5-8 points to a Spring 56 or
57 C.E. dating, then it is likely that 2
Corinthians was written sometime in the
following Winter. A likely place of composition
is Macedonia (2:13; 7:5), although some also
favor Ephesus.
Like 1 Corinthians, no original composition in Hebrew or Aramaic
has ever been proposed by anyone in the
scholastic community. It is only limited to
those in the Messianic community who want it to
be so. It is a complete historical
impossibility.
When coupled with 1 Corinthians, and compared with Acts 18 and the
late First Century composition of 1 Clement,
2 Corinthians gives us a very good idea about
the internal dealings in the First Century
community of faith. It specifically gives us the
framework for many of the interpersonal and
societal issues that faced the ekklēsia
at large.
Why Paul composed this letter to the Corinthians is a slight
challenge, but not that difficult to determine.
It is often proposed that the purpose for Paul
writing 2 Corinthians was that his admonitions
laid out in 1 Corinthians, and likely other
previous communication, were not met. Paul is
believed to have made a brief visit to Corinth
to try to remedy the situation, which did not
help, because false teachers and false apostles
had entered into the assembly and were
challenging his authority (11:4; 12:11). After
Paul’s visit, which is viewed as a disaster, he
writes them a severe letter (2:4). This letter
may be non-extant, or as some have proposed, may
be composed in chs. 10-13. Later, we see that
Paul meets Titus in Macedonia, who brings a good
report from Corinth, and this improved situation
necessitates the writing of 2 Corinthians.
Chs. 10-13 present the biggest challenge for the exegete because it
is a severe rebuke that seems to be disjointed
from the larger, more positive context of the
letter. Those who see 2 Corinthians as a whole
work, rather than two letters put together,
believe that Titus did bring some negative news
with him to Paul, and chs. 10-13 address this.
Some evangelical scholars, though, believe this
is another letter written to the Corinthians, at
a later date by Paul, and then was added to the
document that became known as 2 Corinthians (EXP,
10:305).
The nature of 2 Corinthians does not present a great amount of
debate for Torah observant Messianic Believers,
as it is a large continuation of the “sin” motif
of 1 Corinthians. It continues to address the
disarray that can take place when a community of
Believers is out of order. It is notable that
some theologians believe that the “teachers”
influencing the Corinthians in this epistle were
Judaizers (2 Corinthians 11:22-23), forcing
circumcision and Torah observance on the
Corinthians, for salvation, similar to the
events surrounding Paul’s letter to the
Galatians. Of course, this requires the able
student to place the events in their historical,
First Century Jewish context, and what happens
when the young, naïve, or immature adopt things
that they are spiritually not ready for. As with
all of his epistles, the bulk of the
Torah-related issues are addressed in the
context of the spiritually still-maturing, and
what is most applicable for new Believers in
Messiah Yeshua.
Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “Corinthians, 1 and 2,” in
NIDB, pp 235-236.
Betz, Hans Dieter. “Corinthians, Second Epistle
to the,” in ABD, 1:1148-1154.
Gilmour, S.M. “Corinthians, Second Letter to
the,” in IDB, 1:692-698.
Gundry, Robert. “The Major Epistles of Paul,” in
A Survey of the New Testament, pp
359-389.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Corinthian Epistles,” in
New Testament Introduction, pp 432-464.
Harris, Murray J. “2 Corinthians,” in EXP,
10:301-508.
Morris, L. “Corinthians, First Epistle to the,”
in ISBE, 1:779-782.
updated 06 February, 2006
1 Corinthians 6:12:
The Apostle Paul says that “all things are
lawful.” How can you say that the Law of Moses
is still to be followed today?
“All
things are lawful for me, but not all things are
profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I
will not be mastered by anything”
(1 Corinthians 6:12, NASU).
The statement made by some, “all things are now lawful,” on the
basis of 1 Corinthians 6:12, can be a very
slippery slope. If we are to interpret this
statement properly, then what is being asserted
is that when we become Believers we are now
allowed to do whatever we want, regardless of
Divine consequences. What it would mean is that
those things that are considered sin in the
Torah or Law of Moses, which we are prohibited
from doing and in many cases are punishable by
death, no longer apply. This would mean that
pre-marital sex and homosexuality are not sin.
This would mean that murder is not sin. This
would mean that idolatry is not sin, and that
even though we may claim to serve the Holy One
of Israel, if we also participate in heathen
idolatry, then we will not be held accountable
for it.
If this is what the Apostle Paul is saying here, then we should
indeed have a problem with Paul. This statement
alone would contradict the Apostle John’s
writing at the end of Revelation, “But
for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable
and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers
and idolaters and all liars, their part will
be in the lake that burns with fire and
brimstone, which is the second death” (21:8).
But this would certainly not be the case,
because Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:12 are
prefaced in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 with a
statement that is nearly identical to John’s:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will
not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will
inherit the kingdom of God.” There has to be a
better explanation of 1 Corinthians 6:12.
Any of you who have examined Paul’s epistles
will notice that he writes two lengthy letters
to the Corinthians. There is internal evidence
from 1 Corinthians 5:9, where he says, “I wrote
you in my letter not to associate with immoral
people,” that he wrote a previous letter to them
before what we now call 1 Corinthians, that we
no longer have. The assembly at Corinth was
riddled with problems, as many of the Corinthian
Believers were not being properly trained up in
the foundational guidelines of God’s Word and
what He considered acceptable and unacceptable.
One of the most serious problems that the
Corinthian assembly faced was that of sexual
immorality. This apparently did not only include
sexual promiscuity between males and females,
but extended to homosexuality and even incest.
In 1 Corinthians 5:1 Paul attests to the fact
that “It is actually reported that there is
immorality among you, and immorality of such a
kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles,
that someone has his father's wife.” He says
quite candidly “there is immorality among you,
and of a kind that is not found even among
pagans” (RSV). This is how bad things were in
Corinth, and with this backdrop, how on Earth
would Paul be telling them that “all things were
lawful,” to be construed as meaning that this
kind of behavior was acceptable?
It should be noted that there is translation
error with rendering 1 Corinthians 6:12 with
“all things are lawful.” The Greek word that
would be rendered as “lawful” or “lawfully” in
the Apostolic Scriptures is nomimōs (nomimwß),
which Vine says “is used of contending in
the games and adhering to the rules” (p 357).
This word appears in 2 Timothy 2:5, where Paul
writes, “we know that the Law is good, if one
uses it lawfully [nomimōs]” (NASU). But
nomimōs is not what appears in 1
Corinthians 6:12.
The Greek verb that is often rendered as
“lawful” in 1 Corinthians 6:12 is exesti
(exesti),
which LS defines as “it is allowed, it
is in one's power, is possible” (p 273).
CGEDNT says that it means “it is proper,
permitted” (p 64). Exesti is an
entirely different Greek word than nomimōs.
“Lawful” is an improper translation of exesti
because it does not include the root nomos
in it which means “law.” Surprisingly, the only
major Christian Bible that translates this
properly is the NIV, which renders 1 Corinthians
6:12 as “‘Everything is permissible for me’—but
not everything is beneficial. ‘Everything is
permissible for me’—but I will not be mastered
by anything.”
While the NASU does not use quotation marks
around the statement “all things are lawful for
me,” the RSV does: “‘All things are lawful for
me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things
are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved
by anything.” It is absolutely true that there
was no punctuation, quotation marks, or commas
in the original Greek text that Paul wrote. But
in light of how he precedes in his comments,
chastising the Corinthians for their sin and how
he says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that such
individuals have no place in the Kingdom of God,
for him then to say that “all things are lawful”
and we can do whatever we want would be a
self-contradiction on his part. Rather, we
believe that Paul is making a point by injecting
the phrase panta moi exestin (Panta
moi exestin),
“all things are permitted,” to make a serious
point to the Corinthians. It is the Corinthians
who are saying, “all things are permitted,”
because they are participating in gross sins
which are high crimes according to the Torah.
Paul is trying to demonstrate to the Corinthians
the absurdity of their belief that they can go
on practicing these sins without suffering any
Divine consequences. It is because of this that
modern translations such as the RSV and NIV have
placed these statements in quotation marks, and
because this is what was being said by the
Corinthians, not by Paul.
Is Paul really saying in 1 Corinthians 6:11 that
“all things are lawful” and that we can do
whatever we want? Absolutely not. When we
carefully review the surrounding Scriptures, and
the sins that Paul was chastising the
Corinthians for, we cannot possibly come to this
conclusion. It was the Corinthians who thought
they could get away with sinning, and who were
saying, “All things are permitted for me.”
Sadly, we have the same situation today. There
are people who believe that once they “get
saved,” that they have been forgiven of their
sins and since they have the covering of grace
they do not have to live in accordance with
God’s standards and are, at the very least, not
subject to His correction. We can legitimately
wonder if such individuals are indeed
spiritually regenerated, but ultimately God
knows if they are truly born again or not. What
we do know is that as Believers we have the
responsibility to obey the Lord and not fall
prey to the kinds of gross immoralities that the
Corinthians participated in. The Lord’s standard
is laid forth for us in the commandments of the
Torah. The Torah clearly defines what sin is and
what He considers acceptable and unacceptable.
All things are not lawful for us, especially if
we have the Torah written on our hearts as
Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 tell us.
(This entry includes adapted excerpts from the editor’s book
The New Testament
Validates Torah.)
posted 07 June, 2006
Creationism:
What is the Messianic position on Creationism?
Surveying today’s Messianic movement, it is fair to say that the
vast majority of Messianic Believers adhere to
some kind of Young Earth Creationism. They
believe that Planet Earth (and perhaps the whole
universe) is approximately 6,000-7,000 years
old, and was created in six literal 24-hour
days. They believe that science supports these
beliefs, and that the genealogies in Genesis chs.
5 and 11 can be used to calculate the age of the
Earth. Frequently when the readings
Bereisheet and Noach are examined at
the beginning of the Torah cycle, theological
critiques of Young Earth Creationism are often
not considered.
In evangelical Christianity, however, not all adhere to Young Earth
Creationism. Many evangelicals hold to the
alternative view of Old Earth Creationism, and
believe that Young Earth Creationism often
follows what can be called “pseudoscience.”
While affirming that human beings are a fiat
creation of God—and did not appear because of
millions of years of evolution—these views
do espouse a much older age for Planet Earth and
the universe. Of important note to Old Earth
advocates is Genesis 1:2: “The
earth was formless and void, and darkness was
over the surface of the deep.” Old Earth
Creationism generally advocates that the
universe was formed by God in six “days” or
yamim (~ymy)
equaling periods of time (about 14-16 billion
years), and that the “rock” known as Planet
Earth remained unused by God for human
habitation for about 4.5 billion years. In this
schema human beings only started appearing on
Earth perhaps a minimum of 14,000-20,000 years
ago, to 40,000-50,000 years ago.
This is not to say that there are not some theological critiques of
Old Earth Creationism or variation among its
proponents. In its defense, this view often does
take into consideration factors such as the
speed of light, the rotation of the Solar System
in the Milky Way Galaxy, and the rotation of the
galaxy in the universe—things that Young Earth
Creationists generally ignore or try to avoid.
They also do not advocate a strict
“black-and-white” reading of the Genesis 1
account, allowing for some poetic or literary
creativity on behalf of its author, given its
ancient genre. Old Earth Creationists do affirm
the inerrancy of Scripture and the existence of
Adam and Eve as historical people. One frequent
critique is that most advocates hold that the
Noahdic Flood of Genesis 6-8 was just a regional
catastrophe to the Ancient Near East and not a
global catastrophe. Yet, the Flood would have
affected all of humanity in existence at the
time, and all of the animals associated with
humanity, being “worldwide” from the vantage
point of its participants.
As the Messianic movement grows and expands, more proponents of Old
Earth Creationism or forms of Old Earth
Creationism will be present. This includes
the editor. This growing minority position
will affirm the antiquity of the Earth and the
universe, but also recognize that humans are a
relatively new arrival on Earth. It will affirm
that we are indeed made in the image of God for
His purposes, but we preside over a Creation
that God has been preparing for us for much
longer than 6,000-7,000 years. Adopting a more
moderate position on Creationism will also
require that today’s Messianic movement
reevaluate some of its current views on Biblical
chronology, which are often used to calculate
the return of Yeshua in the so-called Biblical
Year 6,000—something that our ministry believes
that we are not supposed to do.
If you are unfamiliar with this issue, we would recommend that you
consult the book Three Views on Creation and
Evolution, eds. J.P. Moreland and John Mark
Reynolds (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), or
purchase the DVD set
The Great
Debate on Science and the Bible
by the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute,
where proponents of both Young and Old Earth
Creationism discuss their views. For an
introduction to Old Earth Creationism, consult
the book The Genesis Question: Scientific
Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis, second
expanded edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs:
NavPress, 2001).
updated 26 August, 2008
Crucifixion: I have heard some Messianic teachers say that Yeshua was not
crucified on a cross. Can you clarify this for
me?
updated 24 February, 2010
NOTES
[a]
Gerald G. O’Collins, “Crucifixion,” in
ABD, 1:1208-1209.
[b]
C.J. Koster, Come Out
of Her, My People (Northriding,
South Africa: Institute for Scripture
Research, 1998), 34.
Cult: I have been told that because I am now pursuing a Messianic walk
that I have joined a cult. How do I counter
these claims?
It is not uncommon for people who enter into the Messianic movement
to be accused of joining a “cult.” This is often
done by Christian family or friends who do not
understand what the Messianic movement and/or
Torah observance are about. Rather than
investigate the Hebraic Roots of our faith, many
decide to accuse those who have done so as being
part of a “cult,” when in actuality such a claim
is made with no substantial basis other than
complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge.
Technically speaking, any group that is dedicated to any cause is a
“cult.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and
Thesaurus defines the word cult as “devoted
attachment to person, principle, etc.,” which
would include religious or social devotion to
anything. It could include those who are
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or are
dedicated to entertainment phenomena such as
Star Trek or Elvis Presley. Just about everyone
on Planet Earth is part of some kind of “cult,”
when this definition is applied.
Theologically speaking, however, a cult is a group which advocates
aberrant theology which is clearly in violation
of the Scriptures. The term cult is often used
more frequently than it should, but when
correctly applied it should be applied to groups
that deny core essentials of the faith such as
denial of the Divinity and/or Messiahship of
Yeshua, the inspiration of Scripture, and
salvation by grace through faith alone. If any
one of these three areas is violated by a group,
be they Messianic or Christian, than such a
group may be rightfully considered a cult. A
cult also may be defined as a group with a
domineering leader who demands the complete
loyalty of that group’s members, and who says
that his teachings may not be challenged.
Are there groups claiming to be “Messianic” that classify as being
“cults”? Yes. But in complete fairness there are
“Christian” groups which likewise fall into the
same classification. If you are challenged as
being part of a cult, please ask the person
making the accusation on what specific
theological reasons and what significant basis
that the claim is being made.
updated 18 December, 2006 |