|
Daniel, Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Daniel?
The Book of Daniel (Heb. Dani’el,
laYnD) is one of the most difficult to
understand texts of the Tanach, and is highly
debated among most interpreters. Daniel is
placed after the Book of Ezekiel in the
Christian book order of the Old Testament, among
the Major Prophets, but is a part of the
Writings in Jewish tradition. Daniel is
prophetic/apocalyptic in nature, but its words
were delivered by one who was a government
official (NIDB, 253). Daniel was an exile
taken to Babylon at a young age, who was renamed
Belteshazzar and trained for the royal service
(1:1-6; Harrison, 1105). While in Babylon he
became an interpreter of dreams and signs, and
was shown visions of both the future of the
world and destiny of Israel.
Internally in the text, Daniel is afforded some level of
involvement of delivering its prophecies (8:1;
9:2; 10:2). While many conservatives consider
him to be the author of the book, others concede
that a close associate may have been responsible
for writing down or compiling his prophecies (EXP,
7:4). Yeshua the Messiah certainly refers to
Daniel speaking prophecies (Matthew 24:15),
validating Danielic involvement. The language
style of Daniel, mixed Hebrew and Aramaic, is
thought by conservatives to suggest an earlier,
rather than a later dating of the text, likely
sometime around 530 B.C.E. The Book of Daniel
does demonstrate a unity of style (Harrison,
1107-1009; NIDB, 253; ISBE,
1:862), leading many to conclude “the internal
evidence leads us to believe that Daniel was the
source of the vision reports of Daniel 7-12”
(Dillard and Longman, 330).
Up until the Twentieth Century, Danielic involvement with this book
was not severely challenged, until the rise of
the German critical movement (Harrison, 1111).
Liberals today totally discount any kind of
genuine Danielic involvement in Daniel. Most
liberals suggest that Daniel is a fictional text
because its prophecies are too predictive and
specific (ISBE, 1:862), with the
character Daniel perhaps being based on the
“Daniel” mentioned in Ezekiel 14:14 and 28:3. In
this schema, the figure of Daniel is a legendary
character to be relegated to various “court
tales” (ABD, 2:29-30; New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, 1231), of which
there is no historically reliable information. A
few liberal commentators have suggested a
comparison between Daniel’s existence and that
of Britain’s King Arthur (IDB, 1:761).
Liberals often suggest that because of the specificity of Daniel’s
prophecies, that the Book of Daniel must be a
work of fiction probably written during the
Maccabean revolt of 164 B.C.E. (IDB,
1:766-767; EXP, 7:6-8; ABD,
2:33-34). Thus, when Daniel prophesies
concerning various abominations, what is to be
considered are not events to come in the future,
but events that have already taken place via the
sacking of the Temple in Jerusalem by the
Seleucids. In this schema, the Book of Daniel is
nothing more than a “pious fraud” similar to the
Book of Deuteronomy—as advocated by proponents
of the JEDP documentary hypothesis. Liberals do
not take Daniel very seriously, concluding “The
author of Daniel tried to calculate the time of
the end and failed” (IDB, 1:768).
There are a few conservatives who embrace the liberal propositions
concerning the Book of Daniel. Some, perhaps
seeing the abuses of various prophecy teachers
who today give a great deal of attention to
Daniel, have ended up adopting the position that
the “prophecies” were given after the fact
(Dillard and Longman, 331). This is further
complicated by some historical issues
surrounding Daniel, as extant data from the
Seventh and Sixth Centuries B.C.E. is probably
not as complete as it could be (Dillard and
Longman, 333-337; cf. Harrison, 1112-1127).
However, conservatives supporting genuine
Danielic involvement rightly suggest that the
lack of information we have is not sufficient
grounds to claim pseudonymity.
The Book of Daniel has some unique linguistic differences, likely
accounting for a composition somewhere in
Babylon. 1:1-2:4a and chs. 8-12 are written in
Hebrew, with 2:4b-7:28 being written in Aramaic.
Liberals commonly claim that this is evidence
for a later composition of the text.
Conservatives respond by saying that the
differences in vocabulary are not significant
when compared to the mixing of other Ancient
Near Eastern languages in various documents (ISBE,
1:860-861). It is significant that that Hebrew
and Aramaic are both Semitic relatives, and
interactions between the Jews and Babylonians
necessitates the existence of loan words (EXP,
7:23-24).
The Greek Septuagint version of Daniel includes some notable
additions: the Story of Susanna, the Story of
Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of Azariah
and the Song of the Three Jews. All of these
books are included in the Apocrypha. A fair
amount of agreement exists between the Hebrew
Masoretic Text and LXX versions of Daniel (IDB,
1:763; Harrison, 1133-1134). Fragments of Daniel
were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and
bear some significant resemblance to the MT (ABD,
2:29).
The text of the Book of Daniel is divided into two large parts:
historical narrative (chs. 1-6) and apocalyptic
revelation (chs. 7-12). Believing the stated
location of the events as Babylon, then Daniel’s
prophecies would have been composed to encourage
the Jewish exiles in Babylon who could have
thought that the Lord abandoned them (EXP,
7:3). Daniel reminded them that God was not
unfaithful to His people, and that the
punishment meted upon Israel was to be lifted
(9:2).
A major thrust of Daniel’s prophecies is to remind God’s people
that He is sovereign over human affairs: “This
sentence is by the decree of the angelic
watchers and the decision is a command of the
holy ones, in order that the living may know
that the Most High is ruler over the realm of
mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and
sets over it the lowliest of men” (4:17; cf.
5:21, Dillard and Longman, 348-351). Daniel
portrays God as being triumphant (7:11,
26-27; 8:25; 9:27), something that is climaxed
later in the Book of Revelation (Revelation
11:15; cf. Daniel 2:44; 7:27). God’s people are
stirred to anticipate a world to come where the
battle of good and evil has come to resolution (ECB,
665), with evil being defeated.
For Believers in Messiah Yeshua, Daniel reminds us that the Messiah
will be triumphant over the world. The words of
Daniel significantly affect the symbolism we see
in a text like Revelation. However, the ideas in
Daniel also impact the history of the Apostolic
Scriptures, its authors, and concepts displayed
by them such as the antimessiah/antichrist, and
most significantly the Second Coming (EXP,
7:10-12).
Jewish theological positions on the Book of Daniel have helped lead
some interpreters to some of the liberal
conclusions that are frequently made today. The
ancient Jewish testimony regarded Daniel is that
he was considered to be a real prophet with real
prophecies for the future (Josephus
Antiquities 10.266-268; 4Q; cf. Harrison,
1107; ISBE, 1:861-862). Later Rabbinic
tradition, however, had difficulty embracing
Daniel as a prophet. This largely came in
response to how various words in Daniel were
interpreted as favoring the Messiahship of
Yeshua of Nazareth (Jewish Study Bible,
1642). The Jewish theology of the Talmud affords
Daniel the role of a seer (b.Megillah 3a;
b.Sanhedrin 94a), but not a prophet (IDB,
1:763; Harrison, 1106). The composition of
Daniel was attributed to the men of the Great
Synagogue (b.Baba Batra 15a), not Daniel
himself or one of his associates. Consequently
because of these factors, the Book of Daniel has
not had a great impact on more contemporary
Jewish theology, but words in Daniel are used in
various liturgical prayers.
The Book of Daniel has impacted Christian theology significantly
more than Jewish theology, particularly
Christology as it concerns the Messiahship of
Yeshua of Nazareth. Evangelicals today widely
consider Daniel to be composed of authentic
Danielic words and prophecies (ISBE,
1:861). However, even though Daniel is
considered to have important words regarding
Yeshua—particularly its distinct “Son of Man”
references (7:13; cf. Matthew 24:30) and the
fact that the doctrine of resurrection is based
in Daniel (12:2; Harrison, 1131)—significant
variance exists regarding how its future
prophecies are to be interpreted.
Some evangelical Christian scholars interpret Daniel as predicting
the prominence of the Church following the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (ISBE,
1:865), with the remainder of Daniel’s
prophecies given some kind of “allegorical”
view. Many other evangelicals regard Daniel’s
vision of the four beasts (7:23) to portray the
major empires of ancient humanity (Babylon,
Persia, Greece, Rome), culminating in a final
global empire led by an antimessiah—only to be
defeated by the Messiah (ECB, 665; cf.
Harrison, 1129-1130; Dillard and Longman,
351-352). The prophecy of Daniel’s seventy
“sevens” (9:20-27) is often viewed as
culminating in a seven-year tribulation period (NIDB,
253; ISBE, 1:865).
Today’s Messianic movement generally leans toward some form of
futuristic view of Daniel, consistent with what
is seen in evangelicalism. A significant amount
of engagement has occurred among Messianics and
parts of Daniel, particularly with those
who place a high degree of emphasis in Bible
prophecy. However, it is notable that some
Messianic views of Daniel often shift—and are
primarily designed to make the text fit current
events. Thus, to what degree Messianic
engagement with Daniel may be considered
responsible exegesis can be questioned.
Yeshua the Messiah is clear that no person knows the exact day or
time of His return (Mark 13:32-36; Acts 1:7-8).
No interpreter should be dogmatic with the
numbers of Daniel, but instead entreat God for
insight and wisdom for how to deal with its
prophecies. In the future, it is likely that
Messianic engagement of Daniel will take into
consideration more of the critical views
present, how Daniel would have encouraged those
living in Babylon and/or the Maccabean period,
and certainly how we can have a stable view of
the text that does not diminish the importance
of its future prophecies.
Bibliography
Archer, Jr., Gleason L. “Daniel,” in EXP,
7:3-157.
Collins, John J. “Daniel, Book of,” in ABD,
2:29-37.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Daniel,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 329-352.
Di Lella, A.A. “Daniel,” in IDBSup, pp
205-207.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Daniel,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1105-1134.
____________. “Daniel, Book of,” in ISBE,
1:859-866.
Frost, S.B. “Daniel,” in IDB, 1:761-768.
Henze, Matthias. “Daniel,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 1231-1252.
Payne, J. Barton. “Daniel, Book of,” in NIDB,
pp 253-254.
Provan, Iain. “Daniel,” in ECB, pp
665-675.
Wilbanks, Pete F. “Daniel, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 314-315.
Wills, Lawrence M. “Daniel,” in Jewish Study
Bible, pp 1640-1665.
posted 11 July, 2007
Dead Sea Scrolls: What is your opinion of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are a collection of ancient texts which
were discovered in the caves at Qumran in Israel
in 1947. They were the products of the Qumran
community of Essenes, which were an eclectic
sect of Judaism in the First Centuries B.C.E.
and C.E. The Essenes believed that the Temple
system of the Sadducees, and the sect of the
Pharisees, were both corrupt and in league with
the Romans. They separated themselves in the
desert in anticipation of the final battle,
where the Messiah would come and defeat Israel’s
Earthly enemies and reestablish the Davidic
monarchy.
The DSS are primarily used by Jews and Christians in textual
criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Manuscripts from
Qumran which are Biblical in nature are employed
and compared against other Hebrew texts to
determine what the original reading of a text
was. From this standpoint, we have no problem
with the DSS, as they provide a valuable ancient
witness for us to consider of the preservation
and copying of the Hebrew Scriptures.
It is notable, however, that the DSS do include texts that are
specific to the Essenes, the Qumran community,
and their theology. These include manuals on how
the community was to live, requirements for
entry, some reflections on the historical events
of the time, and commentaries on their religious
beliefs. Like all writings of the period, there
are certainly things that can be gleaned from
these works which can enable us to have a fuller
perspective of First Century Israel. However, in
the technical sense, the Qumran community was a
fringe sect in First Century Judaism, and we
need to be careful with giving theological
credence to some of their views as they did not
have an incredible amount of influence. Unlike
the Pharisees or Sadducees, the Essenes are not
mentioned in the Apostolic Scriptures. We know
of them primarily from the writings of the DSS
and the archaeological findings at Qumran.
updated 24 August, 2006
Death, for Believers: What do you believe happens when born again Believers die?
We believe that the disembodied spirits and souls of Believers who
die in the faith are transported to Heaven to be
with the Lord. This is fully consistent with
what the Apostles write to us in the Messianic
Scriptures and the beliefs of First Century
Pharisaical Judaism, which largely advocate an
afterlife. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:8, “we
are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to
be absent from the body and to be at home with
the Lord.” The Greek verb that Paul uses for “be at home with,” endēmeō
(endhmew),
actually means “To be at home, to be present in
any place or with any person,” relating to “one
who is at home with...or among his own people” (AMG,
585). Being separated from one’s physical body
thus requires one to be present with the Lord.
Paul also writes in Philippians 1:23, “But
I am hard-pressed from both directions,
having the desire to depart and be with Messiah,
for that is very much better,” expressing
his need to remain on Earth a little longer to
perform the Lord’s work. Further on in this same epistle, Paul writes
that “our citizenship is in heaven, from which
also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord
Yeshua the Messiah” (Philippians 3:20). He wants
to die and be in the presence of His Savior, yet
recognizes that Yeshua will ultimately come to
restore the Earth. The Believer’s ultimate place
of residence is not a Heaven in the sky, but in
the restored Kingdom of God on Earth. Heaven is
the intermediate place to be with the Lord prior
to the resurrection of a Believer’s body.
As a ministry, we fully denounce any form of “soul sleep” for the
righteous, as it is only the Believer’s dead
body that is “asleep,” awaiting for
reunification with the soul and spirit at the
resurrection—even though we fully affirm the
reality of a bodily resurrection!
Those in the Messianic community who believe in “soul sleep” often
base it on half-verses such as Ecclesiastes
9:5b, which says “the
dead do not know anything.” Yet this is not
definitive evidence of no afterlife, as the
verse continues describing human life on Earth,
and how the dead do not know of any Earth-bound
things: “their memory is forgotten. Indeed their
love, their hate and their zeal have already
perished, and they will no longer have a share
in all that is done under the sun” (Ecclesiastes
9:5c-6). Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 does not say
anything about the condition of dead persons or
where they are, but instead lists specific
things that they cannot do because they are
dead. These are things that these people had
time to participate in on Earth or “under the
sun” (Heb. tachat ha’shamesh,
vmVh txT),
but cannot participate in beyond the veil of
death not “knowing” about them.
It is insufficient for any interpreter, as can
be quite commonplace among Messianic advocates
of “soul sleep,” to only consider references in
the Tanach without also weighing them with
statements in the Apostolic Scriptures. The
Tanach really does not even ask the question
about life after death, because it is more
widely concerned with the corporate
nature of God’s people and their conduct on
Earth, whereas questions of an afterlife are
decidedly individualistic. Because the
Tanach does not really ask the question, it is
not addressed to the same degree as it is in the
Apostolic Scriptures. But still, that does not
mean that the Tanach is entirely silent about an
afterlife. One cannot “die,” and then be
“gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:8; 35:29;
49:33; Numbers 20:24, 26; Deuteronomy 32:50),
unless one is gathered somewhere. It by
no means speaks exclusively of internment.
The development of a theology of afterlife
across the Biblical period is no more irregular
or strange than the development of Messianism,
which took multiple millennia (cf. Hebrews
1:1-2), or even the doctrine of resurrection
itself which is scantly alluded to in the Tanach
(Daniel 12:1-2). All three of these strata
largely came to their peak in Pharisaic Judaism,
which significantly affected the development of
the early Messianic movement.
For a further discussion of this issue, consult the editor’s
articles “To
Be Absent From the Body”
and “Why
Hell Must Be Eternal.”
Also recommended is the book Death and the
Afterlife by Robert A. Morey.
updated 06 May, 2008
Denying Messiah: Why do you think there are people in the Messianic movement today
denying Yeshua as the Messiah?
There are a variety of reasons why some people in the Messianic
movement are denying Yeshua as the Messiah. The
first reason is that we are in the Last Days and
that there will be apostasy from the faith (2
Thessalonians 2:1-4). The second reason is that
there are a variety of deceptive books and
websites under the label of being “Messianic”
that some have consulted, which (deliberately)
plant seeds of doubt into the minds of people.
The third reason is that it is likely that many
people who are denying Yeshua’s Divinity, and
then His Messiahship, never truly knew
Him as their Personal Savior.
One pattern that is very dangerous is the idea that one must
“question everything.” Many of those who teach
that we must “question everything” have not
considered the ramifications of what they are
saying. Eventually a person will ask questions
that cannot be answered, and the result can be
denial of Yeshua and ultimately denial of the
existence of God. The Hebraic mind accepts God
for who He says He is because we cannot fully
understand the infinite. The Biblical pattern is
not to “question everything,” but rather
to seek confirmation of something (Deuteronomy
17:16; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1;
Titus 5:19; Hebrews 10:28).
updated 22 May, 2006
Deuteronomy, Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Deuteronomy?
No book of the Torah or Pentateuch is more concise, or more
frequently consulted as a single reference, than
the Book of Deuteronomy. The Hebrew name of this
text is Devarim (~yrbD), meaning “words,” derived from its
opening sentence: “These
are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel”
(1:1). This calls the reader to heed the words
that Moses spoke (NIDB, 269). Another
Jewish title seen in some works is sefer
tokchanot or “Book of Admonitions”
(Harrison, 635).
Our English term Deuteronomy is derived from its
Greek Septuagint designation of Deuteronomium
(DEUTERONOMION),
literally meaning “second law.” This meaning is
derived from 17:18 where a king of Israel is
told he “shall write for himself a copy of this
law.” The Hebrew of this is mishneh ha’Torah
(hrATh
hnvm),
as mishneh means “double, copy, second” (BDB,
1041). The LXX rendered this as deuteronomion
(deuteronomion).
Many Christian scholars regard this as a
mistranslation (IDB, 1:831; Harrison,
655; NIDB, 269), even though there are
many Jewish traditions that refer to the fifth
book of the Pentateuch as Mishneh Torah,
meaning “repetition of the Torah” (ABD,
2:168), and thus Deuteronomy would not be an
invalid term, being a reflection of this view.
“[T]he error on which the English title
Deuteronomy rests is not serious, as Deuteronomy
is in a very true sense a repetition of
the law” (ISBE, 1:934; cf. Dillard and
Longman, 91). The Book of Deuteronomy does not
just repeat the commands of the Torah, but it
also sets forward the responsibilities of God’s
people in light of a treaty-covenant (NBCR,
201).
“Deuteronomy…is a deeply traditional text that,
more than any other book of the Bible, provides
the foundation of Judaism” (Jewish Study
Bible, 356). The Shema and ritual
objects like the mezuzah, tefillin,
and tzit-tzit all find their basis in
Deuteronomy (Ibid.). For Believers in Yeshua, it
is notable that Deuteronomy is quoted more than
any other book of the Torah in the Apostolic
Scriptures.
The events of Deuteronomy occur as the Israelites are on the plains
of Moab, preparing to enter into the Promised
Land (1:5; cf. Numbers 36:33). Moses is handing
the leadership to Joshua (34:9; cf. Joshua
1:1-2), who was yet unproven as the newly
designated leader (NBCR, 201). Moses is
recalling what has happened to Israel since the
Exodus, and delivers a series of speeches likely
given over just a few days. Interestingly
enough, this “has possible antecedents in the
Egyptian method of diffusing moral teaching.
Most of the Egyptian wisdom instructions were
dressed in the form of testaments of kings and
viziers to their successors….This technique may
have exerted its influence on Israel’s
literature” (ABD, 2:169).
The audience of Deuteronomy is an entirely new generation of
Israelites who needed to be admonished about
obeying the Lord (IDB, 1:831). The forty
years of required wandering had been completed,
with all having died out except Joshua and
Caleb. “In some respects Deuteronomy is…‘the
last will and testament of Moses’” (Dillard and
Longman, 92). Deuteronomy does expound upon the
instruction that God has given the people
thusfar, but in some distinct instances changes
and/or modifies it for their entry into the
Promised Land (Ibid., 100). “The word contains
the essentials of Leviticus rewritten in such a
manner as to make the more priestly and esoteric
material amenable to the populace, and in this
sense Deuteronomy can be said to comprise a
popular version of the Levitical law, thereby
approximating to something like an ‘Everyman’s
Torah’” (Harrison, 636-637).
The text of Deuteronomy is divided into five major parts. The first
part is (1) a prologue introducing Moses’ speech
(1:1-4:43). This is followed by (2) comments
preparing Israel to receive God’s covenant law
(3:33-5:5), including a summarization of the Ten
Commandments (5:5-21). Additional admonitions
given include understanding the importance of
learning God’s commandments (6:1-25), and how
Israel has become God’s people because of His
gracious choice (7:1-26). This is followed by a
series of warnings about disobedience (8:1-20),
and a reminder for Israel to consider past
failures (9:1-29). The (3) largest section of
Deuteronomy is a repetition of the law code that
the people are to follow (12:-26:15). The story
closes with (4) a listing of blessings and
curses that are agreed upon by Israel at Mounts
Ebal and Gerizim (26:16-30:20), and (5) an
epilogue describing Moses’ death (31:1-34:12).
The authorship of Deuteronomy was unanimously accepted to be Moses
by both Jewish and Christian scholarship until
the rise of German higher criticism in the
Nineteenth Century. Deuteronomy itself attests
Mosaic authorship (1:1, 5; 31:24-25), and the
Tanach further testifies to Mosaic authorship of
the legislation found in the text (Joshua 1:7-8;
23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 8:53; Nehemiah 8:1; Malachi
4:4). The New Testament likewise unanimously
affirms principal Mosaic authorship of
Deuteronomy, including various testimonies of
how certain commandments or admonitions were
given by him to Israel. These are all found in
the words of Yeshua (Matthew 19:7-8; Mark
10:3-5; cf. Deuteronomy 24:1), Peter (Acts
2:22-23; cf. Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19), Stephen
(Acts 7:37-38), and Paul (Romans 10:19, cf.
Deuteronomy 32:21).
Conservative scholars today all widely recognize that the narrative
framework and conclusion of Deuteronomy likely
come from another hand. Such material is
generally referred to as being “a-Mosaica”
(Dillard and Longman, 92-93; cf. Harrison,
637-640, 659). While Moses is accredited as
being the author of his speeches in Deuteronomy,
the introduction to the text, as well as its
conclusion were probably written by scribes in
his inner circle and/or Joshua. It is certain
that Moses did not write about his own death
(Harrison, 661; NBCR, 203; NIDB,
269). Jewish tradition recognized that Joshua
wrote eight verses of the Law (b.Bava Batra
14b), and these are likely the verses that speak
of Moses’ death (34:5-12):
“As regards the obituary itself, Jewish tradition is most probably
correct in assigning the final eight verses of
the Torah to Joshua. Following normal Near
Eastern tradition, narratives dealing with
events of any importance were written down at
the time of, or shortly after, the particular
incidents had occurred, and this doubtless took
place in connection with the death of Moses” (ISBE,
1:938; cf. Harrison, 661).
Conservatives largely date Deuteronomy’s composition in either the
late Fifteenth Century or late Thirteenth
Century B.C.E. (NBCR, 204; ISBE,
1:938), depending on how the Exodus is dated
(see
Exodus
FAQ entry for a summarization of the
conservative debates over the timing of the
Exodus).
Liberal theologians who deny any Mosaic authorship of the Torah,
largely basing their conclusions on the work of
Julius Wellhausen and his documentary hypothesis
(see
Genesis
FAQ entry for a summarization of the JEDP
documentary hypothesis), generally identify
Deuteronomy as the so-called D source or
Deuteronomist (IDB, 1:831-832). Some date
Deuteronomy’s composition after the Babylonian
exile, but others date it during the reign of
King Josiah in the Seventh Century B.C.E. They
assert that the Book of Deuteronomy was written
as a “pious fraud” and then “discovered” in the
Temple (Harrison, 647), providing the impetus
for Josiah’s reforms in 2 Kings 22:3-23:25 (IDB,
136; ISBE, 1:935-936; ABD,
2:175-176; Jewish Study Bible, 357).
Thus, Deuteronomy was only written to call the
people back to God when the Southern Kingdom
faced extreme threats from both Assyria and
Babylon.
Liberals generally assert that Deuteronomy’s “authors were teachers
and public officials” (New Interpreter’s
Study Bible, 242; cf. IDB, 1:836) or
“rural Levites” (IDBSup, 229). “By
employing ‘Moses’ as their spokesperson, they
established a link with tradition at precisely
the time when tradition, for the sake of
survival, had to be transformed” (Jewish
Study Bible, 358). Harrison validly points
out that these views regarding Deuteronomy’s
composition were “an integral part of the
evolutionary reconstruction of Hebrew religion
which Wellhausen promulgated upon a basis of
Hegelian philosophy” (Harrison, 640). This
liberal scholarship “assigned [Deuteronomy] with
entirely unwarranted confidence to the
activities of an unknown prophet” (NBCR,
202). Harrison further states, “Arguments that
suggest the possibility of a ‘pious fraud’ are
therefore based on analogies from the Graeco-Roman
period, and as such have no bearing upon the
literary practices of the ancient Near East,
where such fabrications simply did not occur”
(Harrison, 647).
While believing that Deuteronomy was originally written during the
time of King Josiah, many liberals will argue
for later editing by P or the so-called Priestly
source, as Deuteronomy contained laws for Israel
(ABD, 2:171-172). Frank M. Cross, in
particular, argued for a double redaction of
Deuteronomy: one prior to the time of Josiah,
and then one after the Babylonian exile
(Harrison, 640; Dillard and Longman, 105).
Most conservatives will concur with liberals that the text found in
Josiah’s time was the Book of Deuteronomy (ISBE,
1939; Dillard and Longman, 93-94), but will not
agree with them that it was a fraud designed to
get people focused on the worship of the God of
Israel. Liberals will particularly argue for a
late dating of Deuteronomy because the text
speaks affluently of “the place which the
Lord
your God will choose” (IDB, 1:834),
claiming that its author wants Israel to focus
on the Temple and its service, and the
exclusivity of Israel’s worship (IDBSup,
231; ABD, 2:177-178) versus the paganism
of Assyria or Babylon. But what is more likely,
as conservatives validly point out, is simply a
“Centralization of worship,” which “reflects
Deuteronomy’s ideal picture of ‘one God, one
people, one sanctuary’” (Dillard and Longman,
104). Harrison further notes, “the assumption
that Jerusalem was the place intended by
Deuteronomy where the cultus was to be
centralized is entirely subjective in nature,
and has no textual warrant for it whatever”
(Harrison, 643).
Interestingly enough, many liberals will argue for an earlier
dating of Deuteronomy than all of the other
books of the Torah (NIDB, 270; ISBE,
1:936), even though still consigning it to the
Seventh Century B.C.E. Conservatives will
respond to the liberal criticism, insisting that
the covenant language of Deuteronomy mirrors
that of vassal treaties extended all the way
back to the Third Millennium B.C.E., even though
these sorts of agreements did exist in the
Seventh Century B.C.E. (NBCR, 202;
ISBE, 1:937-938; Dillard and Longman,
96-99). “The similarity of the structure of
Deuteronomy especially to the treaties of the
last half of the second millennium B.C. strongly
buttresses the basic unity of the book and
therefore the Mosaic authorship of it” (EXP;
3:5; cf. Harrison, 648-650). In light of this
evidence, some liberals will now admit,
“Deuteronomy…is a loyalty oath imposed by God on
his vassal, Israel. Such loyalty oaths were
prevalent from the days of the Hittite Empire in
the 15th-14th centuries through the Assyrian
Empire down to the Roman Empire” (ABD,
2:170).
Deuteronomy’s unity with the rest of the Torah must also be
considered on compositional and literary grounds
(ISBE, 1:938). A major critique that
stands against the view that Deuteronomy was
composed during the time of Josiah is that it
sets the God of Israel against the gods of
Canaan, but more than anything else demonstrates
the honest character and humanity of Moses. “The
picture of Moses thus presented in Deuteronomy
is completely consistent with what is found in
the historical sections of Exodus and Numbers,
and furnishes for the reader a realistic image
of a mortal man as contrasted with the highly
idealized depictions of later Judaism” (NBCR,
203).
The integrity of the text of Deuteronomy is strong, even though
there are some important things to take note of.
The language of Deuteronomy does not necessarily
date from the Seventh Century B.C.E., as some
liberals would like to see it, in light of
Semitic linguistic studies done of the Second
Millennium B.C.E. (ISBE, 1:938).
Deuteronomy was a favorite text of the Qumran
community, and all but eight chapters of the
book are represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls
fragments (EXP, 3:7). Deuteronomy is also
well preserved in its Greek Septuagint
translation. Notably, some variations of quotes
from Deuteronomy in the Greek Apostolic
Scriptures often appear because they are from
the LXX, and not the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This
confirms that the Hebrew source text for the LXX
was slightly different than the present Hebrew
text. Some of these variations are minor, but a
few may be major (EXP, 3:9). None of
these are major enough to radically alter our
ideas about any foundational doctrines when
compared against other extant ancient versions.
The major theme repeated throughout Deuteronomy is the repetition
of God’s covenant with Israel (NIDB,
269). This covenant is set in the context of the
Ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties
that would be made between parties. In this
case, Israel would be God’s chosen nation if
they remained faithful to Him. We see this theme
when the various blessings and curses are
pronounced for Israel’s faithfulness, or lack of
faithfulness, to God’s commands (chs. 27-30).
Deuteronomy calls God’s people to totally commit
to Him, with an emphasis placed on both
corporate and personal choice. The Israelites,
while no longer slaves in Egypt, must not abuse
the freedom that God has given them (NBCR,
204).
Deuteronomy also instructs Israel on how to live when they enter
into their new life in Canaan (EXP, 3:5).
“[T]he strong humanitarian emphasis of other
pentateuchal writings is just as prominent in
Deuteronomy. In order to ensure that the
spiritual traditions of the covenant
relationship will be sustained at the highest
level through future generations, the Israelites
are urged to bring up their children in the
reverence and admonition of the Lord” (ISBE,
1:940). Deuteronomy has major prophetic
overtones regarding the entry of Israel into the
Promised Land. It is no surprise that the major
themes of the text are picked up by what are
frequently called the Former Prophets in the
Jewish canon: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
The three significant concepts seen in
Deuteronomy that are exemplified throughout the
whole Bible are (1) remembering the uniqueness
of Israel’s God, (2) remembering the uniqueness
of God’s people, and (3) remembering the
uniqueness of God and His people together. God’s
people are able to partake of His blessings via
obedience to Him (ISBE, 1:935).
Deuteronomy is one of the most widely quoted books from the Tanach
in the Apostolic Scriptures with eighty total
quotes (NBCR, 202). Deuteronomy tells us
of a prophet who is coming like Moses
(18:14-22), which points us to the ministry of
Yeshua the Messiah (Dillard and Longman, 105).
It is specifically quoted by Yeshua in His
rebukes of Satan (ISBE, 1:935, EXP,
3:7). As Believers in Him, Deuteronomy reminds
us that we are to revere God with all that we
are (4:28; 5:10), as He has first loved us.
Likewise, none of us must abuse the liberty that
we do experience in Yeshua, just as Ancient
Israel had its responsibilities when it was
freed from Egyptian bondage (5:15; cf. 4:21).
Deuteronomy calls all who read it to rededicate themselves to God,
and recognize Him as the only focus of worship
in one’s life. Just as the Ancient Israelites
stood on the edge of entering into an unknown
Promised Land—and needed to be reminded of who
the Lord was to their emerging nation—so do many
of us likewise need to be reminded of how God
has been faithful to the ancients, and to us as
well. Deuteronomy has a significant amount that
we need to be mindful of as Messianic Believers
regarding how we are to obey God, and how He
will be faithful to us if we submit to Him. It
provides us the impetus for reforming our own
lives and orientation toward the Almighty.
When reading Deuteronomy, there are some things that we as
Messianics need to be mindful of. Some of us run
the risk of ignoring Deuteronomy’s repetition of
the commandments, and instead may focus solely
on their listing(s) in either Leviticus or
Numbers. The problem with this is that
Deuteronomy adds details on how they were to be
kept, and in some instances changes how they are
to be kept (Harrison, 650-651; Dillard and
Longman, 95). Most significantly with this, “The
way in which Moses undertook to ‘explain’ the
law (1:5) indicates that he thought it desirable
to expound what had been delivered previously” (ISBE,
1:938). Moses delivers the commandments to
Israel in the way which they are to be kept in
the Promised Land.
The challenge with reading Deuteronomy for many of us is
remembering that Israel eventually does not heed
Moses’ warnings when they reach the Promised
Land, and the people quickly fall into sin.
Messianic Believers who often study the Torah
will often not go beyond Deuteronomy and read
the history texts of the Tanach. This is a
mistake because while Moses is insistent in
Deuteronomy about how Israel is to obey God in
the Promised Land, they are never there.
In fact, Israel as a nation (excluding the
period of Jacob and his sons) is never present
in Promised Land in the narratives of the Torah.
We need to couple our Torah studies of
Deuteronomy with what takes place throughout the
rest of the Tanach, lest we fail to understand
its warnings for our own lives today. Each one
of us is called to that special relationship
that God wanted with Israel in Deuteronomy, and
it is fully available now that the Prophet
greater than Moses, Yeshua the Messiah, has
come.
Bibliography
Clements, Ronald E. “Deuteronomy,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 241-302.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Deuteronomy,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 91-106.
Edwards, D.M., and R.K. Harrison. “Deuteronomy,”
in ISBE, 1:934-940.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Deuteronomy,” in
Old Testament Introduction, pp 635-669.
____________. “Deuteronomy,” in NBCR, pp
201-229.
Kalland, Earl. S. “Deuteronomy,” in EXP,
3:3-235.
Kline, Meredith G. “Deuteronomy,” in NIDB,
pp 269-271.
Levinson, Bernard M. “Deuteronomy,” in Jewish
Study Bible, pp 356-462.
Lohfink, N. “Deuteronomy,” in IDBSup, pp
229-232.
Von Rad, G. “Deuteronomy,” in IDB,
1:831-838.
Weinfeld, Moshe. “Deuteronomy,” in ABD,
2:168-183.
posted 07 December, 2006
Deuteronomy 6:25:
I heard a Messianic teacher say that if I keep
the Torah perfectly not only will I be able to
be saved, I will also be able to never get sick
or die of diseases like cancer? Can you help
clarify this for me?
In Deuteronomy 6:24-25, one finds a statement of commitment made on
the part of the Ancient Israelites. They declare
before God,
“So
the Lord
commanded us to observe all these statutes, to
fear the Lord our God for our good always and for our survival, as
it is today. It will be righteousness for us
if we are careful to observe all this
commandment before the
Lord
our God, just as He commanded us.”
V. 24 makes the obvious observation that God’s
commandments are obeyed “for our lasting good
and for our survival” (NJPS), or “so that we
might always prosper and be kept alive” (NIV).
This is because the Torah provides safeguards
that are intended to keep God’s people secure
and industrious, thus allowing them to live
lives where they can prosper. And truly, any
society that has taken the Torah’s code of
ethics and morality to serious heart has
benefited immensely from what it is intended to
provide.
V. 25 is a bit more complicated, as the Ancient Israelites do say
to the Lord u’tzedaqah tih’yeh lanu (WnL-hyhT
hqdcW),
“and righteousness it is for us” (YLT) if they
were to observe all of God’s commandments. To
some people, this might present the opportunity
that if one were to observe all of God’s
commandments, then it is possible to be
righteous on the basis of such Torah-keeping or
Law-keeping. Yet, if this is a possibility, then
it is also notable that nowhere in Biblical
history was Ancient Israel ever able to do
this. The testimony of the Tanach (and even much
of the Torah itself) is clear evidence that a
fallen human person is incapable of living up to
the requirement of v. 25 (cf. Psalm
14:1-3; 53:1-3; Romans 3:10).
This is why a Divine Redeemer, Yeshua the
Messiah, is understood in Romans 10:4 to be the
telos…nomou…eis dikaiosunēn (teloß…nomou…eiß
dikaiosunhn)
or “the goal of the Torah for righteousness”
(editor’s translation). Those desiring the
righteousness the Torah requires of God’s people
must look to Yeshua as the source (Philippians
3:9).
There is another view of Deuteronomy 6:25 which need not be
overlooked. The Hebrew tzedaqah (hqdc) or “righteousness” has corporate
dimensions that concern all of God’s people.
Having tzedaqah in this case would not
regard being individually “righteous” or
“justified,” but simply being in covenant
membership with the Lord and with other members
of His community. TWOT explains some
often overlooked aspects of this term,
“The
covenant or theocratic aspect involves the
nation of Israel, the covenant requires
obedience to God by the nation and is the way of
his people (Psa 1:1-6; Deut 6:25), a way of
righteousness. God is righteous, under the
covenant, when he delivers his people from
trouble (Psa 31:1), their enemies (Psa 5:8), the
wicked (Psa 37:6) and when he is vindicating
Israel before her foes or executing vengeance on
them (Jer 11:20). It is appropriate that Israel
be assured of ultimate victory over her foes (Isa
54:14-17). In this last event the Lord is both
righteous and the savior (Isa 45:21)” (Harold
G. Stigers, “qdc',”
in TWOT, 2:754).
From this point of view, the affirmation on Israel’s part to keep
the Torah’s commandments is a reflection on the
fact that they will be identified as God’s
people by their obedience to Him. By obeying
God’s commandments, the Torah was to provide
Israel with a society that was safe and
prosperous and thus have “righteousness”—a
corporate identification of being His people and
being preserved by Him.
Any Messianic teacher today who says that individuals can be
righteous just by keeping the Torah is ignoring
the whole of Scripture. While the standard of
obeying God perfectly is placed before us, it is
not something that fallen man is capable of
doing. This does not mean that such a standard
should be ignored, but it undoubtedly forces
us to Yeshua because of our human incapacity to
keep it perfectly.
Perhaps what has been avoided more than anything else, is how the
righteousness of Deuteronomy 6:25 is to be
manifested on a corporate scale. Is today’s
Messianic movement desiring to be a faith
community where the shalom of the Lord
prevails, and we can live out all of those
imperatives that the Torah calls us to? This is
a question that often goes unasked in today’s
Messianic world. If we were to have this status,
then we would be far more united as His people,
and far more cognizant of the significant issues
in the Torah that we often avoid but the world
certainly needs to be made aware of.
posted 13 August, 2008
Dictionaries/Lexicons: Can you recommend any specific Hebrew and Greek dictionaries or
lexicons I can use in my Bible studies?
There are many varied Hebrew and Greek lexicons available, some of
them are excellent, others are good, and then
some are substandard. As a lay person, there are
some which we recommend that you have that can
be fairly easy to use without extensive Hebrew
or Greek training.
Two widely available Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, that you should
have in your library, are Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB) and
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament (Thayer). These two lexicons, even
though they are about 100 years old, offer
standard definitions and usages of Hebrew and
Greek words. Newer editions of them are keyed to
Strong’s Concordance numbers, which should make
words easier to find than having to look them up
in alphabetical order in either Hebrew or Greek.
A valuable Hebrew resource that we recommend is the Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), which
is extremely thorough in its explanation of
Hebrew words. Another commonly used resource is
Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old
& New Testament Words. With Vine,
words can be easily looked up as English
references, with various Hebrew or Greek
equivalents listed under them.
Two other valuable resources that we recommend are the Word
Study Dictionary: Old Testament, and Word
Study Dictionary: New Testament, both
produced by AMG Publishers. They are quite
easily to use if you are untrained in the
Biblical languages.
For those, however, who want to use the premier Hebrew and Greek
lexicons available today, please note that they
require a working knowledge of the Biblical
languages. A Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament (HALOT) by Koehler and
Baumgartner has been recently republished in a
2-volulme student size edition, and works well
with A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament (CHALOT) edited by
Holladay. The best Greek lexicon on the market
today by far is A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature (Bauer, Danker, Ardt, Gingrich)
or BDAG. Lidell & Scott’s
Greek-English Lexicon is also a valuable
resource, although its primary focus is on
non-Biblical Greek literature. All of these
lexicons require you to look up the words
alphabetically in Hebrew or Greek.
Consult the editor’s article “Getting
Beyond Strong’s Concordance”
for further details.
updated 16 November, 2006
Dietary Laws, Kosher: Do you believe that the dietary commandments of Leviticus 11 and
Deuteronomy 14 are still applicable to
Believers?
Messianic Believers think that in obedience to God we should follow
the Biblical dietary commandments that He has
laid out in His Word—and that they were not
annulled by Yeshua the Messiah or the Apostles,
nor in the vision of the Apostle Peter in Acts
10. Although eating kosher is not an issue of
salvation, it is an area of belief where the
Messianic movement does run contrary to the
position of mainstream Christianity.
For a further study into this issue, and a response to the claims
against eating kosher, we recommend that you
consult the editor’s articles “To
Eat or Not to Eat?” and “How
Do We Properly Keep Kosher?”
updated 16 November, 2006
Doctors, and Modern Medicine: I have encountered some teachings from Messianics which condemn
the usage of modern medicine. What is your
opinion on this? Do you have a problem with
Believers consulting modern medical doctors?
Those who do not consult medical doctors, be they Messianic or
Christian, often do so from the theological
presupposition that going to the doctor is a
so-called “lack of faith,” and that all physical
problems are likely caused by one’s spiritual
condition. These beliefs or opinions are usually
those of a small few, and do not by any means
represent a majority in the Messianic movement.
As a ministry, we do not condemn consulting
medical doctors or modern medicine. Luke
himself, author of the Gospel of Luke and the
Book of Acts, was a medical doctor. It is for
that reason why in his Gospel he painstakingly
describes the physical act of the crucifixion of
Yeshua.
With this said, while we would never condemn anyone for consulting
a medical doctor, it is safe to say that not all
physical ailments need be remedied with modern
medicine. Eating properly and exercising
regularly are absolutely needed for proper
health, and are often the solution for many
problems that some believe will only be solved
by a “pill.”
updated 16 November, 2006
Dreams and Visions: What is your position on dreams and visions?
Joel 2:28 clearly tells us that in the Last Days the Lord will pour
out His Spirit upon “all flesh/mankind,” but yet
we also know that there will be intense
deception and apostasy. Many have claimed to see
visions, dreams, give prophecies, etc. of the
Last Days outside that of the Biblical canon.
Unfortunately for such individuals, most
extra-Biblical prophecies of the end-times
statistically do not come to pass, and many
espoused “dreams or visions from God” are not
Scripturally sound.
While we do believe that God will pour out His Spirit on His
people, we question many of those who claim to
have prophetic dreams or visions. When someone’s
dream or vision does not come to pass as a
person predicts, that person may claim to have
had another vision in which the Lord “showed
them” that predicted events would occur on
another date on which nothing happens.
Many get into the pattern of believing that every dream that they
have at night is prophetic, which we should
highly question. We have serious reservations
when dealing with those who claim to have dreams
or visions, as many regard their prophecies to
be at the level of, or even above the Bible,
which is highly dangerous.
We as Believers have enough Bible prophecy to concern ourselves
with in Scripture itself; we do not need
additional “revelation.” Most dreams are simply
mental digestion of what people are thinking and
have nothing to do with prophecy.
updated 16 November, 2006 |
