|
Easter:
Do you celebrate Easter?
Easter is a
non-Biblical holiday that is not listed among
the appointed times that God gave to His people
in Leviticus 23. Because Easter is not listed as
a holiday that has been ordained by the Lord, we
do not celebrate it. The majority in the
Messianic movement do not celebrate Easter
because it is something that He has not
commanded us to do.
Many sincere Christians today
observe Easter because in their minds they
believe they are commemorating the resurrection
of Yeshua the Messiah. We believe that the
resurrection of our Lord and Savior is something
that is certainly worthy of commemoration, but
is “Easter” the proper time to do it? The name
“Easter,” for example, has absolutely no
connection to the resurrection, and the customs
and traditions that have become commonly
associated with it, namely the Easter Bunny and
egg hunts, have nothing to do with commemorating
what the Lord has done for us by His atoning
work at Golgotha (Calvary), and instead stem
from Babylonian fertility rites. If we are to
truly commemorate Yeshua’s sacrifice and
resurrection for us, then we believe that it
should be done as part of our celebrating the
Spring festivals of Passover and Unleavened
Bread.
There are Messianics who unfairly
criticize and condemn our Christian brethren who
celebrate Easter in ignorance, who sincerely
believe that they are honoring the Lord. We
believe that this is inappropriate, and that it
is our responsibility to show them the right way
to do things from the Scriptures, yet while
remembering that while many of us were still in
mainstream Christianity we celebrated Easter
with similar intentions. Believing in ignorance
that we were celebrating Yeshua’s death, burial,
and resurrection, the Lord in His mercy honored
us for what we did. We have to extend that same
mercy to our brothers and sisters who do not
celebrate His appointed times, so that the Holy
Spirit might convict them about what they should
truly be doing from the Word.
Consult the editor's article “What
is the Problem With Easter?”
for a further discussion of this issue.
updated 23 October, 2006
Ecclesiastes,
Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Ecclesiastes?
The Book of Ecclesiastes is one of several important wisdom texts
in the Hebrew Tanach. Its Hebrew title,
Qohelet (tlhq), is derived from the term qahal
(lhq)
or assembly, with its author understood as some
kind of officer of an assembly. Its Greek
Septuagint title is Ekklēsiastēs (EKKLHSIASTHS),
derived from the equivalent ekklēsia (ekklhsia)
for qahal. The designated speaker in
Ecclesiastes is Qohelet, which some prefer to
render as “Teacher” (NIV, NRSV) or “Preacher” (NASU),
because they are unsure what else to render it
as (ABD, 2:271-272). Jerome interpreted
it in his Latin Vulgate as concionator, a
speaker before the assembly (Harrison, 1072).
Ecclesiastes is placed among the Wisdom books in
Christian tradition, but in Jewish tradition is
part of the five Megillot of the
Writings.
Ecclesiastes is generally a text that is consulted when considering
the frailties of human existence, and also the
reality of death. There are mixed
interpretations and views of Ecclesiastes from
both Jewish and Christian readers. Some believe
that it is an important text with an important
message, and others consider it to be
pessimistic and full of inconsistencies.
The text of Ecclesiastes is strictly anonymous from internal first
person references, although there are several
important propositions concerning its
authorship—which notably conservatives are not
agreed upon.
Jewish tradition widely espouses Solomonic authorship to
Ecclesiastes (Jewish Study Bible, 1605),
although some Talmudic tradition indicates that
Ecclesiastes was preserved by the men of
Hezekiah (b.Bava Batra 14b-15a). Many
presume that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes based on
some internal remarks (1:1, 12, 16; 2:4-9;
7:26-29; 12:9), notably making light of the
author’s wisdom, interest in proverbs, and
building projects (NIDB, 290; EXP,
5:1140). It is believed that Solomon is
reflecting on the negative actions of his life
in his twilight years. Those who accept
Solomonic authorship date the text to sometime
in the 900s B.C.E., perhaps 940 B.C.E.
A significant number of conservatives (including the editor)
seriously doubt Solomonic authorship. The writer
is strictly known as Qohelet in Ecclesiastes
(Harrison, 1074-1075; Dillard and Longman, 249)
and Solomon is not at all mentioned by name. The
same verses that are often used to point to
Solomonic authorship are also used as being
against it: “The
words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in
Jerusalem…I, the Preacher, have been king over
Israel in Jerusalem” (1:1, 12). Must we assume
that “son of David” means that Qohelet is the
immediate son of David, or could he also be his
descendant? Note that Qohelet later says, “I
have magnified and increased wisdom more than
all who were over Jerusalem before me” (1:16).
If Qohelet is Solomon, then the “all” who were
ruling Jerusalem before him were just David, and
not a plural line of kings from the Davidic line
as is implied.
Conservatives who doubt Solomonic authorship often do so because
“so much profound and godly wisdom originates
with a man who eventually apostasized” (Dillard
and Longman, 248), as Solomon is not often an
example of great piety to consider in Scripture.
Many conservatives instead advocate that a later
monarch of the Southern Kingdom—yet of the
Davidic line—was responsible for Ecclesiastes (NIDB,
290). Note that the time represented throughout
Ecclesiastes does not conform well to Solomon’s
reign as it is replete with hardship and
difficulty for Israel (Harrison, 1074). But this
does not mean that much of Ecclesiastes’ valid
wisdom is not Solomonic in origin, having been
passed down in the royal court of Judah (ISBE,
2:13). Some would suggest that the second wise
man seen in Ecclesiastes is the actual author
(Dillard and Longman, 250).
Those who doubt Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes also point to
a later and more refined style of Hebrew that is
used in its composition (Harrison, 1074-1075;
ISBE, 2:13; EXP, 5:1141), one that is
replete with Aramaisms (ABD, 2:274-275)
and borrowed Persian words (EDB, 367).
There is, however, renewed debate over whether
or not the Hebrew style is really that late,
with some proposing that Solomon employed a
scribe with a unique style to write his treatise
(EXP, 5:1142). Even though there are many
conservatives who doubt Solomonic authorship of
Ecclesiastes, they do not doubt the importance
of the text.
Liberal theologians deny any Solomonic involvement whatsoever with
Ecclesiastes. They propose that Ecclesiastes was
written sometime around the Maccabean era of the
200s B.C.E., considering its author to be a
Jewish sage “schooled in the wisdom tradition
and affected by the spirit…of Greek philosophy”
(IDB, 2:7; cf. Harrison, 1075-1076).
Liberals assume that the author speaks as a
pseudonym for Solomon, but nothing more. Some
Jewish liberals are a little more reserved,
preferring to date Ecclesiastes to the Sixth to
Fourth Centuries B.C.E. (Jewish Study Bible,
1605), with a few conservatives concurring with
this assessment (Harrison, 1077). Liberals are
unsure as to whether Ecclesiastes is a single
work, or is a product of several authors (ABD,
2:272). Some go as far as suggesting that
Ecclesiastes was originally an Aramaic secular
work religiously adopted and updated with a form
of late Hebrew.
Comparison with Ancient Near Eastern literature supports an earlier
dating of Ecclesiastes (EXP,
5:11476-11447; Dillard and Longman, 251-252),
likewise realized by the fact that the author of
Ecclesiastes demonstrates no familiarity with
Greek literature or composition. The default
position of either conservatives or liberals is
to refer to Ecclesiastes’ author as simply
Qohelet.
The Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes is in generally good condition,
with its Greek Septuagint translation being
quite formal (EXP, 5:1149).
The theological focus of Ecclesiastes is the usage of human wisdom.
Some postulate that Solomon is reflecting on his
wanton life and cannot see beyond the visible
world. Others see a more general attitude in
mind with the people of Israel being addressed
by a court servant. The common themes seen in
Ecclesiastes are that human life is
“meaningless” (1:2, NIV) and that one must “fear
God and keep His commandments” (12:13). However,
many have considered Ecclesiastes to be
hedonistic because of Qohelet’s remark, “There
is nothing better for a man than to eat
and drink and tell himself that his labor is
good” (2:24). “[T]he
majority of interpreters judge him to be a
consummate pessimist who despairs finding any
good in life” (New Interpreter’s Study Bible,
929; cf. IDBSup, 249), but some actually
consider him to be an optimist because of his
pessimism.
In Ecclesiastes we see that human wisdom has its limits (1:13,
16-18; 7:24; 8:16), and that human beings cannot
achieve anything of endless endurance. One’s
experience often comes with disappointment. Much
of Ecclesiastes has a negative tone, forcing the
reader to turn to God and not his or her own
strength for support (IDBSup, 250).
It should be noted that Ecclesiastes was a controversial text in
the Jewish canon (NBCR, 570; Jewish
Study Bible, 1605) and that its status was
seriously questioned (EXP, 5:1137). The
Pharisaical School of Hillel considered
Ecclesiastes to be a text that soils the hands (IDB,
2:7). Likewise, “The book’s relative skepticism
made it an offense to some of the conservative
school (Shammai) within Judaism” (ISBE,
3:14; cf. EXP, 5:1148-1149). The more
progressive School of Hillel ultimately accepted
it, but Jewish unhappiness toward Ecclesiastes
continued well into the Fourth Century C.E. The
controversy surrounding Ecclesiastes primarily
concerned the Pharisees’ thought that
Ecclesiastes did not uphold the doctrine of
resurrection. Any Messianic interpretation of
Ecclesiastes needs to be tempered by this same
skepticism.
The Christian theological tradition has likewise been suspect of
Ecclesiastes, mostly because of its negative and
soulish tone. But this has been changing in
recent years, with some interpreters leaning
toward the position that “Qoheleth is addressing
the general public whose view is bounded by the
horizons of this world; he meets them on their
own ground, and proceeds to convict them of its
inherent vanity” (NBCR, 570). This would
require the author to speak in more secular
terms, and for us to understand his Earth-bound
perspective. “[A]lthough there is little
developed sense of the hereafter, Qoheleth has
no doubt that God, who rules over all, will some
day or in some manner bring every act to
judgment, whether good or evil (12:14)” (ISBE,
2:12). The inclusion of Ecclesiastes in the
Christian canon also found some skepticism, but
was assured given Paul’s reference to the book
in Romans 8:20.
Ecclesiastes is a common text from the Tanach read in today’s
Messianic community. It is commonly read during
the season of Sukkot or the Feast of
Tabernacles, a tradition going back to the
Eleventh Century C.E. (IDB, 3:8). Most
Messianic readers, however, are unfamiliar with
the controversies surrounding it in both Jewish
and Christian history. Few are aware that
Solomon was probably not the author of
Ecclesiastes. Likewise, a significant
theological weakness among some Messianics is
that Ecclesiastes is often given more weight
than the Gospels or Apostolic letters in
examining some issues. We have the strong
responsibility to not treat Ecclesiastes in
isolation from the rest of the Bible (EXP,
5:1137), while respecting its unique message and
the presentation style of Qohelet.
Bibliography
Beecher, W.J., and C.E. Amerding.
“Ecclesiastes,” in ISBE, 2:11-14.
Blank, S.H. “Ecclesiastes,” in IDB,
2:7-13.
Crenshaw, James L. “Ecclesiastes, Book of,” in
ABD, 2:271-280.
Dilllard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Ecclesiastes,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament,” pp 247-255.
Farmer, Kathleen, “Ecclesiastes, Book of,” in
EDB, pp 367-368.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1072-1084.
Hendry, G.S. “Ecclesiastes,” in NBCR, pp
570-578.
Jarick, John. “Ecclesiastes,” in ECB, pp
467-473.
Lee, Eunny P. “Ecclesiastes,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 929-942.
Machinist, Peter, “Ecclesiastes,” in Jewish
Study Bible, pp 1603-1622.
McComiskey, Thomas Edward. “Ecclesiastes,” in
NIDB, pp 290-291.
Priest, J.F. “Ecclesiastes,” in IDBSup,
pp 249-250.
Wright, J. Stafford. “Ecclesiastes,” in EXP,
5:1137-1197.
posted 10 May, 2007
Elect, Two
Groups of:
Do you believe God has two groups of elect:
Israel and the Church?
No, we do not believe that God
has two groups of elect, Israel and the Church.
We believe that God has only one group of elect,
the commonwealth of Israel. This Israel is
composed of all Believers, be they Jewish or
non-Jewish. This Israel is being fully restored
in our day through the prophesied reunification
of the Two Houses of Israel, Judah (the Jewish
people), scattered Israel/Ephraim, and those of
the nations who enjoin themselves to the God of
Israel. This Israel is called to follow the
Torah, and be a light to the nations.
updated 23 October, 2006
End-Times
Revival:
Do you believe that there will be a massive
end-times revival before the return of the Lord?
All that Yeshua tells us
concerning the end-times is that “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). Knowing that the
gospel will be preached to all the world does
not necessarily equate to there being a massive
end-times revival. All it means is that all will
somehow hear the message of salvation. On the
contrary to there being some kind of an
end-times revival, one of the prerequisites that
Paul says must happen before the return of the
Messiah is that there will be a massive apostasy, or
departure from the faith:
“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” (2
Thessalonians 2:3).
It is likely that in the
end-times, many people will truly come to faith
in the Lord and/or get themselves right with
Him. At the same time, this will also be coupled
with a massive apostasy of many people away from
the Lord.
updated 23 October, 2006
Ephesians,
Epistle of:
What can you tell me
about the composition of the Epistle of
Ephesians?
The authorship of
this letter is not challenged by many conservative
theologians, in spite of the fact that there is
a lack of personal greeting in it. The author
plainly identifies himself as Paul (1:1; 3:1),
and is of a series that has often been called
the “Prison Epistles,” written by Paul from
prison (3:1; 4:1; 6:20). While a sound case can
be made for genuine Pauline authorship (Guthrie,
pp 496-499, 509-528), there are many liberal
theologians who deny that Paul wrote this
letter, or that the audience of this letter was
a group other than the Ephesians. But as it
should be noted, “The structure of Ephesians is
in line with the rest of Paul’s correspondence.
We can trace the same sequence of salutation,
thanksgiving, doctrinal exposition, moral
appeal, final courtesies, and benediction…The
language of Ephesians, while suited to its theme
and drawing on resources of vocabulary not
represented in other Epistles, is nevertheless
sufficiently similar to that of the other
Epistles to substantiate the traditional view of
its authorship” (EXP, 11:4).
Historically, the
city of Ephesus became the third most important
city for the early Messianic community, after
Jerusalem and Antioch. Ephesus was a major
emporium and urban center in the Eastern Roman
Empire, standing on the most direct sea and land
route to the eastern provinces. It was a major
center of Artemis (Diana) worship, boasting a
huge temple. The early Messianic community
established a major presence in Ephesus, so
significant that it is one of the assemblies
that Yeshua directs a word to in the Book of
Revelation. Conservative theologians believe
that a sound case can be made for genuine
Ephesian readership (Guthrie, 503), but do not
deny the possibility that Paul’s letter was
written to the surrounding areas as well. “It is
widely held that Ephesians, designated as a
circular, was written at the same time as
Colossians and Philemon and was probably taken
to various churches in the province of Asia by
Tychicus” (Ibid., 530).
Liberals who deny
that the Ephesians were the primary target
audience of Paul’s letter believe so on the
basis of the fact that “in Ephesus” (1:1) does
not appear in all the oldest manuscripts of the
letter. The RSV follows this point of view,
rendering the verse as “Paul, an apostle of
Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints
who are also faithful in Christ Jesus.” This
leads some to believe that Laodicea was actually
the intended audience, as Paul mentions in
Colossians 4:16 that he wrote an epistle to the
Laodiceans. It is notable that both Laodicea and
Ephesus are located in the same general area,
and if this theory has any merit, it does not
subtract from the theology of the letter at all.
It would mean that the Ephesians were only one
in a group of cities that Paul wrote to (Gundry,
398). This letter was one in a series carried by
Tychicus along with Colossians and Philemon
(Colossians 4:7-8; Philemon 9, 13, 17; cf.
NIDB, 314). Some theologians actually
believe that the omission of “in Ephesus” from
some manuscripts is because there were multiple
copies of the letter written by Paul to the
assemblies of the region, and then Tychicus had
the authority to write in the name of the city.
Later on as Ephesus gained prominence among
those cities, the Ephesian copies became
preeminent. Conservative theologians agree that
while the Ephesians were the primary audience,
the letter is general enough to include an
intended audience of the surrounding cities.
The traditional
place of Ephesians’ composition is regarded as
being Rome, likely between 60-61 C.E. A few
believe that a fair case can be made for Paul
actually being imprisoned in Ephesus itself
(Guthrie, pp 498-490), but this would require an
earlier dating. There are some similarities
between the content of Ephesians and Colossians
that indicate they were likely written at about
the same time (Gundry, 397), even though
Ephesians was likely written after Colossians.
“Colossians has in it the intensity, rush, and
roar of the battlefield, while Ephesians has a
calm atmosphere suggestive of a survey of the
field after the victory” (NIDB, 315).
No case for a
Hebrew or Aramaic origin of the Epistle of
Ephesians has ever been made by either
conservative or liberal theologians. It is only
a sentiment voiced by a few fundamentalists in
the Messianic movement. Given the likely Roman
origin of the letter, and a Greek-speaking
audience encompassing the Ephesians and others
in Asia Minor, a Greek composition of the letter
is definite. However, simply because the letter
was written in Greek does not mean that it
should be separated from its Jewish-Pauline
context.
Gundry describes
Ephesians as having a “meditative quality” (p
397); Ephesians emphasizes the wholeness of the
Messiah and His authority over the community of
Believers. The letter to the Ephesians has no
specific heresy or false teaching in mind to
address. Ephesians focuses on important themes
such as the fulfilled life that Believers have
in Yeshua (1:1), the mystery of God’s people
fully understood in Yeshua (3:1-6), and the
different spiritual gifts that God has given to
each one of us (4:1-16). Paul also discusses the
proper balance of our personal lives and our
relationships with others, specifically in the
context of marriage (4:17-6:9). The overarching
theme of Ephesians is our Savior Yeshua being
the head of the assembly.
For Messianic
Believers, Paul expresses the unity that Jewish
and non-Jewish people have in Messiah Yeshua as
part of the Commonwealth of Israel. Anything
that separated these two distinct groups of
human beings has been rendered inoperative in
the Messiah. There is some usage from Ephesians
by Christian theologians who wrongly believe
that the Torah has been abolished, so this
requires any Messianic person who reads it to
place the letter in historical context, and
consult the source text for what appears to be
any inconsistency, as with any Scripture.
Ephesians uplifts Yeshua as the one and only
Redeemer, and should be a very encouraging
letter for any one of us to learn from.
Bibliography
Blaicklock, Edward M. “Ephesus,” in NIDB,
pp 315-316.
Danker, F.W. “Ephesians, Epistle to the,” in
ISBE, 2:109-114.
Furnish, Victor Paul. “Ephesians, Epistle to
the,” in ABD, 2:535-542.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
390-420.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the Ephesians,”
in New Testament
Introduction, pp 496-540.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Ephesians, Letter to the,”
in NIDB, pp 314-315.
Johnston, G. “Ephesians, Letter to the,” in
IDB, 2:108-114.
Martin, Ralph P. “Ephesians,” in NBCR, pp
1105-1124.
Wood, A. Skevington. “Ephesians,” in EXP,
11:3-92.
updated 06 February, 2006
Ephesians
2:14-15:
If you say that the Law of Moses is still to be
followed today, then what do you do about
Ephesians 2:14-15, which says that the “Law of
commandments contained in ordinances” has been
abolished?
“For He Himself is our peace, who
made both groups into one and broke down
the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing
in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law
of commandments contained in ordinances,
so that in Himself He might make the two into
one new man, thus establishing peace”
(Ephesians 2:14-15, NASU).
Ephesians 2:14-15 are challenging
verses for many Messianics. The NIV translation
says that the Messiah “destroyed the barrier,
the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in
his flesh the law with its commandments and
regulations.” Many have taken Ephesians 2:14-15
as meaning that Yeshua abolished the Torah or
the Law of Moses. It is asserted that the
“enmity” or “hostility” is the Torah. But is
this entirely accurate? Paul’s words in
Ephesians 2:14-15 are prefaced by his comments
to the non-Jewish Believers in Ephesus that they
have been made a part of the Commonwealth of
Israel:
“Therefore remember that formerly
you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called
‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the
flesh by human hands—remember that you
were at that time separate from Messiah,
excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers to the covenants of promise, having no
hope and without God in the world. But now in
Messiah Yeshua you who formerly were far off
have been brought near by the blood of Messiah”
(Ephesians 2:11-13).
Speaking of the non-Jewish
Believers in the assembly, Paul says that prior
to faith in the Messiah, they had once been
“excluded” (NASU) or “alienated” (RSV) from the
Commonwealth of Israel. They had been strangers
to the covenants, and they were without any hope
of salvation. Some of the people that Paul is
speaking to may have been descendants of the
scattered Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim who
had assimilated into the nations, because he
speaks about those who were at one time far off,
and in order to be “formerly far off,” you have
to have once been
included in or have
been a part of Israel. This is why James in
Acts 15:19 speaks of the non-Jews coming to
faith “returning” to God from among the nations.
So the key is, what was separating these people,
be they part of scattered Israel or not, from
membership in the Commonwealth of Israel? Was it
the Torah that separated them?
It is an impossibility that it
was the Torah which stood in the way of the
non-Jews coming to faith in the First Century
from becoming a part of the assembly of Israel.
Deuteronomy 4:5-7 attests to the fact that it
was Israel’s obedience to the commandments that
would enable them to be a testimony to the other
nations surrounding them, and the awesomeness
and power of Israel’s God: “See, I have taught
you statutes and judgments just as the
Lord
my God commanded me, that you should do thus in
the land where you are entering to possess it.
So keep and do them, for that is your
wisdom and your understanding in the sight of
the peoples who will hear all these statutes and
say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and
understanding people.’ For what great nation is
there that has a god so near to it as is the
Lord
our God whenever we call on Him?” The Keil &
Delitzch Commentary on the Old Testament
remarks, “the laws which Moses taught were
commandments of the Lord. Keeping and doing them
were to be the wisdom and understanding of
Israel in the eyes of the nations… History has
confirmed this. Not only did the wisdom of a
Solomon astonish the queen of Sheba (1Ki 10:4),
but the divine truth which Israel possessed in
the law of Moses attracted all the more earnest
minds of the heathen world to seek the
satisfaction of the inmost necessities of their
heart and the salvation of their souls in
Israel's knowledge of God.” The Divine nature of
the Torah was to attract outsiders to the God of
Israel.
It was never the Torah that
separated those coming to faith in the Messiah
from membership in Israel. The Torah itself
provided very non-stringent citizenship
requirements for the stranger or sojourner
wanting to enter in. Exodus 12:48 says, “But if
a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the
Passover to the
Lord,
let all his males be circumcised, and then let
him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be
like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised
person may eat of it.” A sojourner wanting to
join into Israel had to be physically
circumcised and proclaim faith in the God of
Israel. If the stranger or ger (rG)
were circumcised and celebrated Passover, he
would then be considered to be an ezrach
ha’eretz (#rah
xrza)
or “a native of the land.” Concerning this, the
ArtScroll Chumash commentary says “Even
though their ancestors did not emerge from
Egypt, they have become full-fledged
[Israelites]…provided they circumcise themselves
and their children” (p 361). The Lord said that
this ordinance was to be a chuqat ha’olam
(~l[
tQx)
or a “never-ending statute” (Numbers 15:15-16,
LITV).
Citizenship in Israel for the
outsider was considered to be so important that
God says that the foreigner who has joined
himself to Him should not be considered outcast.
“Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to
the Lord
say, ‘The
Lord will surely separate me from His
people.’ Nor let the eunuch say, ‘Behold, I am a
dry tree’” (Isaiah 56:3). God expected those who
joined themselves to the people of Israel to
live as native Israelites and not to be
considered “excluded” by any means. How was
citizenship in the community of Israel to be
accomplished for those non-Jews coming to faith
in the First Century? Were they to be
circumcised and keep the Passover?
Note what Yeshua told the
Disciples in Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the
keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you
bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall have been
loosed in heaven.” Binding and loosing is an
Hebraic idiom meaning “to prohibit” and “to
permit” (CJB). (Cf. Raymond F. Collins, “binding
and loosing,” in ABD, 1:743.) The Messiah
gave the Disciples the ability to determine
halachah or Torah application for the
ekklesia. We know that this happened at the
Jerusalem Council when it was determined that
circumcision and/or conversion to Judaism was
unnecessary for the salvation of the non-Jews
coming to faith. But that did not all of a
sudden make circumcision unimportant. According
to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, Torah
observance for the non-Jewish Believers was to
come gradually as they grew in their walk of
faith. Part of Torah observance is circumcision.
Concerning circumcision, the
Apostle Paul writes, “Was any man called when
he was already circumcised? He is not to
become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in
uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing, but what matters is the keeping
of the commandments of God. Each man must remain
in that condition in which he was called” (1
Corinthians 7:18-20). These verses speak of the
condition in which one was called into covenant
with the Lord. If we use Abraham as an example,
he was called into covenant with God while
uncircumcised. But as he progressed in the
covenant that God promised him, he was
circumcised at the appropriate time further on.
Paul is using the same analogy for new
Believers, employing the verb menow (menw)
in v. 20, which can mean “to continue,” relating
to our spiritual maturity. These same new
Believers were expected to keep the Passover, as
Paul admonished the assembly in Corinth to
“Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a
new lump, just as you are in fact
unleavened. For Messiah our Passover also has
been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the
feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven
of malice and wickedness, but with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1
Corinthians 5:7-8).
It should be clear to us that the
Torah itself never stood in the way of those
separate from Israel to join with Israel. If the
enmity or hostility was not the Torah, then what
was it? What was “the barrier, the dividing wall
of hostility” (NIV) that was torn down by the
Messiah?
The Greek for “dividing wall” is
mesotoichon (mesotoicon),
which AMG tells us “is probably an
allusion to the wall between the inner and outer
courts of the temple” (p 963). This wall would
have divided the inner areas of the Temple
complex in Jerusalem, where animal sacrifices
were performed, from the outer areas. The
predominant outer area that kept non-Jews from
entering into the inner areas was called the
Court of the Gentiles. The First Century
historian Josephus describes the dividing wall
in his books The Antiquities of the Jews
and The Wars of the Jews:
“Thus was the first enclosure. In
the midst of which, and not far from it, was the
second, to be gone up to by a few steps; this
was encompassed by a stone wall for a partition,
with an inscription, which forbade any foreigner
to go in, under pain of death” (Antiquities
15.417).
“[T]here was a partition made of
stone all round, whose height was three cubits:
its construction was very elegant; upon it stood
pillars at equal distances from one another,
declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and
some in Roman letters, that ‘no foreigner should
go within that sanctuary’” (Jewish War
5.194).
The NIV Study Bible,
describing “the dividing wall,” says that this
is “Possibly an allusion to the barricade in the
Jerusalem temple area that marked the limit to
which a Gentile might go. It is used here to
describe the total religious isolation Jews and
Gentiles experienced from each other” (p 1833).
We have discussed the fact that it was never the
Torah that separated inclusion of outsiders from
membership in Israel. In fact, the Torah does
not prescribe the erecting of a wall outside the
Tabernacle or Temple to keep people out. On the
contrary, King Solomon declared in 2 Chronicles
6:32-33 that people from all over the world
would hear of the majesty of God’s Temple and
come to Him as a result:
“Also concerning the foreigner
who is not from Your people Israel, when he
comes from a far country for Your great name's
sake and Your mighty hand and Your outstretched
arm, when they come and pray toward this house,
then hear from heaven, from Your dwelling place,
and do according to all for which the foreigner
calls to You, in order that all the peoples of
the earth may know Your name, and fear You as
do Your people Israel, and that they may
know that this house which I have built is
called by Your name.”
The mesotoichon or
dividing wall was built to keep non-Jews from
the Inner Court of the Temple, where animal
sacrifices were performed, on the threat of
death. Why was this wall erected, and who was
responsible for its construction? Why does Paul
use the allusion to this wall as being hostile
to non-Jewish Believers? Consider the fact that
Isaiah tells us that the Lord welcomes the
outsider into His House, and wants the outsider
to honor His Sabbath and serve in His Temple:
“Also the foreigners who join
themselves to the
Lord,
to minister to Him, and to love the name of the
Lord,
to be His servants, every one who keeps from
profaning the sabbath and holds fast My
covenant; even those I will bring to My holy
mountain and make them joyful in My house of
prayer. Their burnt offerings and their
sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for
My house will be called a house of prayer for
all the peoples” (Isaiah 56:6-7).
The “dividing wall” is called
ton nomon town entolown en dogmasin (ton
nomon twn evntolwn en dogmasin)
in Greek. This is what the New American Standard
Bible renders as “the Law of commandments
contained in ordinances.” Most Christians
conclude that this is a reference to the Torah
or Law of Moses, which Yeshua the Messiah
abolished. But we have already proven that it
was never the Torah that excluded citizenship
for the outsider in Israel. And certainly, if
this is a Biblical attestation that Yeshua
abolished the Law, then what was Yeshua telling
us when He said in Matthew 5:17-19 that He came
to fulfill the Law, and not abolish it?
Is Yeshua being inconsistent? Or have we missed
something?
The Greek word nomos, most
often translated as “law,” does not always refer
to the Torah or Law of Moses in the Apostolic
Scriptures. Nomos can refer to man-made
laws, or more specifically the ordinances of the
Jewish Rabbis. In Orthodox Judaism today, when
one refers to “the Torah,” you are not just
referring to Genesis—Deuteronomy, but you are
also referring to the Mishnah, Talmud, and
rulings of the Rabbis. You are referring to
extra-Biblical ordinances that have been added
since Mount Sinai that exceed the 613
commandments of the Torah.
The Greek word most often
rendered as either “ordinances” (NASU) or
“regulations” (NIV) is dogma (dogma).
BDAG notes that it is “something that
is taught as an established tenent or statement
of belief, doctrine, dogma” (p 254).
LS indicates that in Ancient Greek Plato
uses it to refer to “that
which seems to one, an opinion, dogma”
(p 207). AMG adds, “Used concerning
Christianity, it means views, doctrinal
statements, principles” (p 474). Dogma
can be representative of man-made opinions and
judgments, and so the “the law of the commands
in ordinances” (YLT) does not necessarily have
to be the Torah of Moses, but rather the
extra-Biblical “religious Law” of the
Rabbis of Judaism that was responsible for the
wall of division. Lancaster states, “The Greek
word for ‘regulations’ speaks specifically to
those man-made contrivances, not to the actual
Torah. According to those oral commandments and
regulations, one needed to make a formal
conversion to Judaism before participating in
Israel. The dividing wall of the Temple is
itself an architectural innovation based on
rabbinic interpretation. In first century
Jerusalem, the dividing wall of hostility was
more than a metaphor” (p 181).
Yeshua the Messiah never came and
eliminated the Torah, as per His crucial
admonition in Matthew 5:17-19. Rather, the wall
that He broke down was that of Rabbinical
addition and/or manipulation to the commandments
that had separated the non-Jews coming to faith
from inclusion in Israel. It was never the Torah
that caused a wall of division to be erected not
permitting the outsider from becoming part of
the Commonwealth of Israel. The strict
Rabbinical ordinances or dogmas not found in the
Torah, which ultimately led to a barrier wall
being constructed on the Temple Mount, caused
this separation to take place.
(This entry includes adapted
excerpts from the editor’s book
The New
Testament Validates Torah.)
posted 06 June, 2006
Ephesians
6:11-17:
I heard a Messianic teacher say that the armor
of God is not the armor of a Roman soldier, but
really the garments of a Levitical priest
serving in the Temple. Do you have an opinion
about this? Is this a valid understanding?
When some allusion to priestly
service is used in the Pauline Epistles, we
often see the usage of the Greek term (latreia),
“cultic usage service/worship (of God)”
(BDAG, 587): Romans 9:4; 12:1; and the
verb latreuow (latreuw),
“be in servitude, render cultic service”
(Ibid.): Romans 1:25; Philippians 3:3; 2 Timothy
1:3. These terms are used similarly in the
Septuagint to describe the service of the
priests, now applied by Paul to describe the
service of the ministry of the gospel as we are
to serve as intermediaries between God and
fallen humanity in a priestly kind of service.
Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:11-17
do not describe this kind of service, but rather
our reality as Believers in a war against the
adversary:
“Put on the full armor of God, so
that you will be able to stand firm against the
schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not
against flesh and blood, but against the rulers,
against the powers, against the world forces of
this darkness, against the spiritual forces
of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so
that you will be able to resist in the evil day,
and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand
firm therefore,
having
girded your loins with truth, and
having put
on the breastplate of righteousness, and
having shod
your feet
with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
in addition to all, taking up the shield of
faith with which you will be able to extinguish
all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which
is the word of God.”
Most interpreters have taken
Paul’s references to be “the ‘whole armor’ of
the Roman soldier…used by Paul as a figure for
the defensive armor of the Christian in the
world (Eph. 6)” (J.W. Wevers, “Weapons,” in
IDB, 4:825). Conservatives are widely agreed
that Ephesians was likely written from Paul’s
first incarceration in Rome, and thus Paul
making reference to Roman armor during his
imprisonment as a metaphor for spiritual
steadfastness would only make logical sense. A
few teachers in the Messianic community
today—capitalizing on some negative rhetoric
against “Rome˝—have doubted that this is the
case. They have instead advocated that Paul was
making reference to “priestly elements” of
service. However, there is no sound basis for
these conclusions.
Advocates of this view, clouded
by negative ideas against the classical
civilizations of Greece and Rome, make the
unfortunate conclusion that the armor elements
of a breastplate, shield, helmet, and sword were
things that were only Greco-Roman. Historical
observations of ancient weapons of warfare are
undoubtedly lacking as these basic elements of
warfare were common not only among the
classical civilizations but also Ancient
Near Eastern civilizations contemporary to and
preexistent of Ancient Israel. “ANE
civilizations developed [these] weapons long
before the nation of Israel was formed; these
were utilized in battles with enemies, never in
isolation from other people” (Mark J. Fretz,
“Weapons and Implements of Warfare,” in ABD,
6:893). While there was variance between the
warfare elements of the Egyptians, Assyrians,
Babylonians, Persians—and likewise the Ancient
Israelites—there was also a great degree of
commonality:
“Little is known of Hebrew armor.
Saul and Jonathan both had armor, which must at
least have consisted of a
Helmet;
a breastplate or coat of mail;
Greaves;
and a shield. Probably a girdle belt…was used
for tying down the breastplate” (Wevers, in
IDB, 4:825).
The commonality among both ANE
and classical weapons of war would have remained
true up until the First Century. Paul’s
references to a breastplate, shield, helmet, and
sword could just as well referred to a soldier
in the army of King David than a solider in
Caesar’s legions. While it might tickle some
ears that Paul is really talking about the
garments of a priest in Ephesians 6:11-17,
neither the vocabulary of the passage nor an
examination of history confirms this view. It
trivializes the reality that we are presently
engaged in a warfare against Satan for human
souls and their redemption.
posted 23 April, 2007
Ephraimite Error:
What is your response to “The Ephraimite Error”
white paper produced by Messianic Jews about
your movement?
“The
Ephraimite Error” white paper was
produced in 1999 by the MJAA and UMJC, under the
auspices of the International Messianic Jewish
Alliance. Surveying a then-growing sector of the
independent Messianic community labeling itself
as “Two-House,” the white paper refutes the
teachings of the early proponents of the
message. The white paper does have some valid
criticisms of the Two-House teaching as it was
first promoted and continues to be promoted by
many people, including the emphasis on scattered
“identity” and some of the sensationalism that
has been commonly attached to the message. Yet,
most people who read the IMJA “Ephraimite Error”
paper will not seek another side to the story,
much less a moderate form of the Two-House
teaching that is guided by interpreting the
prophecies of Israel’s restoration and not by
hype. Most who read the white paper, or more
likely its short summary, are content to not
examine what is actually said about Judah,
scattered Israel/Ephraim, and the nations from
the Bible.
While our ministry has produced a
response in “The
Ephraimite Error: Critical Errors”
(2002), and this has helped to demonstrate that
not all advocates are the extremists as painted
by the IMJA, only time is the
ultimate answer to the dilemma we face. Since
2001, going a step farther, the major Messianic
Jewish organizations have denounced any ministry
which claims that non-Jewish Believers
(Two-House advocates or not) should keep God’s
Torah. And, this has not been helped by some of
the things that have occurred in the independent
Messianic community from 2002 to the present,
which often serve to reinforce Messianic Jewish
criticism. Those of us who will remain faithful
to what the Bible says about all of this, will
just have to wait out the polarization until
reasonable people are willing to come together
and honestly and constructively discuss the
issues.
In the long term, God’s promises
to restore Israel are going to come to pass. No
matter how many white papers or theological
analyses are produced, the prophecies of His
Word stand true. In all honesty, none of us know
for certain if we are Judah, scattered
Israel/Ephraim, or truly of the nations. But if
we are a part of God’s people—the Commonwealth
of Israel—we will all surely be involved in the
restoration of Israel. And, important questions
no doubt need to be asked. It is from this
perspective that our ministry chooses to promote
a belief in the “Two Houses,” as opposed to what
“The Ephraimite Error” refutes. (The white paper
makes no attempt to address or analyze the
actual prophecies of Israel’s restoration.)
For a further discussion, we
recommend you consult our articles “The
Two-House Teaching in Proper Perspective”
and “Revisiting
the Two-House Teaching.”
posted 06 March, 2008
Ephraim,
House of:
What is this “House of Ephraim,” or just
“Ephraim,” that you comment about in some of
your teachings?
“Ephraim” or the
“House of Ephraim” is a reference to the
Northern Kingdom of Israel that split off from
the Southern Kingdom of Judah following the
death of King Solomon. It was taken into
Assyrian Exile in 722-721 B.C.E. and corporately
assimilated into the nations. Per the end-time
prophecies of the restoration of Israel in the
days prior to the Messiah’s return, those of the
scattered Northern Kingdom will return to their
Israelite heritage and many will be gathered
back into the Land of Israel.
updated 22 October, 2006
Ephraim,
references to:
The Two-House teaching seems to rely very
heavily on the significance of the Northern
Kingdom. On what grounds do you call the
Northern House of Israel “Ephraim”? This is just
one of the twelve tribes.
In the two sticks prophecy of
Ezekiel 37, the Prophet Ezekiel is clearly
admonished, “And you, son of man, take for
yourself one stick and write on it, ‘For Judah
and for the sons of Israel, his companions’;
then take another stick and write on it, ‘For
Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house
of Israel, his companions’” (v. 16). The Hebrew
text says
l’Yosef etz Ephraim v’kol beit
Yisrael chaveriu
(Arbx
laerfy tyB-lkw ~yrpa #[ @sAyl).
This clearly relates the name “Ephraim” to the
Northern Kingdom or House of Israel.
However, it is
very true that there are those in the Two-House
Messianic community who emphasize “Ephraim” to
such an extent that they make you think that
there is no Judah, meaning no Jewish people, at
all involved in the Two-House reunion. What is
ironic in this is that such people cannot allow
the prophecies to just exist for themselves, and
they assume that if you are non-Jewish that you
are of “scattered Ephraim.” Ephraim is simply
another term to refer to the Northern Kingdom of
Israel, which can be less confusing than using
“Israel.” “Joseph” is obviously also used to
refer to the Northern Kingdom in the prophecies
of Israel’s restoration. To clarify, remember
who composes “Judah,” and who composes
“Ephraim”:
-
Judah
primarily consisted of the Israelite tribes
of Judah, Benjamin, and some Levites.
-
Ephraim
summarily entailed the remaining ten tribes:
Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Zebulun, Issachar,
Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Mannaseh, and
Ephraim (the last two represent “Joseph”).
It is likely that
the term “Ephraim” (and certainly also the
designation “Ephraimite”) has become a bit
anachronistic today, and should be used more
cautiously than it is. It should be employed
more to refer to Ancient Israel—especially
because only God knows a person’s bloodline—and
entry into the Commonwealth of Israel is
ultimately by faith in Yeshua. This is true if a
person is Jewish, non-Jewish, or truly of the
nations.
In the long-term,
we must recognize everyone as part of Israel. We
cannot make a major distinction between Judah
and Ephraim because the Lord wants both Houses
of Israel to “be one in My hand” (Ezekiel
37:19). The Lord wants one people of
Israel. He ultimately wants an Israel of
no divisions, but one where all are fellow
citizens and who serve Him as their King. He
wants this Israel to make a dynamic impact on
the world so all can come to a saving knowledge
of His Son.
updated 23 October, 2006
Ephraimite
Onlyism:
I have heard you talk about “Ephraimite Onlyism”?
What is this?
In relationship to
the Two Houses of Israel, we believe that in the
end-times the Lord is going to unite the House
of Judah, or Jewish people, with those of the
scattered House of Israel/Ephraim that was
dispersed into the nations in 722-721 B.C.E.
with the defeat of the Northern Kingdom of
Israel at the hands of the Assyrians. We believe
that as a part of the restoration of all Israel
that is to take place, Jewish people are now
coming to faith in Messiah Yeshua, and
non-Jewish Believers, perhaps many of them being
of scattered Israel/Ephraim, are those coming
into a realization of the Hebraic Roots of their
faith.
The Northern Kingdom of
Israel/Ephraim established its own religious
system independent of the Torah (1 Kings 12). As
1 Kings 12:27 attests, Jeroboam was concerned
that if something were not done, that the people
would go to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices
according to the Torah and later advocate
reunion with the South: “If this people go up to
offer sacrifices in the house of the
Lord
at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will
return to their lord, even to Rehoboam
king of Judah; and they will kill me and return
to Rehoboam king of Judah.” He “consulted, and
made two golden calves, and he said to them, ‘It
is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem;
behold your gods, O Israel, that brought you up
from the land of Egypt’” (1 Kings 12:28),
permanently severing the bond between the
Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel. By
establishing a separate religious system, Israel
remained divided.
In a similar vein, what we might
describe as “Ephraimite Onlyism” is evident in
Messianic groups that (1) advocate a belief in
the Two Houses of Israel, and (2) like Jeroboam
try to instill practices that lack any regard
whatsoever for the theology and traditions of
Judaism. These Two-House groups primarily are
dominated by non-Jews who deride extra-Biblical
Jewish custom and tradition, and do more to keep
Israel divided than united. They fail to
recognize that the Jewish people have been given
the oracles of God (Romans 3:2), which includes
the traditions of how the Torah commandments are
to be kept. Ephraimite Onlyists, while
attempting to keep the Torah, often do not have
any respect for Judaism. Sometimes this is in
response to some Jewish Believers’ disrespect
for Christianity, but if unity is ever to occur
in the Body of Messiah over this issue, we have
to have mutual respect for one another, and
recognize the humanity of both of us.
For a further examination of this
issue, consult the editor’s article “Anti-Semitism
in the Two-House Movement.”
updated 23 October, 2006
Esther, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Esther?
The Book of Esther is one of the
most unique texts in the Tanach, with those who
read it demonstrating a wide variety of
opinions: from Maimonides who placed it second
only to the Torah, Luther who thought it was
gaudy and sensual, and the feminist theologian
who places it at the center of her theology. In
the Christian theological tradition, Esther is
placed among the Historical books, whereas
Jewish tradition places them among the Five
Scrolls or Megillot to be read during
holiday times. Esther tells the story of a
Jewish girl who becomes the new queen of Persia,
and is placed in a position to save the Jewish
people from extinction.
The purpose of Esther’s
composition was primarily to justify the
celebration of Purim (IDB, 2:150)
as a holiday for the Jewish people during and
immediately following the reign of the Persian
King Ahasuerus, known in Greek historical works
as Xerxes (3:7; 9:26-32; cf. Harrison, pp
1087-1088). The young Jewess Esther becomes the
queen of Persia, and her cousin Mordecai learns
about the genocidal plans of the evil Haman
toward the Jews. The location of these events is
in the Persian city of Susa. The text may easily
be described as a Jewish novella, with the term
Purim derived from the lot or pur
(rWP)
Haman cast to determine the date of execution
for the Jews (3:7; 9:24).
Conservative theologians regard
the author of Esther as being anonymous (ISBE,
2:158; EXP, 4:776; Dillard and Longman,
191), but most certainly a Jew. Jewish tradition
in the Talmud (b.Baba Batra 15a)
attributes authorship of the book to the men of
the Great Synagogue. The author of Esther was
most probably a Persian Jew who was quite
familiar with the inner workings and social
structure of the Persian Empire, as he
demonstrates no knowledge of events or
circumstances going on in the Land of Israel.
The text of Esther was likely composed before
Ezra’s return to Jerusalem, and with that was
probably written shortly after the events it
depicts, sometime in the late Fifth Century
B.C.E. Esther 9:22 suggests that the festival of
Purim was celebrated for some time before
Esther’s composition:
“[I]t
was a
month which was turned for them
from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into
a holiday; that they should make them days of
feasting and rejoicing and sending portions
of food to one another and gifts to the
poor.”
Liberal scholars often advocate a
later composition for Esther, as early as the
late Fourth Century B.C.E. Various Greek “loan
words” present in the text make some suggest
that Esther is a composition of the early
Hellenistic period (IDBSup, 280).
Liberals will often consider the events
portrayed in Esther to be pseudohistorical, and
perhaps even to be read as a comedy (Jewish
Study Bible, 1623). Many doubt that the
events ever took place (IDB, 2:151), and
conclude that they are only a “festal legend” (IDBSup,
279). The people in the Book of Esther are often
viewed as only being caricatures of other
figures that antagonized the Jewish people.
Doubting the historicity of
Esther is not only a feature of modern higher
criticism, but even some Jews of ancient times
doubted its validity (b.Megillah 7a; cf.
Harrison, 1090). Many try to connect the feast
of Purim to the Maccabean period and
their victory over the Greeks (IDB,
2:151; Harrison, 1088-1090; NBCR, 412),
including Haman being modeled after Antiochus
Epiphanes (ISBE, 2:158). Many liberals,
however, do consider the story of Esther to have
great value, particularly concerning Esther as a
female protagonist in a male-dominated Persian
society.
Conservatives and liberals all
recognize that the Book of Esther is not to be
taken as “sober history” (NBCR, 413; cf.
Harrison, 1090-1092), as there are certainly
elements in the story that are meant to guide
the reader. But how far we take this has led to
a diverse array of conclusions. Many liberals
will claim that the Persian Empire was tolerant
of minorities, thus casting doubt on Esther’s
claim of genocide against the Persian Jews.
Others will argue, “The writer displays a most
intimate and accurate knowledge of the Persian
court and customs, so much so that Esther is
used to fill gaps in the accounts of classical
historians” (EDB, 428; cf. ISBE,
2:159; Dillard and Longman, 191-192).
Conservatives will commonly note that the Greek
historian Herodotus writes that King Xerxes was
ruthless and despotic (NBCR, 413), and
that we cannot make broad generalizations of
Persian culture.
Perhaps the most significant
support for the historicity of Esther among
external data is a reference to a certain
Marduka (Mordecai) among Persian records (NIDB,
326; ISBE, 2:159), proving that the
Biblical Mordecai could certainly have existed.
Today there appears to be a trend in liberal
scholarship toward accepting some historicity of
the text, as some note that “nothing in the
story seems improbable, let along unbelievable”
(ABD, 2:638), with some even dating the
text (or at least a proto-text) in the late
Persian period (Ibid., 2:641).
The textual witness for Esther is
immense. “[T]here are more MS copies of Esther
than of any other book of the OT” (NBCR,
412), and there is extensive Rabbinic commentary
on Esther in the Talmud. This high regard for
Esther actually sees it placed second to the
Torah among some manuscripts (EXP,
4:776). There exist three major editions of the
text of Esther (Harrison, 1101-1102; EXP,
4:781-782; ABD, 2:641-642), notably the
Hebrew Masoretic Text, Greek Septuagint, and a
second Greek edition. There are additions to the
Book of Esther found in the LXX that have a
major religious character. These chapters are a
part of the Apocrypha in Additions to the Book
of Esther (ISBE, 2:158), and are
considered canonical in the Roman Catholic,
Eastern Orthodox, and some Anglican traditions.
A theme seen throughout Esther is
an ongoing conflict between Israel and the
Amalekites (2:5; 3:1-6; 9:5-10), something that
originally occurred during the Exodus (Exodus
17:8-16; Deuteronomy 25:17-19) and continued
throughout Israel’s history (1 Samuel 15; 1
Chronicles 4:43). The author of Esther views the
Amalekites as the epitome and/or sum of Israel’s
enemies, with Haman depicted as a descendant of
King Agag (Harrison, 1085).
The Book of Esther also relies
heavily upon the Jewish people being portrayed
as God’s faithful remnant. Evangelical Christian
theologians are very keen to note that the
continued existence of the Jewish people
demonstrated in Esther is imperative due to the
promises of the coming Messiah (Dillard and
Longman, 197). Some also suggest a reliance upon
the themes seen in the story of Joseph regarding
God’s preservation of the Jews in Susa (2:3-4;
9, 21-23; 3:4; 4:14; 6:1, 8, 14: 8:6).
It is undeniable that Esther
confronts us with a major Tanach example of
Israel interacting with other cultures. Our
principal protagonist is actually named
Hadassah (hSdh)
meaning “myrtle,” but is given the Persian name
Ester (rTsa)
meaning “star” (2:7; cf. Harrison, 1085; EDB,
427). Understanding Persian history and society
is imperative to properly grasping the concepts
in Esther, as great banquets are the focal
points of much of the story. We also do see
drunkenness and lewd sexuality in Esther (ABD,
2:633; Jewish Study Bible, 1623). A
common misconception about the evil Haman
“hanging” is that he was hanged on a gallows
similar to today, when in the Persian context it
was probably impalement followed by the public
display or “hanging” of the corpse for the
public to see. The writing style of Esther is
undoubtedly affected by Persian techniques
(Harrison, 1096; EDB, 428).
The major discussion of the
validity of the Book of Esther often concerns
the absence of any direct reference to “God” (EXP,
4:784-785). Many have considered the text to be
entirely secular, and not religious at all.
Esther had difficulty gaining canonical status
in both the Jewish and Christian theological
traditions (IDB, 2:151; ISBE,
2:158; EXP, 4:779; ABD, 2:635-638;
EDB, 427-428; Dillard and Longman, 189),
and the Qumran community did not consider it
canonical at all. Some Jewish and Christian
scholars have considered the book grossly
immoral (ABD, 2:635). Neither Esther nor
Mordecai make a reference to the Torah or Tanach,
or demonstrate that they follow the
“commandments,” per se.
In response to these claims
against Esther, it is proposed that God not
being mentioned directly is so that this book
could circulate more freely among Jews in Persia
(NIDB, 326). Many conclude that the
anonymity of God is a literary device used to
heighten the reader’s sensitivity to Him working
through the life circumstances of human beings (IDB,
2:150). It is only by God’s faithfulness to His
people that they are saved, as He moves on the
hearts of the protagonists. The Book of Esther
has offered Jews throughout history a great deal
of hope during times of distress (NBCR,
412).
The Book of Esther is often very
important for Messianics during the season of
Purim. It causes all of us to consider the
role of anti-Semitism in today’s world, and the
role that we can play to combat it. It most
certainly causes us to consider how God works
through the human condition without us often
seeing it. Esther gives us a critical lesson of
how God can use us to save and/or help His
people during times of terrible distress. Esther
is a great text that teaches us about the
salvation history of God (Dillard and Longman,
197), and at the same time asks us questions
about how He can use both men and women
to accomplish it.
Bibliography
Baldwin, J.G. “Esther,” in NBCR, pp
412-420.
Berlin, Adele. “Esther,” in Jewish Study
Bible, pp 1623-1639.
Crawford, Sidnie White. “Esther,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 689-701.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Esther,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 189-197.
Harrington, Clyde E. “Esther, Book of,” in
NIDB, pp 326-327.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Esther,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1085-1102.
Harvey, D. “Esther, Book of,” in IDB,
2:149-151.
Huey, Jr., F.B. “Esther,” in EXP,
4:775-839.
Humphreys, W.L. “Esther, Book of,” in IDBSup,
pp 279-281.
Moore, Carey A. “Esther, Book of,” in ABD,
2:633-643.
Payne, D.F. “Esther, Book of,” in ISBE,
2:157-159.
Rashkow, Ilona N. “Esther, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 427-429.
posted 22 February, 2007
Exodus, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Exodus?
The Hebrew title of the second
book of the Bible is Shemot (tAmv,
pronounced Shemos in the Askhenazic
tradition), meaning “Names,” derived from its
first sentence, “Now these are the names of the
sons of Israel” (1:1a). The term “Exodus” used
in our English Bibles is derived from the Greek
Septuagint, which designates this text Exodos
(EXODOS).
A transliterated form of Shemot,
Oualesmoth, is used in some ancient Greek
Bibles (Sarna, xi; ABD, 2:690), and
others may use the form Exagogue (Sarna,
xi). The terms Exodos and Exagogue
both convey the idea of a departure or going
out, which are obviously major themes of the
book.
In its opening lines, the Book of
Exodus calls us to consider the family that has
grown exponentially from the characters Abraham
and Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (Harrison,
566; ISBE, 2:222; NIDB, 334;
ABD, 2:690), and immediately records how God
has been faithful to them to multiply their
descendants. The text of Exodus, though,
transitions us from the promises given by God to
the fulfillment of those promises. Exodus is a
profoundly important text for anyone wanting to
understand the work of God throughout history.
Regardless of one’s theological orientation,
“The Exodus from Egypt provides a focus for the
OT, and has influenced its entire understanding
of God” (IDBSup, 312). As the departure
of the Ancient Israelites from Egyptian bondage
is the major theme of Exodus, it is not
surprising that it has influenced a great number
of “‘theologies of liberation’ movements” (Sarna,
xi).
Anyone who reads the Bible will
notice that the Book of Exodus records some of
its greatest and most profound events (EXP,
2:292-293; Dillard and Longman, 64-65). The
deliverance of an Israel enslaved by Egypt by
God Himself, and God’s judgment on the ancient
world’s major superpower, feature prominently in
the opening chapters. We see the beginning of
Israel being called out and consecrated as God’s
special nation for His service. We also see the
gift of the Law given by God to Israel to help
them accomplish the task of testifying of His
might and power to the world.
The Jewish theological tradition
primarily views the Book of Exodus as the key
text concerning the giving of the Torah to
Israel. This Torah is to make Israel special
among all the nations of the world. While not
denying the importance of the giving of the Law,
the Christian theological tradition generally
extends the meaning of Exodus’ events as
prefiguring Yeshua and His sacrifice for
humanity (IDB, 2:188). From both
perspectives, Exodus is a critically important
text. Without the Exodus of Israel from Egypt,
it is valid to say that you have no Judaism (Sarna,
xiv). Without the Exodus and Passover Lamb, what
prophetic typology does Yeshua the Messiah come
to fulfill (Dillard and Longman, 66-67)?
The Book of Exodus opens with the
birth of Moses and his being separated out by
God (chs. 1-4). After being spared from certain
death and being raised in the Egyptian court,
Moses discovers that he is an Israelite and is
forced out into the wilderness. God first
reveals His Divine Name YHWH to him (6:3),
indicating that as the “I AM” that He is the God
of Abraham who continues to be real and faithful
to his descendants (NIDB, 334). Moses is
used by God as His vessel against the Egyptians
(chs. 5-14), as God issues extreme judgments
upon Egypt that culminate in the radical removal
of His people via the Red Sea crossing. This is
very unique for the Ancient Near East, because
we see God actively intervening on behalf of His
people (Sarna, xiii; ABD, 2:699), and
furthermore in total control of the very
elements that judge those who are oppressing
them. A major feature of this judgment includes
the death of the firstborn and the establishment
of Passover (12:43-49).
A sizeable part of Exodus
includes the covenant that God establishes with
His people while in the desert (chs. 15-34).
Arguably, the most significant segment of this
is the giving of the Ten Commandments (20:2-17).
In these sections of Exodus, we see that Israel
agrees to stipulations consistent with Ancient
Near Eastern covenants involving blood sacrifice
(NBCR, 118). While this is all being
finalized, though, the Israelites rebel and
worship the golden calf, thinking that Moses is
dead on Mount Sinai (32:4). In spite of this,
God forgives Israel and gives them instructions
concerning the Tabernacle (35-40:33). This is a
strong indication that God desires to be among
and dwell with His people (40:34-38; Dillard and
Longman, 68-70), something that was very unique
for the time and region, because in other
beliefs humans were almost always seen as being
the slaves of the deity, not those the deity
wants to have a relationship with.
As with the rest of the Torah,
the authorship of Exodus is vigorously debated
in modern theology. The authorship of Exodus
cannot be divorced from the overall authorship
of the rest of the Pentateuch, notably including
Genesis (ISBE, 2:222). The two general
positions asserted among theologians are: (1)
conservatives that adhere to some kind of Mosaic
involvement in Exodus’ composition, and (2)
liberals who deny any kind of Mosaic involvement
in Exodus’ composition.
On the whole, conservative
theologians hold to Moses being the principal
author of Exodus. Walter C. Kasier, Jr. notes
that “There are several internal claims in
Exodus that directly ascribe authorship to
Moses. He is told to record on a scroll the
episode of Israel’s victory over Amalek (17:14).
He is instructed to write down the Ten
Commandments (34:4, 27-29). He ‘wrote down
everything the
Lord
said’ (24:4), which included at least the Book
of the Covenant (20:22-23:33)” (EXP,
2:287-288; cf. Harrison, 569; Dillard and
Longman, 58). Mosaic authorship of Exodus in
association with its events is asserted all
throughout the Tanach (Joshua 1:7; 8:31-32; 1
Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah
13:1; Daniel 9:1-13; Malachi 4:4). The testimony
of the Apocrypha ascribes authorship to Moses (Sirach
45:5), and most notably so does the Apostolic
testimony of the New Testament (Luke 16:29; John
7:19).
Conservatives often assert that
“a great many Near Eastern literary sources such
as annals and court histories show that events
of any significance were recorded at the time
they occurred or shortly thereafter” (ISBE,
2:223-224), which would require that the events
of the Exodus be recorded at a time adjacent to
them having taken place. It is notable, though,
that conservative theologians, while asserting
primary Mosaic composition of Exodus, do not
deny additional editing of the text by others,
notably Ezra the Scribe at the return of the
Jewish exiles from Babylon (b.Sanhedrin
21b; ISBE, 2:224, 226). This may also
include the involvement of scribes employed by
Moses himself in composing the text in a more
final form (ISBE, 2:226-227). The
non-liberal Jewish tradition affirms the giving
of both the Written and Oral Torah to Moses on
Mount Sinai (m.Avot 1:1).
Harrison indicates, “Those who
[support] the Mosaicity of Exodus [are]
generally ready to admit that it was not by any
means written as a continuous narrative; that
there may well be indications of editorial
activity, some perhaps emerging from the
post-Mosaic era, and that quite probably the
earliest portion of the book to be committed to
writing after the Decalogue and the Covenant
Code was the Song of Moses and Miriam”
(Harrison, 568). Some things that could have
been clarified by redactors after Moses include
the explanation of the manna phenomenon
(16:33-36), as well as the description of Moses
as “greatly esteemed in the land of Egypt”
(11:3). “Moses could hardly be expected to have
described himself as being of impressive stature
in Egyptian society. But even here little
prevents this from being a typical marginal
gloss that was incorporated into the text at a
later stage” (ISBE, 2:227). Some assert
that there may also have been modifications made
to the Book of the Covenant section after Moses’
death (Harrison, 570-572; ISBE, 2:229).
As with Genesis, the idea of sole Mosaic
authorship of Exodus, without any post-Mosaic
changes, is present in the vast majority of
today’s Messianic community, often with no room
for an engaged interpreter to maneuver.
It is notable that conservative
theologians are not agreed on the exact timing
of the Exodus. While most will agree that the
entry of Jacob and his family into Lower Egypt
is probably connected somehow with the Semitic
Hyksos invasion (ISBE, 2:227), the timing
of the Exodus is often divided into two camps:
(1) those who advocate it having occurred in the
Fifteenth Century B.C.E. (NBCR, 115-116),
and (2) those who advocate it having occurred in
the Thirteenth Century B.C.E.
Those who advocate that the
Exodus occurred in the Fifteenth Century B.C.E.
(1400s) do so based on a strict literal reading
of 1 Kings 6:1, which says that the reign of
Solomon commenced “in the four hundred and
eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out
of the land of Egypt,” calculated in conjunction
with Exodus 12:40-41 (Sarna, xiv-xv; Dillard and
Longman, 59). Notable advocates of this view
include Merrill F. Unger (NBCR, 115-116)
and Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. It is probably safe to
say that most in today’s Messianic community
would hold to a Fifteenth Century view for the
Exodus.
Those who advocate a Thirteenth
Century B.C.E. (1200s) dating for the Exodus
usually place it as having taken place during
the reign of Ramses II (1290-1224 B.C.E.).
Concurrent with this is an appeal made to the
Merneptah stela, which refers to “Israel” living
as a group in Canaan by 1230 B.C.E. (New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, 86). Advocates of
a Thirteenth Century B.C.E. view consider the
contemporary Egyptian history as being most
favorable to the Exodus (ABD, 2:696-669).
They often consider the 480 years referenced
between the Exodus and reign of Solomon to be a
rounded number, assuming that it represents
twelve generations of forty years, and believe
that it should be reduced (NBCR, 116). In
support of this position is the fact that the
LXX rendering of 1 Kings 6:1 has the “four
hundred and fortieth year” (LXE) mentioned,
which indicates that the exact number could be
less. Notable advocates of this view include K.A.
Kitchen and R.K. Harrison.
This is also the view of the
editor.
Reaction against a Thirteenth
Century dating of the Exodus often comes because
it could imply that a rounded number was used
for the participants in the Exodus from the
603,550 males recorded in Numbers 1:46. (Consult
the FAQ entry for
Numbers
for a consideration of this issue.) Dillard and
Longman, advocates of a Fifteenth Century
Exodus, do note however, “There are arguments
for a late date for the Exodus…and in favor of a
smaller number of Israelite participants…that
treat the text with integrity” (p 62).
Another debate among conservative
theologians is the route of the Exodus from the
Northern Route to the Southern Route to the
relatively new Arabian Route theories (Archaeological
Study Bible, 108-112; cf. EXP,
2:291-292). A consensus forum on these, and
other postulations, has not been held due to the
lack of research as a result of the volatile
politics in the region today. This largely
prevents Biblical archaeologists from
researching the possible sites that the Ancient
Israelites traversed. In all honesty, it is
difficult to determine with total accuracy the
actual route of the Exodus.
|
