|
Pagan, Christmas and Easter: I have heard it said that you do not believe that Christmas and
Easter are pagan holidays. Could you please
explain?
TNN Online is a solution-driven Messianic ministry. In dealing with
Messianic apologetics, and the controversial
subject matter that it often relates to, we try
to deal in fair-minded and scholarly terms,
demonstrating the testimony of people who have
changed for the better spiritually, and not
worse. As it relates to the holidays, for
example, all too often during Chanukah in
the Winter, and Passover in the Spring, we as
Messianic Believers can spend too much time
focusing on what our Christian brethren are
doing in ignorance, and not focusing enough on
the holidays that we are celebrating, and
uplifting Messiah Yeshua in them.
It has been our observation that “pagan” is a buzzword that is used
far too frequently by those in the Messianic
community today. “Pagan” can be used by anyone
to describe any Christian doctrinal practice,
and oftentimes not in any clear Biblical,
historical, or even rational context. Much of
the usage of the word “pagan” is done
emotionally, on the part of self-disenfranchised
Messianics who errantly believe that mainstream
Christianity has nothing, and/or has had
nothing, to offer the Body of Messiah for
centuries. Their pursuit is often to expose
anything perceived as “pagan,” rather than
becoming Scripturally compliant with the Word of
God, and demonstrate to our Christian brothers
and sisters the example of people who have
changed for the better by becoming Messianic and
Torah observant. If, however, Christians see
that all we do is condemn them because they “do
this” or “don’t do that,” they may want nothing
to do with us, and perhaps rightfully so. We
have to have the appropriate attitude in
approaching them and be constructive and
spiritually edifying, which sadly is not evident
in some sectors of the Messianic community
today.
As it relates to the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter, we
have addressed them in the articles “The
Christmas Challenge” and “What
is the Problem With Easter?” Let
us state on the record that we do not encourage
the celebration of these holidays, and are fully
aware of their questionable origins. These are
replacements for the moedim or appointed
times of the Lord in Leviticus 23, that were
officially established by the Roman Catholic
Church, and many Protestants today thus
celebrate them (albeit in ignorance). There are
traditions associated with these two holidays
that originate from paganism and not the Bible.
Nevertheless, we know that as a Messianic family when we were still
Church-going Christians that when we celebrated
Christmas and Easter, we did not worship
Christmas trees and the Easter bunny. We
celebrated these two holidays with the
understanding that we were commemorating the
birth of the Messiah and the resurrection of the
Messiah. We did not know of their questionable
origins. But the questionable origins we are
talking about are the traditions of the
Christmas tree, evergreen, mistletoe, the Easter
bunny, and Easter eggs. All too often, when
Christians see many Messianics’ attitudes
related to these two holidays, they believe that
what is in actuality being criticized and
branded as “pagan” are the events of the birth
of our Savior and His resurrection—as opposed to
the traditions that have been commonly
associated with them, whose origins are
certainly not in the Bible.
Many Christians in ignorance celebrate Christmas and Easter without
knowing how these two holidays came into being.
We know as a family that God honored us in our
ignorance for what we did, because in our minds
we were celebrating the birth and the
resurrection of Yeshua. But we also know that
when we were shown the truth about the origins
of these two holidays, that we were given a
choice by Him and we had to change. We have
changed, and now celebrate the Biblical holidays
of Leviticus 23, emphasizing the Messianic
richness that is in these festivals and what
they teach us about God’s ongoing plan of
salvation history. We have no intention of
celebrating Christmas or Easter again. It is our
choice, however, that in dealing with Christian
friends and family, we show them what we should
be doing from the Scriptures, and what they have
missed out on by not celebrating the Biblical
holidays. Once you commit yourself to
celebrating the Lord’s appointed times, we have
discovered that you will not want to go back to
the human substitutions that are often made.
We believe that Christmas and Easter are holidays of a different
variety than holidays such as Halloween.
Halloween is a holiday that is obviously totally
committed to the glorification of witches,
goblins, ghouls, demons, and Satan. It can, in
no uncertain terms, be called a pagan holiday.
There are no Biblical overtones or undertones to
it. Christians who celebrate Halloween need to
be reprimanded for it, and there are a host of
Christian apologetic ministries that speak
against it.[a]
Christmas and Easter are of a different variety because they do
have Biblical overtones to them. We have to
remember that when we speak about the origins of
these two holidays, we must put ourselves in the
position of those Christians who are celebrating
them, thinking that they are religious holidays
founded in Scripture, and are celebrating them
not for the sake of the Christmas tree or
Easter bunny—but to remember the birth of Yeshua
and His resurrection. These are Biblical events
worthy of our remembrance. However, the way that
Christianity has chosen to remember them is
improper, because we are not to follow the
fallen ways of the nations (Deuteronomy 18:9).
In our dealings with Christians, it is our opinion that it is
inappropriate to call Christmas and Easter
“pagan” because such comments are easy to be
misinterpreted as criticizing the events of
Messiah's birth and resurrection, as opposed to
the participation of traditions that originate
in anything but the Bible. We call these
holidays non-Biblical because it will force our
Christian brothers and sisters into God’s Word
to see if their celebration is truly justified
and based in the Bible. The Messianic community
uses the word “pagan” far too frequently, and it
is often because we do not feel spiritually and
Scripturally sound to defend ourselves. Sadly,
the word “pagan” is used as a crutch and a
self-defense mechanism because some feel unsure
of themselves, and are unable to adequately
defend their beliefs from the Bible and history.
We believe that a much better way to answer the question, “Do you
celebrate Christmas and Easter?” is to respond
with a question: “Are Christmas and Easter
listed among the appointed times of Leviticus
23?” This will force our Christian brethren back
into the Word of God, as opposed to getting them
unnecessarily offended. And if there is anything
that the Messianic community desperately needs
right now, it is a return to the Scriptures, and
letting the Bible answer people, rather than
insulting them ad naseum with the term
“pagan,” as is the case far too frequently.
updated 09 December, 2009
NOTES
PaRDeS: Can you explain to me the four levels of Hebraic Scripture
interpretation?
The following is a description of the PaRDeS hermeneutic from the
Encyclopaedia Judaica on its origins and
its development:
“[I]n
the Middle Ages the word pardes was used
as a mnemonic for the four types of biblical
exegesis, an acronym of peshat (‘the
literal meaning’), remez (‘hint,’ i.e.,
veiled allusions such as gematria, and
notarikon), derash (‘homiletical
interpretation’), and sod (‘mystery,’
i.e., the esoteric interpretation), the word
being made up of the initial letters of these
words. For the meaning of the word in mysticism,
see Kabbalah” (“Pardes,” in EJ).
The PaRDeS hermeneutic, as a formalized system of Jewish
interpretation of Scripture, is Medieval in its
origins. While many Messianics have adapted
forms of PaRDeS for their examination of the
Bible, many are ignorant of the fact that it was
not used in Biblical times, specifically the
period of Second Temple Judaism, as is easily
attested by history. The PaRDeS hermeneutic was
birthed out of Medieval Jewish mysticism, with
the specific dynamic of trying to have its users
attain the sod or mystical level. The
PaRDeS hermeneutic was widely used by Kaballists
as EJ attests:
“The
peshat, therefore, which was taken to
include the corpus of talmudic law as well, was
only the Torah's outermost aspect, the ‘husk’
that first met the eye of the reader. The other
layers revealed themselves only to that more
penetrating and latitudinous power of insight
which was able to discover in the Torah general
truths that were in no way dependent on their
immediate literal context. Only on the level of
sod did the Torah become a body of
mystical symbols which unveiled the hidden
life-processes of the Godhead and their
connections with human life” (Gershom
Scholem, “Kabbalah [J. mysticism]” in EJ).
Interpreting Scripture from the method of PaRDeS often robs the
Bible from its straightforward meaning, because
the sod or hidden level is considered the
ultimate interpretation as it is mystical and
enables us to understand the so-called secrets
of God. As Walter C. Kaiser validly notes, “The
fourth method used in Jewish interpretation was
the sod—the mystical or Cabalistic sense
of a passage” (An Introduction to Biblical
Hermeneutics, p 212), indicating a largely
Medieval origin of it. This runs contrary to
what is considered to be the peshat, or
literal, and remez, or hidden levels of
Scripture, both of which were commonplace in the
First Century. Kaiser attests,
“As the Christian era dawned, it was customary for the Jewish
rabbis to distinguish between the two senses of
the text: the peshat, the ‘clear,’
‘plain,’ or ‘simple’ (hence the literal or
historical) meaning of a Bible passage; and the
remaz, the hidden sense of the Mosaic law
and of the Halakah….
“The exegesis dealing with historical and dogmatic subjects was
called haggadic midrash. This type of
interpretation was more illustrative, practical,
and mixed with a wealth of allegory, legend, and
colorful biblical history. It was mainly a
homiletic approach to the study of the Bible.
“In contrast, the exegesis dealing with legal matters was called
halakic midrash. This form of interpretation
attempted to apply the law by analogy and by a
combination of texts to those exceptional cases
for which there was no special enactment in
Moses’ law” (Ibid.).
The sod level was not something that commonplace at all in
the mileu of Second Temple Judaism.
While “sod level interpretations” have been intriguing to
the ears of many in the Messianic movement, they
often subtract the value of the Biblical text
itself, and likewise frequently take no
consideration for the historical context of
Scripture. No longer do we have people examining
the Tanach for what it is as narrative, history,
prophecy, and wisdom literature, but people are
searching it for hidden meanings. This means
that when David struck down Goliath with a sling
and five smooth stones, we cannot accept the
text as meaning what it says, as there has to be
a hidden, esoteric meaning behind it. Even
worse, PaRDeS has been applied to parts of the
Apostolic Scriptures by some Messianics, for
which it has no remote context. Messianics who
employ PaRDeS often fail to look at the New
Testament for what it is as Gospels, history,
and letters. When Yeshua and His Disciples walk
down a road together, it can no longer be
treated as them walking down a road. What this
does to us in the long run is reveal our
inadequacy for using standardized hermenutics
which examine literary structures in a Biblical
text, taking into examination texts as a whole
and its source language(s), in addition to
required historical background information.
Author Tim Hegg makes the following valid
remarks in his workbook Interpreting the
Bible:
“It is therefore a mistake to think that such a hermeneutic was in
place in the 1st Century, or somehow that Yeshua
and His Apostles would have interpreted the
Scriptures from this vantage point. To postulate
such a scenario would be entirely anachronistic.
“Further the PaRDeS schema undermines all sound hermenutics, and
divests the text of its literary meaning. Such
the Pashat is considered to be the ‘surface’ or
plain sense, this is considered less than
significant for the true chagam or Sage.
It is only when one arrives at the sod,
the mysterious and mystical sense found through
subjective criteria, that the text gives up its
treasures. Such an approach simply combines a
full-blown mysticism with a kind of ‘sensus
plenoir,’ leaving the text entirely manipulated
by the interpreter, and thus unable accurately
to bear the author’s meaning. Such a
hermeneutic should be avoided at all costs”
(p. 90).
It has been our experience that most Messianics who employ a PaRDeS
hermeneutic are unaware of its origins in Jewish
mysticism, so they are using it “in ignorance,”
per se. However, we must point out that those
who believe that a mystical level of
interpretation is the pinnacle of Biblical
examination are often making the mistake of
trying to find hidden meanings in Scripture when
the answers we need to be effective servants of
God are often right before us.
One of the long-term challenges facing the Messianic community is
properly interpreting Scripture using methods
that were in existence in the First Century and
adhered to by Second Temple Judaism, as well as
modern techniques which look at the Bible as
literature and history. This may take time as
the Messianic movement matures and the Lord
raises up Messianic theologians who will focus
on teaching sound doctrine, other than things
rooted in Jewish mysticism. They will need to
have the training and skills to do this.
We recommend the books Bible Study that Works by David L.
Thompson, An Introduction to Biblical
Hermeneutics by Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés
Silva, Judaism and the Interpretation of
Scripture by Jacob Neusner, and
Interpreting the Bible: An Introduction to
Hermeneutics by Tim Hegg if you are having
challenges interpreting Scripture and want to
understand some formal and constructive ways of
doing it.
updated 12 February, 2007
Passover, Eating Lamb: Should we eat lamb as Messianics during Passover? Is it true that
the Jews do not eat lamb during Passover?
It is notable that there are divergent practices
among the Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jewish
communities as it relates to Passover and
whether or not lamb is allowed to be eaten.
Ashkenazic Jewry (Northern, Central, and Eastern
European) does not eat lamb at Passover. This is
based on the Biblical command, “You are not
allowed to sacrifice the Passover in any of your
towns which the
Lord
your God is giving you; but at the place where
the Lord your God chooses to establish His name, you shall
sacrifice the Passover in the evening at sunset,
at the time that you came out of Egypt”
(Deuteronomy 16:5-6). Because this is a clear
reference to the Temple in Jerusalem, and since
the Temple has been destroyed, Ashkenazic Jewish
halachah prohibits the consumption of
lamb at Passover, and instead allows for
poultry. Sephardic Jewry (Spain, North Africa,
and Arab lands) does permit lamb to be eaten at
Passover, as a memorial to the Exodus.
Messianic Jewish practice is often divided as to
whether or not someone was raised Ashkenazic or
Sephardic. Some Messianic sedars have
lamb, and others frequently serve chicken. At
Messianic congregations that have both
Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, sometimes both
lamb and chicken are served at the community’s
sedar meal. A viable halachah for
Messianic non-Jews is frequently debated, and we
would encourage you to find the tradition that
you are the most comfortable with.
added 16 April, 2006
Virtual Passover
Passover, Egg on Sedar Plate: Why do Jews have an egg on their sedar plates? Does this
not come from Easter?
The egg on the sedar plate at Passover is a post-Second
Temple Rabbinical addition. The roasted egg or
beitzah in most Jewish traditions
symbolizes the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart. We
would speculate that after the destruction of
the Temple and the Dispersion of the Jewish
people from the Land of Israel, new traditions
were added to Passover to compensate for the
loss of no longer observing it in the appointed
place. New debates likely arose as Jews were
spread abroad into many places where they had
never lived before. As additions to the sedar
arose, eggs were probably an item that all
Jewish communities could agree were “kosher for
Passover,” and the custom of having a roasted
egg on the sedar plate was instituted.
The inclusion of eggs at Easter time is a debated practice in
Christianity. No one is entirely certain how
they came about, but it is likely that they stem
from some kind of Babylonian fertility rite.
However, we do not stop eating eggs simply
because pagans used them in their worship.
Similarly, because the Jewish community employs
an egg on the sedar plate during
Passover, we cannot all of a sudden make the
judgment that they borrowed it “from Easter.”
There is always an alternative view that
frequently eludes those who are out on an “egg
witch hunt.”
added 17 April, 2006
Virtual Passover
Passover, Objections to the Last Supper: Is it true that there are some substantial objections to the Last
Supper being a Passover meal? If there are any,
how do you respond to these arguments?
There are some objections that are commonly made to the Last Supper
being a Passover meal, but very few of them are
made in light of Yeshua’s words to His
Disciples: “I
have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with
you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). According to
the Messiah, the meal that He ate
with His Disciples was the Passover, and what
may appear to be divergent accounts among the
Gospel authors need to be theologically
reconciled. The text does not say that He just
celebrated the Passover, but specifically
that He ate (Grk. esthiō,
esqiw)
a sedar
meal. And while we commonly consider “Passover” to just be a
holiday, in Scripture the pesach (xsP) can be the “sacrifice.”[a]
Some objections to the Last Supper being a
Passover sedar include the references to
it occurring on the Day of Preparation (John
19:14), Passover eaten with solely a group of
men as opposed to a family, the fact that there
is no distinguishing between “bread” or
“unleavened bread” in the accounts, and wine
being consumed from a common cup. In contrast to
this, the meal was eaten at night as the
Passover should be, the obligatory drinking of
wine was remembered, Yeshua and the Disciples
customarily reclined for the meal, and a hymn
was sung as was observed for Passover (Matthew
26:30). They do appear to have followed the
prescribed protocol for a First Century Judean
Jewish Pesach.
In total, it does seem that some modifications
were made between Yeshua’s sedar meal and
the main sedar that would have been
observed during His time. There have been
various proposals made for this, including the
thought that Yeshua’s Last Sedar was a “teaching
sedar” held between a Rabbi and students,
or quite simply that the Lord held His Last
Sedar a day early as He was preparing to be
sacrificed.[b]
updated 24 February, 2010
NOTES
[a]
CHALOT, 294.
[b]
For a brief examination
of this issue, consult the article “The
Last Supper and the Passover” in
Duane A. Garrett, ed.,
et. al.,
NIV Archaeological Study
Bible
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 1611.
Also consult the editor’s
article “The
Last Sedar and Yeshua’s Passover
Chronology.”
Passover, Traditional Sedar Meal: Where did the traditions from the sedar meal employed
during Passover come from?
Obviously, the Torah itself issues some specific commands
concerning the observance of the Passover. There
were some specific commandments relating to the
first Passover, the deliverance from Egypt,
which included slaughtering a lamb and spreading
its blood upon the doorposts of the house, and
eating the meal in haste, as the Ancient
Israelites were preparing to leave (Exodus 12).
Passover or Pesach (xsP)
is codified as one of the appointed times in
Leviticus 23, and regulations on how to observe
it in the Promised Land are detailed in Numbers
9.
Between the first Passover in Egypt to the Passovers kept in the
Land of Israel, coupled with the division and
dispersion of Israel, and later with a vast
Diaspora Jewish community by the time of Yeshua,
the celebration of Passover developed
substantially. By the time of Yeshua, the
specific order of service for Passover became
codified in the Haggadah of Passover, first
referred to in the Mishnah. This was focused
around a midrashic interpretation of Deuteronomy
26:5-9, which allowed for one to recline and
remember the mighty deeds God performed before
the Egyptians in delivering Israel:
“You
shall answer and say before the
Lord
your God, ‘My father was a wandering Aramean,
and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there,
few in number; but there he became a great,
mighty and populous nation. And the Egyptians
treated us harshly and afflicted us, and imposed
hard labor on us. Then we cried to the
Lord,
the God of our fathers, and the
Lord
heard our voice and saw our affliction and our
toil and our oppression; and the
Lord
brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and
an outstretched arm and with great terror and
with signs and wonders; and He has brought us to
this place and has given us this land, a land
flowing with milk and honey.”
We see elements of the traditional Jewish Passover of the First
Century included in Yeshua’s Last Supper, and
some slight deviations. The Dictionary of
Judaism in the Biblical Period summarizes
the central elements of Passover contained in
the Haggadah:
“The ritual found in the Haggadah is first referred to in
M.
Pesaḥim,
chapter 10, which describes a festival meal
marked by a set order of foods and a required
liturgy (seder). At the heart of the meal is an
explanation of the significance of three foods
(unleavened bread, bitter herbs, and the
passover offering) and the recitation of the
Hallel-psalms. In early Amoraic times, this
basic ceremony was embellished through the
addition of a discussion of Israelite history,
leading up to and including captivity in Egypt.
In later developments, continuing to the
present, liturgical poems and other homilies
have been added to the basic format set in
talmudic times.”[a]
Today, we obviously see a wide variation of Passover customs and
traditions present in the Jewish community and
in Messianic Judaism. There are significant
variations between Sephardic and Ashkenazic
Jews, as well as between Orthodox, Conservative,
and Reform (or Progressive) Judaism. The
Passover haggadah (hdgh) is something that has been adapted and changed by each
denomination of Judaism, as some haggadahs
include an all-night service, where one stays
awake and focuses on certain Scriptures, to
those that are only focused around a meal at
one’s home with family and close friends. There
are traditions present in Passover today that
are unique to the lands where the Jewish people
have been scattered.
Messianic Judaism
has adapted many of these traditions to form its
own Passover haggadahs, which demonstrate
how we are to rejoice in God delivering Israel
from Egypt, and Yeshua delivering us from the
bondage of sin.
updated 23 February, 2010
NOTES
[a]
“Haggadah of Passover,” in Dictionary
of Judaism in the Biblical Period,
pp 266-267.
Paul, Name of: Why do you call Rav Shaul the Apostle Paul?
Paul, or Paulos (Pauloß), as it appears in the Greek, is the name that
the Apostle most frequently calls himself in his
letters. Shaul (lWav) or “Saul” was the original name given to this
Jew who was born in the city of Tarsus. Like
many Jews of the First Century, he was given two
names: one Hebrew or Aramaic, and then another
Greek or Latin. This is plainly attested by Acts
13:9 which speaks of “Saul, who was also
known as Paul” (NASU).
It is not incorrect to refer to the Apostle Paul as Shaul, but we
refer to him as the Apostle Paul because this is
what he calls himself, as the vast majority of
his audience was Greek-speaking. There are
Messianics, and Messianic Bible translations,
which fail to recognize the First Century
reality of Shaul or Saul having two names. The
first edition of The Scriptures (1993), a
Sacred Name Only Bible, states, “Who changed the
name of Sha’ul to Paul (Paulus)? We find no
evidence in Scripture as to why, when, and by
whom this change of his name was instigated. All
we could find was this: The ancient Romans had a
national hero named Paulus. Was this change from
‘Sha'ul’ to ‘Paulus’ done in order to appease
the Roman people?” (p 1218). This kind of
reasoning is without any historical basis at
all. The name of Shaul was not “changed” by some
sordid, evil conspiracy, as some might try to
make the naïve believe.
It is true that some in mainstream Christianity believe and teach
that prior to his conversion of faith, this
apostle was known as “Saul,” and then after his
conversion at the Damascus Road, he had his name
changed to “Paul.” Many of these people are as
uninformed as the Messianics who believe that
the name “Paul” was a fabrication of the Romans.
The Ryrie Study Bible, a
dispensationalist Christian source, correctly
acknowledges in its commentary for Acts 13:9,
“Saul was his Jewish name and Paul his Roman or
Gentile name. Both were given him at the time of
his birth, but he now begins to use his Gentile
name in this Gentile environment” (p 1669). This
is by no means an indication that Shaul had his
name changed to Paulos by “evil scribes,” as
some would like to insinuate, but a recognition
of the reality that he had two names. Many Jews
in the United States today are given a Hebrew
name, and then a comparable English name.
The Salkinson-Ginsburg modern Hebrew New Testament translation
actually uses the Hebrew form of Paulos,
Polos (sAlAP), in its translation of the Greek. Using
Paulos is appropriate both for recognition
of the fact that the Apostle had two names, and
be true to the source text of the Apostolic
Scriptures.
We refer to the Apostle as Paul because he uses this name more
times than his other name of Shaul or
Saul, even though we have no problems with
people calling him this. However, the
conspiratorial claims of a few Messianics that
his name was never Paul are without any
substantial basis.
updated 07 August, 2006
Paul, Tentmaker: I heard a Messianic teacher say that Paul was not a “tentmaker,”
but instead fashioned tallits or prayer
shawls. Is there any proof of this?
It was not uncommon at all for religious Jews in the First Century
to have a trade in which they were actively
involved, and Paul, in addition to his religious
training, was likely trained in some kind of
art. Jews who were mobile were often able to
practice their trade in whatever community or
city they stayed, so they could support
themselves. The reference to Paul as a
“tentmaker” appears in Acts 18:1-3:
“After
these things he left Athens and went to Corinth.
And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of
Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his
wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded
all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, and
because he was of the same trade, he stayed with
them and they were working, for by trade they
were tent-makers.”
Notice that the text describes Paul and the Roman Jews
Priscilla and Acquila as “tentmakers by trade” (ESV).
This indicates that to some degree the trade
they practiced was one that could bring them a
reasonable living. Would this living be made by
making some kind of prayer shawl for members of
the local Jewish community—or in a field that
could service a larger clientele?
David Stern’s Jewish New Testament Commentary remarks on
Acts 18:2, 3 (p 289) are completely mute about
“tentmakers” being synonymous to “tallit
makers.” However, the Power New Testament
(Lexington, SC: Author, 2003), translated by
William J. Morford, renders Acts 18:3 with “they
all were prayer shawl makers by trade.”
Justifying this translation, a footnote reads:
“Prayer shawl making required rabbinic training that all three had.
The word skenopoioi, translated prayer shawl
makers or tent makers, is not found anywhere
else in Scripture or secular Greek writing.
Jewish men referred to the prayer shawl as a
tent or prayer closet because it was placed over
the head to shield the eyes while praying” (p
192, fn 3).
While this is an interesting conclusion as to what “tentmaker” may
be, Hebrew Roots teachers are often left on
their own making it. We object to the assumption
that a “tentmaker” must be a tallit maker
because, (1) the tallit in its present
form is a relatively new application of the
command to wear tzit-tzits or fringes,
coming in the last millennia of Jewish history;
and (2) no current scholarship in the New
Testament confirms that skēnopoios (skhnopoioß)
means “tallit maker.” There is some
disagreement as to whether “tentmaker” is the
best translation, though. TDNT notes, “If
the trade is that of making tents of goat’s
hair, Paul is perhaps weaving fabric. But
rabbinic scholars do not favor weaving, and it
is thus more likely that Paul is a ‘leather
worker,’ and that as such he is a ‘tent maker’”
(W. Michaelis, “pitching tents, Tabernacles,” in
TDNT, 1044).
The question of how Paul, Acquila, and Priscilla were “tentmakers”
is ultimately going to be solved in whether or
not making prayer shawls, or working with actual
tents, brought them a substantial income. We
simply do not believe that manufacturing
tallits, or any kind of religious items for
that matter, would have enabled them to incur
significant monies to live. Their market for
work would have been limited to solely the
Jewish community, and Diaspora Jews did not live
in the Diaspora solely to do business among
themselves—but also with the Gentiles around
them. The understanding of Paul, Acquila, and
Priscilla as leatherworkers involved with the
tent making process seems best.
posted 26 September, 2006
Peter, Epistle of First: What can you tell me about the composition of the Epistle of 1
Peter?
The author of the Epistle of 1 Peter identifies himself as the
Apostle Peter (1:1). The contents of the letter
are Petrine, from the personal character that we
see of Peter in the Gospels and Acts. Peter was
widely considered to be the most prominent of
the original Twelve Disciples, whose influence
on the assembly was second only to James the
Just. Peter is the first to verbalize to Yeshua
that He is the Messiah, and Yeshua in turn tells
Peter that He will give His Disciples the
authority to bind and loose, prohibit and permit
(Matthew 16:17-19). In the lists of the Twelve
Disciples in the Apostolic Scriptures, his name
always appears first (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark
3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). It is Peter
who preaches to the masses gathered at
Shavuot or Pentecost in Acts 2, when the
Holy Spirit is poured out, and it is he who goes
to the centurion Cornelius, the first non-Jewish
person recorded to be saved. Peter was a
dominant figure at the Jerusalem Council of Acts
15, which recognized that he had a special
calling from God to “the circumcised” (Galatians
2:7) or the Jewish people.
The intended audience of this letter is identified early in its
composition: “To
those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
who are chosen” (1:1). The intended audience is
generally believed by conservative theologians
to be a mixed group of Jewish and non-Jewish
Believers. The Jewish Believers would have had
an easier time grasping Peter’s message for
them, but a non-Jewish audience is by no means
excluded. These Believers composed congregations
in Northern Asia Minor. “The letter was directed
to members of the Dispersion located in northern
Roman provinces in Asia Minor, which Paul did
not visit and which may have been evangelized by
Peter between the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 48)
and the Neronian persecution at Rome” (NIDB,
774). There is debate among some theologians why
Peter would use the term “Dispersion” (RSV) in
his letter, as this would presuppose a largely
Jewish audience. Does he use it in reference to
non-Jewish Believers as well? The text of the
letter seems so, as there were many “former
pagans [who had] given up their previous way of
life and turned to the ‘living God’” (IDB,
3:761). The Jewish Believers who had known the
God of Israel did not come out of idolatry
(Gundry, 440).
As it concerns the restoration of all Israel,
Peter quotes numerous Scriptures from the Hebrew
Tanach which connect his readership with what
the calling of Israel is all about: a people for
God’s own possession who testify to the world of
His greatness. He quotes directly from Hosea
2:23 in 1 Peter 2:10. This is an indication that
Peter’s audience included members of scattered
Israel, and was not exclusively Jewish.
Messianic Believers today can be encouraged that
the Apostle Peter, who first acknowledged Yeshua
as the Messiah, saw the restoration of all
Israel, but it must be tempered with the reality
that most of his epistle deals with the daily
trials and the persecutions that all Believers
must face, and that we all must understand our
individual roles that we play in the Body of
Messiah.
There is a substantial amount of debate as to where Peter was when
he wrote this epistle. 1 Peter 5:13 identifies
Peter’s location as being “Babylon.” Was this
Babylon in Mesopotamia, or was it a veiled
reference to Rome? The traditional composition
of 1 Peter, concurrent with the extant
traditions that adhere to Peter traveling to
Rome with John Mark, is that Peter composed this
letter from Rome. In 5:3 he writes concerning
“my son Mark,” his traveling associate, and
according to tradition he was martyred in Rome
at the hands of Nero in about 67 or 68 C.E. Rome
is the likely place of composition, as there are
no traditions from the Eastern Church which
substantiate that he ever traveled to
Mesopotamian Babylon. Conservative scholars are
in general agreement that the letter had to have
been written in the early 60s C.E., likely in
either 63 or 64 C.E., at the time Nero was in
power in Rome and actively began hunting down
and persecuting Believers.
Liberal theologians doubt Petrine authorship because of the high
Greek composition style that this letter
demonstrates to have, and advocate that 1 Peter
was composed sometime after Peter’s death. It is
generally argued that Peter, as a simple
fisherman, would have been unable to learn or
communicate in Greek. However, “it must be
remembered that in Peter’s day Galilee was
probably bi-lingual: the Greek language would
have been familiar to Peter from boyhood (his
own brother’s name [Andrew] is a Greek one), and
being a fisherman and living on one of the great
trade routes would have made it necessary for
him to speak it regularly” (NBCR, 1236).
When we couple this with almost thirty years of
ministry work by the Apostle Peter, regularly
working with a large number of non-Jews, Peter
would have had to learn Greek in the Lord’s
service by His Divine empowerment.
Some would countermand this by saying that Acts 4:13 identifies
Peter as being “uneducated and untrained,” and
that Peter may have had to use an interpreter.
Even if this means that Peter was not an expert
Greek speaker, was Peter imprisoned when this
letter was composed? Note that “Semitisms or
‘mistranslations’ are absent. It is incredible,
some argue, that a Galilean fisherman who used
an interpreter and was known as ‘uneducated’
(Acts 4:13) had such a command of the Greek
language that he could produce a document like
this” (IDB, 3:763). This is the classic
liberal argument against genuine Petrine
authorship. However, the letter itself indicates
“Through
Silvanus…I have written to you briefly” (5:12).
If Peter were in prison when this letter was
composed, possibly even in chains like Paul when
2 Timothy was composed, Silvanus was probably
Peter’s scribe or secretary who helped him write
his letter. As a native Greek speaker, Silvanus
would have had the ability to correct any
grammatical errors that Peter could have made
(Gundry, 438; Guthrie, pp 763-764).
Sadly, Messianics who advocate that 1 Peter
would have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic
fall into the same liberal arguments against
Peter writing it. A Hebrew or Aramaic origin
simply does not align with the history, extant
traditions, and intended audience of the
epistle.
Different readers of 1 Peter have found different themes throughout
the text. These themes include an emphasis on
our duty as Believers, endurance through
suffering and persecution, the Earthly sojourn
we are on, the grace of God, and general
spiritual exhortation. Peter’s epistle has some
very important admonitions for the Body of
Messiah, both in the First Century, and for
Believers today. Peter emphasizes the call of
all followers of Yeshua to live like Him, having
holy lives, to expect to be persecuted like Him
and perhaps even die. He talks about the proper
place of husbands and wives in marriage, and the
proper place that servants in the Body are to
have functioning in their spiritual callings.
Suffering like the Messiah is an underlying
theme, as when he wrote his letter the assembly
was beginning to establish itself as a threat to
the Roman authorities. The Apostle Peter is sure
to write concerning the love and grace of God,
and the sovereignty of the Lord in all matters
of life.
Bibliography
Blum, Edwin A. “1 Peter,” in EXP,
12:209-254.
Elliot, John H. “Peter, First Epistle of,” in
ABD, 5:269-278.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General,
Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament,
pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The First Epistle of Peter,”
in New Testament Introduction, pp
760-803.
Martin, R.P. “Peter, First Epistle of,” in
ISBE, 3:807-815.
Tenney, Merill C. “Peter, First Letter of,” in
NIDB, pp 773-774.
van Unnik, W.C. “Peter, First Letter of,” in
IDB, 3:758-766.
Wheaton, David H. “1 Peter,” in NBCR, pp
1236-1249.
updated 06 February, 2006
Peter, Epistle of Second: What can you tell me about the composition of the Epistle of 2
Peter?
The author of 2 Peter identifies himself in the text as the Apostle
Peter (1:1). He makes strong personal claims and
references in the opening chapter (1:12-15), and
claims to be an eyewitness of the
Transfiguration of Yeshua (1:16-18). He also
writes that this is his second letter (3:1), and
indicates that he has a strong acquaintanceship
with Paul (3:15).
Many conservative theologians accept genuine Petrine authorship of
this epistle (NBCR, 1249), whereas all
liberal theologians deny it. Moderates somewhere
in the middle of the liberal-conservative
paradigm often postulate that it was written in
the name of Peter, in his authority (EXP,
12:262). Liberals often argue against Petrine
authorship because there is no clear tradition
regarding its composition. There do exist some
possible allusions to 2 Peter in the late First
Century letter of 1 Clement, but the text
is not quoted specifically by name until Origin
uses it in the mid-Third Century (ISBE,
3:815-816; ABD, 5:283). It is notable,
however, that classical liberals who deny
Petrine authorship do not discount the text as
being authoritative: “It records the effort of
Christianity in a transitional post-apostolic
period to communicate effectively in a
pluralistic cultural environment while at the
same time remaining faithful to its apostolic
heritage and underlying worldview” (ABD,
5:283).
The emerging Christian Church of the Third Century did finally
accept 2 Peter as canonical. Gundry remarks,
“The early church exhibited some hesitancy in
accepting it into the canon. This hesitancy can
be explained by the comparative brevity of the
epistle, however; and such brevity may have
curtailed its distribution and limited people’s
acquaintance with it” (p 443). A strong
possibility surrounding why 2 Peter was viewed
with extreme skepticism by the emerging Church
had to do with much of its subject matter, which
pertained to Gnosticism, and the use of Peter’s
name in many pseudopigraphal works by Gnostics.
Guthrie explains,
“If Gnostic groups had used Peter’s name to drive home their own
particular tenets, this fact would cause the
orthodox church to take particular care not to
use any spurious Petrine epistles. Some of the
more nervous probably regarded 2 Peter
suspiciously for this reason, but the fact that
it ultimately gained acceptance in spite of the
pseudo-Petrine literature is an evidence more
favourable to its authenticity than against it”
(p 809).
It is attested in 1 Peter 5:12 that Silvanus probably helped Peter
compose his first epistle. The use of an
amanuensis or “second author” is common in some
New Testament works (EXP, 12:258). “Just
as today a high government official uses a
speech writer, though the final product is the
official’s responsibility, so 2 Peter may have
been drafted by an amanuensis” (Ibid., 12:259).
Psuedonymity for 2 Peter is not accepted by most
conservative theologians, meaning that the
author is completely unknown without any
speculation (NBCR, 1250). If Peter had
been in prison chains when 2 Peter was composed,
Peter employing someone to compose this letter
is likely. Petrine authorship assumes that the
letter was written between 65 to 68 C.E., prior
to Peter’s death (Guthrie, 844). The traditional
conservative view is that 2 Peter was composed
from Rome.
No one in the conservative academic community has ever suggested
that 2 Peter was originally written in Hebrew or
Aramaic. In fact, 2 Peter is not included in the
Aramaic Peshitta and is not considered canonical
by the Syrian Orthodox Church. 2 Peter does
employ some Greek-specific philosophical terms (ISBE,
3:817), and the text demonstrates a familiarity
on the author’s part with a broad Jewish and
Greek audience: “With a diction that was
exceptionally Hellenistic in its makeup, the
letter formulates a message that was remarkably
‘primitive’ and Jewish in its moral and
apocalyptic orientation” (ABD, 5:284; cf.
NBCR, 1250). The likely audience of 2
Peter is favored to be a group of Believers
countering proto-Gnosticism in either Asia Minor
or Egypt.
The theology of 2 Peter may be easily divided between its three
chapters. The three-fold purpose of Peter’s
letter is to encourage Believers in their growth
(ch. 1), combat heresies (ch. 2), and encourage
people to be on guard in relation to Yeshua’s
return (ch. 3). The text most certainly reflects
on Peter’s impending death.
Peter directly confronts proto-Gnosticism in ch. 2, and
specifically refutes Simonian Gnosticism, which
by tradition was founded by Simon Magus who
tried to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter and John
(ISBE, 3:318). There are extreme
parallels between the text of 2 Peter and the
message of Jude. Those who give a late First
Century date to Jude give an even later date to
2 Peter, but those who give an early date for
Jude often give a mid-First Century date to 2
Peter. Just as with Jude, 2 Peter is concerned
with false teachers creeping into the assembly,
and urges his readers not to fall into ungodly
behavior. He argues with skillful rhetoric, and
speaks with the authority of one of the Hebrew
Prophets.
2 Peter does not present any challenges for the Torah observant
Messianic community today, but it does include
many warnings that we must heed. The background
of 2 Peter largely confronts Gnosticism, or
proto-Gnosticism, and Peter condemns false
teachers as deserving of nothing less than
eternal punishment. 2 Peter includes a strong
warning for those living in the Last Days, and
it reflects the reality that people will fall
away from the faith. As we steadily approach the
return of Yeshua, Messianic exegesis of 2 Peter
must keep this in mind as we try to police
ourselves of any false theologies that may enter
into the camp.
Bibliography
Beker, J.C. “Peter, Second Letter of,” in IDB,
3:767-771.
Blum, Edwin A. “2 Peter,” in EXP,
12:257-289.
Elliot, John H. “Peter, Second Epistle of,” in
ABD, 5:282-287.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General,
Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament,
pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Second Epistle of Peter,”
in New Testament Introduction, pp
805-857.
Michaels, J.R. “Peter, Second Epistle of,” in
ISBE, 3:815-819.
Wheaton, David H. “2 Peter,” in NBCR, pp
1249-1258.
updated 06 February, 2006
Philemon, Epistle to: What can you tell me about the composition of the Epistle to
Philemon?
The author of the letter to Philemon is identified in the text as
the Apostle Paul (vs. 1, 9, 19), and
conservative theologians often regard Pauline
authorship as genuine. This letter appears in a
series that is generally referred to as the
“Prison Epistles,” along with Ephesians,
Philippians, and Colossians. Pauline authorship
of Philemon is challenged by a few liberals, who believe that it “was written in the
second century to instruct the church in
handling the slavery question” (EXP,
11:453).
The composition of Philemon is closely connected to Colossians, as
the same company of people are listed as
extending greetings to Philemon, as in
Colossians (Colossians 1:1; cf. Philemon 1).
This would place Philemon’s composition in
approximately 60-62 C.E., and most probably from
Rome during Paul’s first imprisonment. Some
theologians differ, advocating that Paul wrote
this letter from Ephesus, or even possibly that
this was the letter “written from Laodicea”
(Colossians 4:16; cf. IDB, 3:783), but
the majority conservative position favors a
Roman origin for the epistle.
Paul writes this letter to Philemon, who was a Greek Believer in
Colossae, but who may have lived in the Lycus
Valley adjacent to Colossae. Philemon was a
slave owner (Colossians 4:1), but had a
congregation of Believers meeting in his home.
According to the traditional view of
composition, his slave Onesimus had been stolen
from him, but later fled his captors and ran to
Rome (v. 18; Gundry, 392). Later, Onesimus
himself became a Believer in Yeshua, and somehow
encountered Paul while in Rome. Paul writes to
Philemon, appealing for him to accept Onesimus
as a fellow brother (v. 16), encouraging that
Onesimus needs to be “profitable” as his name
means (Ibid.). Paul asks that Philemon treat
Onesimus as a “son,” perhaps in reference to
Rabbinical opinions of the time which held that
if one trains a neighbor’s son in the Torah,
that person is as a son to him (NIDB,
780). Paul asks Philemon to cancel the debt that
is incurred by Onesimus (vs. 18-20).
No scholar or theologian has ever dreamed of proposing a Hebrew or
Aramaic origin for the letter to Philemon. This
is impossible for any number of important
reasons. Both Philemon and Onesimus, the runaway
slave, would have been Greek speakers. While
Paul’s ability to communicate as an able Jewish
rabbi is present in the text, so is his ability
to write letters in Greek style. “Only
recently…have scholars shown the strong
influence of Greek rhetorical conventions on
Paul’s masterful argumentation in Plmn, in
particular the genre of deliberative rhetoric…By
use of skillful appeals to the reason, the
emotions, and the character of their hearers,
rhetoriticians sought to establish two motives
for action: maintaining honor and gaining
advantage” (ABD, 5:306). What is
intriguing about the composition of Philemon is
that Paul, as a Jew from the Diaspora and a
Pharisee, is able to communicate very eloquently
to a wealthy Asiatic Greek, who came to faith in
the Messiah.
The letter to Philemon reveals some very important historical data
about the early Messianic community, including
the fact that they largely met in homes. This
was patterned after the Jewish synagogues, which
in many Diaspora cities met in homes, with the
exception of where there was a large Jewish
community. In fact, no actual “church buildings”
are believed to have existed until the Third
Century (NIDB, 780).
The Epistle to Philemon has presented many challenges for
Christians over the centuries, and even more
challenges for those living in the modern age.
Roman law in the First Century required strict
punishment for any runaway slave (IDB,
3:783). Many questions have arisen when
interpreting what Paul means by his letter. Is
Paul urging moderation on the part of Philemon
toward Onesimus? Does Paul support slavery? Does
Paul write this letter so Onesimus can be freed
by Philemon? Is Paul indifferent to slavery?
Edward M. Blaiklock offers the perspective,
“Slavery is never directly attacked as such, but
principles that must prove fatal to the
institution are steadily inculcated” (NIDB,
780).
Some Reformed theologians of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Centuries actually used Philemon as a support
for the institution of slavery, as Paul does not
directly address the issue in his letter.
Likewise, many other theologians of the same
period used Philemon as a support for
abolitionism. Perhaps the question of slavery is
not easily answered from Philemon as we have no
extant information on how Onesimus became a
slave. Did he become a slave because of an
indebtedness he was trying to pay off, or was he
a slave because of some military campaign
against an oppressed people? Likewise, we have
no extant data on who Philemon was, other than
him being a wealthy man, how he accumulated this
wealth, or what his occupation was.
Because of the lack of information we have on Philemon’s and
Onesimus’ backgrounds, many take a moderate
stance, which is that Paul’s opinion relating to
Onesimus’ state as a new Believer required
Philemon to free him (IDB, 3:782). In
other words, the First Century Messianic
community should have freed slaves who came to
faith, but not those who did not come to faith.
Of course, our exegesis of Philemon must be
tempered by the fact that Onesimus was not a
slave like the Ancient Israelites were in Egypt.
Rather than helping to run the Egyptian Empire,
Onesimus was probably a household servant or
field laborer, and his master saw that all of
his needs were met.
Bibliography
Bartchy, S. Scott. “Philemon, Epistle to,” in
ABD, 5:305-310.
Blaiklock, Edward M. “Philemon, Letter to,” in
NIDB, pp 780-781.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
390-408.
Guthrie, Donald. “Philemon,” in NBCR, pp
1187-1190.
______________. “The Epistle to Philemon,” in
New Testament Introduction, pp 660-667.
Hemer, C.J. “Philemon, Epistle to,” in ISBE,
3:831-832.
Lyman, M.E. “Philemon, Letter to,” in IDB,
3:782-784.
Rupprecht, Arthur A. “Philemon,” in EXP,
11:453-464.
updated 06 February, 2006
Philippians, Epistle of: What can you tell me about the composition of the Epistle of
Philippians?
Pauline authorship has not been challenged in regard to the Epistle
to the Philippians, as there are many personal
references made in this letter. Paul writes this
letter from prison (1:13-14), even though it is
debated where Paul wrote this letter from.
Largely, Philippians is a letter of personal
thanks as the Philippian congregation of
Believers helped support Paul financially
(4:15-20; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:7-9).
The city of Philippi was named after King Philip II of Macedon, the
father of Alexander the Great. It was the place
of a decisive battle in 42 B.C.E. between the
Second Triumvirate of Octavian, Antony, and
Lepidus against the Roman Republicans. The
victory of Octavian resulted in the city being
made a Roman military colony. The people of
Philippi were chiefly Roman, and many retired
military men resided there. “Phillipi had been
thoroughly colonized by the Romans after 30
B.C., but the city was still more Greek in
culture than Roman” (NIDB, 782). Philippi
did not have a large enough Jewish presence to
warrant a synagogue. “Acts tells us nothing of a
Jewish synagogue at Philippi, or of the
reactions of Philippian Jews to Paul’s
preaching” (IDB, 3:788). “[E]vidently,
because of the strong Roman consciousness of the
citizens, the Jews were not allowed to have a
synagogue within the city walls, so they had
only a place of prayer outside the west gate at
a river (Acts 16:13)” (ISBE, 3:837),
which would have been the first place Paul would
have met when evangelizing. Philippi was the
first European congregation established by Paul
(Acts 16:11-40; cf. NIDB, 781).
The traditional view of Philippians is that this letter was written
from Rome in about 61. C.E., when Paul was under
house arrest. This view went largely
unchallenged until the 1900s when some
theologians began to suggest that the letter may
have been written from Ephesus at a slightly
earlier date. The principal reason in support of
this view is that Ephesus and Philippi were
geographically closer than Ephesus and Rome
(Gundry, 403). Philippi, as a Roman colony,
would be administered not that much differently
than Rome itself. “The terms in 1:13; 4:22;
Praetorium
and Caesar’s Household have no necessary reference to Rome.
Members of Caesar’s administrative staff (domus
Caesaris) were, as we know from
inscriptions, to be found at Ephesus, as
elsewhere throughout the Empire” (IDB,
3:790). Whether or not Rome or Ephesus was the
composition locus of the letter does not affect
its overall theology (NBCR, 1126).
What cannot be explained, of course, is why there would be some in
the Messianic community today trying to advocate
that Paul wrote his letter in Hebrew or Aramaic.
The Jewish community in Phillippi at the time
seems to be miniscule at best. The largely Roman
audience that Paul writes in Philippians would
have had no difficulty understanding Greek, the
international language of the Eastern
Mediterranean.
On the whole, the theology of Philippians is not very complicated,
as there is seldom a negative rebuke in his
letter. Paul thanks the Philippians for sending
him a financial gift (1:5; 4:10-19). He
encourages them to rejoice in the face of their
circumstances (1:27-30; 4:4). He wants the
Philippians to be unified (2:1-11; 4:2-5). Paul
writes that he is sending Timothy and
Epaphroditus to them to instruct them (2:9-10).
Perhaps the only major theme that Messianics
need to be aware of is that ch. 3 is spent
warning the Philippians against the Judaizers
and the antinomians: those who would force the
non-Jewish Philippians to convert to Judaism to
be saved, and those who have no regard for God’s
moral law.
Paul, while writing to an almost entirely non-Jewish audience,
strongly affirms his own Jewishness in this
epistle. He writes that he was “circumcised
the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the
tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to
the Law, a Pharisee” (3:5). But he also writes
of the superiority of Yeshua over his pedigree:
“But whatever things were gain to me, those
things I have counted as loss for the sake of
Messiah” (3:7). While Paul does not discount his
Jewish upbringing, it is inferior to him knowing
Yeshua as Lord. Did Paul write this because
there were many Roman military men in Philippi
who might think that their military careers were
superior to knowing the Jewish Messiah?
Thankfully, Paul sent Timothy and Epaphraditus
to Philippi to instruct the Philippian Believers
in what they needed to know. The Jewish
character of Paul is certainly present in
Philippians, but he writes very carefully to a
distinctly non-Jewish audience.
Bibliography
Duncan, G.S. “Philippians, Letter to the,” in
IDB, 3:787-791.
Fitzgerald, John T. “Philippians, Epistle to
the,” in ABD, 5:318-326.
Foulkes, F. “Philippians,” in NBCR, pp
1125-1138.
Gundry, Robert. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
390-408.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the
Philippians,” in New Testament Introduction,
pp 541-563.
Petersen, Lorman M. “Philippians, Letter to
the,” in NIDB, pp 781-782.
Kent, Homer A. “Philippians,” in EXP,
11:99-159.
Reicke, B. “Philippians, Epistle to the,” in
ISBE, 3:836-841.
updated 06 February, 2006
Polygamy:
Have you ever studied Scripture concerning a
Torah observant plural marriage covenant?
Per some current events, some discussion regarding polygamy has
arisen in the Messianic community, with some
possibly considering that it has validity for
today’s Believers. Polygamy as a practice is
seen in various parts of the Tanach, but one
which the Jewish Synagogue abandoned long before
the arrival of Yeshua the Messiah (see “monogamy
and polygamy,” in Dictionary of Judaism in
the Biblical Period, 437). Deuteronomy 17:17
specifically warns the future kings of Israel, “He
shall not multiply wives for himself, or else
his heart will turn away.”
With the creation of the first man and woman in the Garden of Eden,
the ideal state has been for marriage to be
between one man and one woman: “For
this reason a man shall leave his father and his
mother, and be joined to his wife; and they
shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24), a
principle upheld by Yeshua the Messiah (Mathew
19:5; Mark 10:7-8). This was also a state where
men and women were fully equal, as Adam attests
that Eve was “bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh” (Genesis 2:23). The Creation of man
before woman is a testimony not
that God prefers males over females, but
indicates that because men cannot reproduce and
give birth—the first male requires an outside
Creator. (Consult the FAQ entry “God,
Depicted as Male.”)
It is only after the Fall that we see forms of
polygamy practiced, and to argue that this is to
be a normative, even encouraged practice, skews
God’s original intent at Creation. Leviticus
18:18 is a clear example of an explicit Torah
commandment against polygamy: “While your wife
is living, do not marry her sister and have
sexual relations with her, for they would be
rivals” (NLT). It is true that various
Patriarchs and monarchs of Israel did have
multiple wives, and seemingly did not incur any
significant penalties from the Lord for doing
so. Yet this must be balanced with the fact that
the whole nation of Israel was commanded to
celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles for seven
days each year (Leviticus 23:33-34), and
Nehemiah says that “The sons of Israel had
indeed not done so from the days of Joshua the
son of Nun to that day” (Nehemiah 8:17)—which
was after the Babylonian exile! The Ancient
Israelites did not always follow the commands of
God, and because of His love and grace He often
overlooked their significant transgressions.
Severe chastisement to Israel often did not come
until idolatry, gross child sacrifice, and
outright rebellion against the Lord were
practiced.
From a practical standpoint, while we see
polygamy observed by some members of Israelite
society, it is far fetched to think that every
single Israelite man could economically afford
more than one wife. On the contrary, the fact
that only Patriarchs, leaders, and monarchs of
Israel are portrayed as having multiple wives
demonstrates how little this
practice was actually observed. And was it
really worth it for them? When we read that
Jacob had both Leah and Rachel as his wives, or
David and Solomon had multiple wives—were their
households places of genuine love and affection,
or riddled with relational problems? Were their
children behaved or unruly? 1 Kings 11:4 is not
very good evidence in favor of polygamy: “For
when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart
away after other gods; and his heart was not
wholly devoted to the
Lord
his God.” A significant reason Ancient Israel
was ultimately divided into the Northern and
Southern Kingdoms goes back to Solomon’s
incessant polygamy, and the state funded
idolatry he sponsored.
(Perhaps the only justifiable reason for
polygamy to be considered over monogamy would be
seen when a population is so devastated by war
or famine, that having multiple wives is the
only way to repopulate. But, that
exception would be few and far between.)
The Apostolic Scriptures make it abundantly clear that polygamy is
something which is not to be
practiced by the people of God today. The
significant passages in the Gospels where Yeshua
addresses marriage affirm Genesis’ teaching on
one man and one woman (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9;
Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18). The Apostle Paul
states candidly in 1 Corinthians 7:2, “each
man is to have his own wife, and each woman is
to have her own husband.” He also instructs
Timothy that overseers/bishops and deacons only
be allowed one wife (1 Timothy 3:2, 12).
Furthermore, and perhaps most significant, he
asserts in Ephesians 5:21-33 that the
institution of marriage is to be a reflection on
the Messiah’s service for the ekklēsia.
This involved the Lord serving a single body of
people, not multiple bodies of people:
“let each one of you love his wife as himself,
and let the wife see that she respects her
husband” (Ephesians 5:33, RSV).
Given the new status for males and females that
the arrival of Yeshua has inaugurated (Galatians
3:28), polygamy is a practice that is degrading
to the equality of the sexes which He has
restored. In many cases, trying to Biblically
justify polygamy—as though it is a good thing
that God intended from Creation—is almost
always used as a way for men to fulfill sexual
urges that cannot be kept under control.
Women are frequently the victims of such
inappropriate and ungodly behavior, often
because of men who want to treat them as little
more than chattel.
The discussion regarding polygamy has been
unleashed in a Messianic movement that is
largely unsure about how what it means to
recapture a Torah foundation for one’s faith in
Yeshua. Does it mean that only the Books of
Genesis-Deuteronomy are relevant to one’s faith
(thus making us Sadducees who deny the
resurrection)? Or does it mean that the
Pentateuch is one stepping stone—and indeed a
largely overlooked stepping stone—of God’s
continually progressive salvation history (cf.
Hebrews 1:1-2)? If it is the latter, then it is
clear that the Torah’s legislation is intended
to be a significant step forward, but not the
only step, that is to return us to what the
first man and woman had in Eden. The ideal state
that God wants us to have does not include
polygamy, and the Scriptures are clear that
those who practiced it did not incur beneficial
and lasting relationships as a result.
If anyone in the Messianic movement thinks that
polygamy is something to be embraced and
encouraged, than such views stand in direct
contrast to God’s intention at Creation and the
teachings of Yeshua the Messiah. They are also
degrading to the female gender, which is now to
be considered equal to the male gender in Him.
Consult Walter C. Kaiser’s remarks on polygamy in his book
Toward Old Testament Ethics, pp 182-190,
which further discusses some of the historical
and exegetical issues. Consult the editor’s
article “Is
Polygamy for Today?” for a
detailed Messianic examination of this issue.
updated 19 January, 2009
Practical Messianic Commentaries:
What kind of writing style do the Practical
Messianic commentaries produced by TNN Press
follow? What kind of information do these
commentaries have?
The Practical Messianic commentary series is a continual and
ongoing project that we have been developing
since 2004. Today’s Messianic community largely
lacks book-by-book commentaries on the Bible,
most importantly on the Apostolic Scriptures
(New Testament). While David H. Stern’s
Jewish New Testament Commentary has been a
mainstay in many Messianic homes and
congregations, and has certainly been helpful to
many people, it does lack much information on
historical and compositional issues, and is more
of a compilation of select explanatory notes
than a serious engagement with the text.
TNN Press’ Practical Messianic commentary series attempts to
address areas of Biblical theology and
composition that have frequently gone
unaddressed in today’s Messianic movement. The
volumes thus far completed have been written at
a lay level, somewhere between the writing style
of the Tyndale Old/New Testament Commentaries
and Preacher’s Commentary series, even
though we do consult with more detailed volumes
from series such as the New International
Commentary on the Old/New Testament, Word
Biblical Commentary, and New
International Greek Testament Commentary.
Technical information is included in the
commentary on Scripture, but also has
reflections that can be used for teaching and
preaching in one’s congregation.
The volumes thusfar produced: James, Hebrews, the Apostolic
Scriptures Survey, and Philippians
(forthcoming), have tried to examine the text as
it first meant to its ancient audience and/or
recipients, and then apply its meaning in a
modern-day Messianic setting. Some conclusions
drawn have challenged current trends in
Messianic Torah observance, our relationship to
society, as well as how we need to mature as a
movement in the next ten to twenty years.
As of this posting (2007), our planned focus for the next few years
will be on completing commentaries on the
smaller Pauline Epistles. These are texts that
many Messianics today often have challenges
interpreting. It would be our hope that given
time we can have Messianic commentaries produced
on many more books of the Bible, but this is
admittedly a lifetime worth of work. This is one
of the reasons why the A Survey of the
Apostolic Scriptures was released in 2006,
with a planned volume Survey of the Tanach
(tentatively 2008). We can think of nothing more
important as a ministry than getting people
focused on the Bible, and we have a great amount
to do in the years and decades ahead. Please
pray and support our efforts in these endeavors
that we feel are greatly needed and long
overdue.
posted 12 February, 2007
Preterist
Theology:
What is your opinion of preterist eschatology?
Preterist eschatology, more than anything else, is the belief that
the events of the “end-times” occurred in 66-70
C.E. during the period of the Jewish revolt
against Rome, the destruction of the Temple, and
the rise of Roman persecution against the
Believers. Preterist theologians argue for a
very early composition of the Book of
Revelation, and believe that Nero Caesar was
“the antichrist.” Preterist theologians adhere
to the belief that the Abomination of Desolation
occurred in 70 C.E. with the destruction of the
Second Temple.
The demographics among those who deal with eschatology reveal that
a large number of those who adhere to preterism
are liberal theologians. These are theologians
who generally tend to allegorize the narratives
of the Tanach such as the Creation account or
Noahadic Flood. Likewise with apocalyptic
Scriptures, they also allegorize their meanings.
Sometimes this is based in an inability on the
part of the expositor to deal with the harsh
realities of Divine judgment. Likewise, some of
it is reactionary to the more literal schools of
prophetic interpretation, and some of the abuse
that exists among them. Preterist eschatology,
in no uncertain terms, fully adheres to
replacement theology where the Church now
supercedes Israel. Israel as God’s covenant
nation no longer exists in a preterist
framework, having experienced its “end-times,”
as God’s is now only working through the Church.
TNN Online does not adhere to preterist eschatology in any way, and
the vast majority in the Messianic community
likewise do not believe in it. Our rejection of
preterist eschatology is based in the problems
that arise when asserting that “the end-times”
have taken place, without the physical return of
Yeshua the Messiah. Preterist eschatology asks
us to consider the Church existing on Earth
being the manifestation of God’s Kingdom in the
world. Unfortunately for preterists, the
Scriptures do not reflect this, instead
presenting us both/and aspects of the Kingdom.
While elements of God’s Kingdom can be captured
on Earth among His people, we still await the
complete manifestation of the Kingdom at the
Lord’s appearing.
Perhaps more than anything else, Messianics should reject preterism
because many preterists do not see a Scriptural
basis for the existence of the State of Israel.
In America, many preterists only support Israel
because Israel in an ally of the United States,
but not for any Biblically-based reason.
Preterists would argue that any microchip
implant system that could be implemented to
identify people could never be “the mark of the
beast.” Preterist theology, more than anything
else, is a denial of those who cannot handle the
judgment of God on today’s sinful world.
The only way the Messianic community can avoid the problems with
preterist eschatology is to continue to develop
its own post-tribulational, pre-millennial
eschatology. This theology should be firmly
based in the premise that we still await the
completion of the Seventieth Week of Israel,
that “the Church” has not replaced Israel, that
God’s promises to Israel are still valid, and
that all Believers—as a part of the Commonwealth
of Israel—will experience what Israel
experiences in the Last Days. These are the
things that we should be discussing in our
distinct Messianic examinations of the
end-times.
added 09 January, 2006
Prince Charles of Wales, Antichrist: I have heard a Messianic teaching which says that Prince Charles
is the antichrist. Do you believe this?
While the Scriptures are clear that there is going to be someone
who in the future will arise as a false messiah,
become the leader of the world, and demand
worship, we do not claim to know who this person
is. There are many prophecy teachers who claim
to know who the antimessiah/antichrist is,
ranging from King Juan Carlos of Spain, Mikhail
Gorbachev, Bill Clinton, and now Prince Charles.
This is all speculation. If you are a diligent
student of the Word you should know the
description that the Scriptures give us about
the antimessiah/antichrist. Whenever this man
comes, the Scriptures admonish us to not be
caught unaware and know what characteristics to
look for.
We will not know who the antimessiah is until the Abomination of
Desolation occurs. Until then, all we can do is
guess.
updated 20 April, 2006
Proverbs, Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Proverbs?
The Book of Proverbs makes up the largest collection of wisdom
sayings in canonical Scripture. Proverbs is a
text that most people turn to when requiring
advice so they can be guided in a proper way of
living. Proverbs has important lessons to teach
anyone, regardless of their age, gender, or
social status (EXP, 5:897-903). Many of
the admonitions that it includes orient the
reader as a child being instructed by a teacher,
often being parental in tone (ECB, 438).
Proverbs embodies the essence of practical
theology, seen in one of its first major
admonitions: “The
fear of the
Lord
is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7). Proverbs
is intended to guide individuals to perform
actions that are right, just, and pious (Jewish
Study Bible, 1447), and to be productive
members of their communities.
The Hebrew title of Proverbs is Mishlei (ylvm),
derived from the verb mashal (lvm),
which in the Hifil stem (casual action, active
voice) can mean “to
compare with” (HALOT, 1:647; cf.
NBCR, 549; ABD, 5:513). Many
theologians are keen to point out that mashal
represents a wide variety of types of sayings
and admonitions (Harrison, 1010-1011; EDB,
1090). The Septuagint title for Proverbs is
Paroimiai (PAROIMIAI),
followed by the Latin Vulgate’s Liber
Proverbiorium.
In the Jewish theological tradition, Proverbs is placed among the
Writings between Psalms and Job, but in
Christian tradition Proverbs is considered a
Wisdom text along with Job and Ecclesiastes.
Traditionally, Proverbs has been the first of three books that are
given Solomonic authorship. Songs of Songs is
believed to have been composed early in
Solomon’s life, Proverbs composed during his
midlife, and Ecclesiastes composed in his late
life (Song of Songs Rabbah §10). It is
notable for us to consider today that there is
no conservative consensus on Solomonic
authorship for all three of these books (not to
be confused with Solomonic involvement). “Most
scholars who have studied the problem intensely
have favored the historical nature of the
Solomonic tradition to a greater or lesser
degree, though some have been far from certain
about it, and others have entertained the
presence of legendary accretions” (Harrison,
1013). Rabbinic tradition in the Talmud actually
ascribes the composition of Isaiah, Proverbs,
Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes to the men of
Hezekiah (b.Bava Batra 15a).
The general title that is given to this text is “The proverbs of
Solomon the son of David” (1:1). Its author is
designated by a specific name for at least some
of the text, with Proverbs beginning with
ascribed Solomonic authorship (chs. 1-24;
Dillard and Longman, 239-240). Standing against
complete Solomonic authorship is the fact that
22:17 refers to a second author known by the
description “the words of the wise,” followed in
24:23 with the same reference (Dillard and
Longman, 240-241). The “general view [of
exclusive Solomonic authorship]…stands in need
of some revision” (EXP, 5:886), “As with
the question of Davidic authorship of certain
psalms, there must always be some uncertainty as
to the exact amount of the proverbial literature
that may be said to be strictly Solomonic”
(Harrison, 1014). Chs. 25-29 are accredited to
Solomon being copied by the men of Hezekiah in
Judah (25:1). Ch. 30 is attributed to Agur son
of Jakeh (30:1). 31:1-9 is attributed to King
Lemuel (Dillard and Longman, 241-242).
While most of Proverbs is attributed to Solomon, its words and
sayings undoubtedly had to be collected and
edited into a composite work. This work included
an added prologue (1:1-7) and longer epilogue
(31:10-31). Some of the discourses of
interchange may have been added by a later
redactor as well. As a consequence, Proverbs
should be best understood as an anthology
(Dillard and Longman, 236) with seven distinct
sections, breaking at: 1:1; 10:1; 22:17; 24:23;
25:1; 30:1; and 31:1.
The bulk of Proverbs would have been written during the reign of
Solomon during the Tenth Century B.C.E. Isaiah
29:14 makes reference to “the
wisdom of their wise men,” possibly being some
kind of grouping. Conservatives assert that
Proverbs was probably edited in its final form
in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries B.C.E., although
some others believe that Proverbs reached its
final form before the end of the Babylonian
Exile (NBCR, 549; Dillard and Longman, 237).
Liberals deny any Solomonic involvement in the composition of
Proverbs and often date Proverbs entirely to
after the Babylonian exile (Jewish Study
Bible, 1447) in a period when a large number
of pseudonymous works were circulating (IDB,
3:938). While the proverbs attributed to Solomon
are considered spurious, those attested to have
been written by the men of Hezekiah are
considered to be legitimate, pre-exilic sources
(Ibid., 3:939), although some liberals concede
that a few of the wisdom sayings of Proverbs do
possibly originate from the royal court of
Jerusalem (IDBSup, 703).
A standard liberal position on Proverbs has been, “Attributed (as a
courtesy) to King Solomon, it was compiled and
for the most part probably also composed during
the fifth and fourth pre-Christian centuries by
the masters who taught in academies for young
men of the ‘better’ families” (IDB,
3:936). Liberals widely consider the wisdom of
proverbs as being mostly, if not entirely human.
Likewise, a large number consider some sayings
in Proverbs to be influenced by the latter
Hellenistic era (Harrison, 1016). Ironically,
the literature and concepts that Proverbs
parallels (Ibid., 1016-1017) from ancient times
often predates the liberal propositions by over
a millennium (NBCR, 549).
There are significant parallels between Proverbs and other Ancient
Near Eastern works (IDB, 3:938; ISBE,
3:1015-1016; EXP, 5:883-884). One of the
major works that is considered in Proverbian
scholarship are similarities seen with the
Egyptian Wisdom of Amenemope/Amenophis
(Harrison, 1014-1015; ABD, 5:516) dating
from the First Millennium B.C.E. This makes
dating Proverbs’ material contemporary to
Solomon quite plausible. Some of these parallels
when pointed out have led liberals to confirm
the veracity of at least some of the text (NBCR,
548).
Also important for one to consider are that the words of the wise
(22:17-24:22; 24:23-34) and the words of King
Lemuel (31:1-9) may not be Israelite in origin (ABD,
5:513). This information incorporated into
Proverbs could have come into Israel via some
kind of royal contact (EXP, 5:886). Some
modern interpreters have compared Proverbs to
being like Poor Richard’s Almanac (NIDB,
830).
The Hebrew Masoretic Text of Proverbs has been relatively well
preserved, even though there are about
twenty-five difficult readings in the MT
(Harrison, 1018; EXP, 5:890). These have
been difficult to translate, but concurrent
studies in Ugaritic have helped significantly
with English translation. The most notable
difference to consider between the MT and
Septuagint is that the LXX version includes 130
more proverbs (EDB, 1091). Conservatives
have often attributed this to the LXX being
based on an older Hebrew text, but liberals
claim that this is evidence of Proverbs being
composed after the Babylonian exile.
Sayings in Proverbs are not intended to be interpreted so much as
“prophecies” as much as they are to be viewed as
statements of practical reality. Proverbs is
dominated by longwinded instruction sections and
short sentence wisdom (IDB, 3:937-938;
EXP, 5:888-889). What one frequently finds
in Proverbs is that a problem is given and a
solution will be proposed in a pair of
statements. Some of the remarks found in
Proverbs are clearly figurative, with some
others making comparisons and contrasts. The
overarching theme of Proverbs is how to
understand Earthly life and the human condition.
Modern interpreters encourage people to read
Proverbs as a whole, and for them to consider
the context of certain sayings (both in the text
itself and in history).
The personification of Wisdom in Proverbs is a noticeable and
important feature (Dillard and Longman, 242-244,
24), especially as the various Judaisms of the
Second-First Centuries B.C.E. appropriated
concepts of Wisdom and applied them to their
Messianism. It is also noticeable to consider
how torah (hr'AT)
is sometimes applied to human teaching and not
just Divine instruction. Some consider Proverbs
to be a commentary on the Torah commands of love
(Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 6:5) and covenant
faithfulness to God.
Proverbs was an important text for Yeshua and His Apostles (EXP,
5:890), as many allusions and teachings can
often find their origin in this book. Many of
the sayings of James the Just found in his
epistle, in particular, undoubtedly find their
root in Proverbs.
“Many Christians use the book of Proverbs as an anthology of
‘mottos’” (Dillard and Longman, 244). It is not
that uncommon to find contemporary Christians often
read through Proverbs once a month, focusing on
one chapter a day. Proverbs has been an
important book that has affected Christian
attitudes toward contemporary society, and is
generally favored among books of the Tanach.
Some of today’s Messianic handling of Proverbs is quite similar to
that of evangelical Christians. However, there
is certainly room for improvement as more
teaching and exposition could certainly focus on
this text—with consideration of Proverbs among
other Ancient Near Eastern works. Likewise, when
examining Proverbs’ composition, do any of us
consider Proverbs as not being
exclusively Israelite, but a product being
influenced by the larger world surrounding
Ancient Israel? Proverbs definitely asks us the
questions of how we relate the Bible’s truths to
today’s world and embody its principles in our
daily lives.
Bibliography
Blank, S.H. “Proverbs,” in IDB,
3:936-940.
Boadt, Lawrence. “Proverbs, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 1090-1092.
Clements, Robert E. “Proverbs,” in ECB,
pp 437-466.
Crenshaw, James L. “Proverbs,” in ABD,
5:513-520.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Proverbs,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 235-245.
Fox, Michael V. “Proverbs,” in Jewish Study
Bible, pp 1447-1498.
Harris, R. Laird. “Proverbs, Book of,” in
NIDB, pp 830-831.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Proverbs,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1010-1021.
Hubbard, D.A. “Proverbs, Book of,” in ISBE,
3:1015-1020.
Huwiler, Elizabeth. “Proverbs,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 893-928.
Ross, Allen P. “Proverbs,” in EXP,
5:883-1134.
Ruffle, J. “Proverbs,” in NBCR, pp
548-550.
Whybray, R.N. ‘Proverbs,” in IDBSup, pp
702-704.
posted 26 April, 2007
Psalms, Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Psalms?
Psalms is the longest book in the Bible, and is frequently one of
the most examined. Psalms differs substantially
from any other book of Scripture, as some modern
theologians have described it as Ancient
Israel’s “hymnbook.” This is certainly justified
as Psalms is composed of various songs, prayers,
laments, cries of thankfulness, and pleas for
vindication—all of which were used in the
worship of Ancient Israel. Psalms actually
consists as a collection of five groupings of
material: Book One (Psalms 1-41), Book Two
(Psalms 42-72), Book Three (Psalms 73-89), Book
Four (Psalms 90-106), and Book Five (107-150),
all of which are usually designated in most
English Bibles.
The Hebrew title of Psalms is actually Tehellim (~yLhT),
meaning “praises.” Our English title is derived
from the Greek Psalmoi (YALMOI)
or “twangings [of harp strings]” (NIDB,
832). This is a good indication that many of the
psalms were intended to be recited or sung to
music. Psalms is placed first among the Writings
in the Jewish order of the Tanach, and among the
Wisdom books in the Christian theological
tradition. Both Jewish and Christian theology
generally give a very high place to the value of
the Book of Psalms.
Psalms is an atraditional book of Scripture because not all the
psalms were composed by a single author.
Thirty-four psalms do not have postscripts
identifying the composition. Seventy-four psalms
in the Hebrew Masoretic tradition are afforded
to David (with more attributed to him in the
Greek Septuagint; ISBE, 3:1031). Other
notable composers of psalms that are identified
include: Asaph (70; 73-83), the sons of Korah
(42-49; 84-85; 87-88), Moses (90), Solomon
(127), Heman (88), and Ethan (89). It is
suspected by some theologians that a few of
these names may have been added later, surely
something that is a debate in Biblical
scholarship (IDB, 3:943-943). Notable for
us to consider is that the Apostles ascribe
Davidic authorship to Psalm 2 in Acts 4:25,
which would otherwise be anonymous. Many
commentators and teachers unsure of what to use,
and simply designate the default author to be
the Psalmist or the Psalter.
The material seen in Psalms likely dates all the way from the
Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt to the Babylonian
Dispersion, a period of 800-1,000 years. Ancient
evidence from Babylon, Egypt, and Ugarit all
indicate important parallels in literary style
and composition between the Psalms and other
Ancient Near Eastern hymnody (IDBSup,
709; Harrison, 987-990; NIDB, 833;
ISBE, 3:1039-1040). Jewish tradition in the
Talmud divided Psalms into only 147 compositions
(b.Shabbat 16), even though Jewish Bibles
today follow the more consistent 150 Psalm
division. There is a slight difference among
verse divisions between Jewish and Christian
Bibles (IDB, 3:943), but nothing
extremely significant. The material of Psalms in
its more final form likely comes from the Third
Century B.C.E., even though an Apocryphal Psalm
151 dating from the Second Century B.C.E. was
found at Qumran. This psalm is considered
canonical by sectors of the Eastern Orthodox
Church (ABD, 5:524; New Interpreter’s
Study Bible, 749; Jewish Study Bible,
1280) and can be found in many ecumenical study
Bibles.
There is no “one” conservative or liberal position on the Book of
Psalms today, as “the book as a whole and the
individual psalms…were open to adaptation during
the whole Old Testament period” (Dillard and
Longman, 213). There are, however, some
important things to keep in mind when examining
conservative and liberal examinations of Psalms.
Many conservatives feel that Psalms was assembled in its final form
after the Babylonian exile, mostly incorporating
pre-exilic material (ISBE, 3:1030). Many
liberals, in contrast, consider Psalms to have
been composed entirely after the exile,
including the writing of many of the psalms
themselves (EDB, 1094). Conservatives
widely accept the designated authorship of the
individual psalms, whereas liberals widely doubt
them (Jewish Study Bible, 1282), although
there can never be complete certainty about the
authorship of every single psalm (Dillard and
Longman, 214). A great deal of debate on
authorship surrounds the meaning of the Hebrew
proposition l’ (l), as it can mean “by,”
“of,” “about,” and “for” (Dillard and Longman,
215). Considering this, was a psalm by a
particular person, about that person, or
compiled for that person?
Liberals see some psalms dominated by usage of the Divine Name YHWH,
and others using Elohim, which they attribute to
the so-called J and E sources (IDB,
3:943) used in their JEDP documentary hypothesis
of the Pentateuch (see
Genesis FAQ
entry for a summarization of the JEDP
documentary hypothesis), and this decidedly
affects their interpretation of certain passages
(Ibid., 3:955). Some liberals have assumed that
the bulk of the psalms date from the Maccabean
era (NBCR, 446), perhaps calling Psalms
the “hymnbook of the Second Temple” (Harrison,
976) and/or that their ideas represent religious
concepts appropriated during the Jewish exile to
Babylon (IDBSup, 705; Harrison, 995-996;
NIDB, 835).
The Hebrew Masoretic Text of Psalms generally reflects a strong
tradition of preservation. Necessary comparison
with the Dead Sea Scrolls on some Messianic
passages such as Psalm 22:16 is required from
time to time, where the DSS and Greek Septuagint
likely reflect a more proper rendering (IDB,
3:944). Harrison notes that on the whole “during
the process of transmission, the MT is
incomparably superior to that of the LXX, which
preserved some curious readings” (Harrison,
999). More Greek copies of Psalms in the LXX are
available than any other Septuagintal documents
(ABD, 5:523). In consulting the
Septuagint version of Psalms one must also
consider divergent liturgical traditions between
the Judean and Diaspora Jewish communities (EXP,
5:19), and that the LXX division is slightly
different than that found in the MT (EDB,
1093).
There are a variety of different types of psalms, and classifying
psalms according to a particular genre can
frequently help us in proper interpretation.
Psalms requires the interpreter to focus careful
attention on its literary devices. Close
observation and rereading is necessary for
adequate exegesis (NBCR, 447) and for
noticing poetic forms or meter (IDB,
3:944-954; EXP, 5:9-12; ABD,
5:528-530). These aspects of the psalms give us
important pictures into the varied social lives
of the people of Israel (ISBE,
3:1033-1034). Some psalms are set against
historical backdrops, while others are just
songs of praise, petitions before God, or
laments with no specific background to be
deduced (Dillard and Longman, 211).
German theologian Hermann Gunkel helped spearhead the idea that it
may be futile for interpreters to try to figure
out the historical background circumstances of
every single psalm, and that it is more
important for us to figure out its central idea
(Harrison, 991-993; NIDB, 834; ISBE,
3:1034). “Gunkel perceived that the Psalms did
not originate as literary works, but arose in
worship” (IDBSup, 705), something that
can truly be said for a great many of the
psalms. He divided Psalms into five distinct
Gattungen or literary types: hymns, communal
laments, royal psalms, individual laments, and
individual psalms of thanksgiving. Scholars
today will often provide more categories and
subcategories for Psalms (ABD,
5:531-534). In spite of Gunkel’s being a liberal
(Harrison, 983), his categorization of Psalms
has been adopted by many conservative
theologians (Dillard and Longman, 219-225). More
contemporary examination of Psalms is sometimes
guided by some kind of rhetorical criticism (EDB,
1095).
Some broad themes to be considered when reading through Psalms are
God’s majesty, our required relationship with
God, a contrasting of the wicked and righteous,
and the promise of God to send a Messiah
deliverer (EXP, 5:15-18). Readers of the
psalms can examine themes as being a response to
God, an invitation to worship, or simple
Scripture to reflect upon. Psalms is definitely
concerned with Heilsgeschichte or
salvation history.
Psalms features quite prominently in the teachings of Yeshua and
theology of the Apostles. Psalms 2 and 110, in
particular, are some of the most frequently
quoted texts in the Apostolic Scriptures (ISBE,
3:1038). In addition to these, Psalms 16, 22,
and 69 all profoundly affect our view of
Yeshua’s Messiahship (Dillard and Longman, 233).
Psalms was used to explain the ministry of
Yeshua, as well as His crucifixion,
resurrection, exaltation, and present rule (EXP,
5:8).
Psalms features prominently in the Jewish liturgy of the siddur
and in ritual Jewish prayer. Not all of the
psalms are intended to be song aloud (Harrison,
986). Many of the psalms, or pieces of them,
were used in praises and prayers offered to God
in the Tabernacle/Temple service (Harrison, 980;
EDB, 1093) and for other worship
traditions. The application of Psalms as a
distinct way to commune with God and experience
His presence is almost infinite.
More than any other book of the Tanach, Psalms has greatly
influenced Christian theology (NBCR, 446;
NIDB, 832). Luke 22:44 attributing Psalms
as the most important book among the Writings
has no doubt influenced this. Psalms teaches us
about the great balance between God’s Law and
God’s grace. Many Christian moves focused on
intimacy between a person and God are focused
around Psalms, and certainly a great number of
Christian hymn writers have appropriated words
from Psalms for centuries. Christian theologians
today are recognizing the strong need to train
pastors in the skills they need to properly
teach from Psalms, lest we lose the treasure
that they truly are (EXP, 5:6).
Messianics today are generally sound in their examination of most
psalms, even though there is certainly room for
some fine tuning and refinement. We can probably
make greater consideration for the different
types of psalms available, as well as for the
wider historical period of a psalm (when an
historical period is clearly identifiable or
deducible from the text). One of the strides we
can make improvement in is removing any
theological interjections into Psalms relating
to end-time speculation (like thinking that each
psalm represents a year on God’s so-called
“prophetical calendar.”) Reclaiming some of the
worship of Psalms via liturgical prayer is
something that should also not be ignored by
today’s Messianics. It is also possible that a
great amount of congregational preaching is
missed because of an overemphasis on the Torah,
and not enough emphasis on texts such as Psalms.
Each psalm represents its own unique little world that is just
waiting for us to enter in and uncover it for
its wonders.
Bibliography
Berlin, Adele, and Marc Zvi Brettler. “Psalms,”
in Jewish Study Bible, pp 1280-1446.
Craven, Toni, and Walter Harrelson. “The
Psalms,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible,
pp 749-892.
Crenshaw, James L. “Psalms, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 1093-1096.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Psalms,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 211-234.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Psalms,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
976-1007.
M’Caw, Leslie S., and J.A. Motyer. “The Psalms,”
in NBCR, pp 446-547.
Hempel, J. “Psalms, Book of,” in IDB,
3:942-958.
Limberg, James. “Psalms, Book of,” in ABD,
5:522-536.
Payne, J. Barton. “Psalms, Book of,” in NIDB,
pp 832-835.
Prinsloo, Willem S. “The Psalms,” in ECB,
pp 364-436.
Ridderbos, N.H., and P.C. Craigie. “Psalms,” in
ISBE, 3:1029-1040.
VanGemeren, Willem A. “Psalms,” in EXP,
5:3-880.
Westermann, C. “Psalms, Book of,” in IDBSup,
pp 705-710.
posted 19 April, 2007
Purim: Do you think that all Messianic Believers should celebrate Purim?
There are some in the independent Messianic community (as opposed
to Messianic Judaism), who do not believe it is
necessary to observe Purim. Purim is
obviously not listed among the appointed times
of Leviticus 23, because the events that it
commemorates occurred after the giving of the
Written Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai. Purim
commemorates the events of the Book of Esther,
where the Jews are threatened with annihilation
at the hands of the evil Haman. Via the
sovereignty of God, Esther is in the right place
at the right time to thwart his evil plans.
While not one of the moedim in Leviticus 23, the Book of
Esther does record that the commemoration of
these events was to be honored by the Jews for
centuries to come, and never to be forgotten:
“For
Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the
adversary of all the Jews, had schemed against
the Jews to destroy them and had cast Pur, that
is the lot, to disturb them and destroy them.
But when it came to the king's attention, he
commanded by letter that his wicked scheme which
he had devised against the Jews, should return
on his own head and that he and his sons should
be hanged on the gallows. Therefore they called
these days Purim after the name of Pur [lot].
And because of the instructions in this letter,
both what they had seen in this regard and what
had happened to them, the Jews established and
made a custom for themselves and for their
descendants and for all those who allied
themselves with them, so that they would not
fail to celebrate these two days according to
their regulation and according to their
appointed time annually. So these days were
to be remembered and celebrated throughout every
generation, every family, every province and
every city; and these days of Purim were not to
fail from among the Jews, or their memory fade
from their descendants” (Esther 9:24-28).
As Believers, we have the responsibility to remember these events
as well, not only because the account of Esther
is a significant part of the Biblical
tradition—but most especially because if the
Jewish people had been eliminated, then there
would have been no people of Israel and thus no
Messiah. It is not only the Jewish people who
survived Haman’s plan that were supposed to
remember Purim, but it was also for “their
descendants and all who joined them” (v. 27,
RSV). This is strong Biblical evidence for the
necessity for today’s Messianics to remember
Purim.
We should always be rejoicing in the triumphs of God’s people over
evil, and Purim is definitely an
appropriate time for us to remember the mighty
deeds that He has performed. It is also an
excellent time for us to stand up to fight the
evils of anti-Semitism, as the spirit of Haman
has never left us, embodying itself in anyone
who wants to destroy the Jewish people.
updated 17 February, 2010 |
