|
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
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. 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.
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.
In our dealings with Christians,
it is our opinion that it is inappropriate to
call Christmas and Easter “pagan” because it is
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 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.
added 21 December, 2005
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 often 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 Epistles. 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 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.
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
Askenazic 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. Separdic 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
seders have lamb, and others frequently
serve chicken. At Messianic congregations that
have both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews,
sometimes both lamb and chicken are served. 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 view 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 needs to be theologically reconciled.
Some objections to the Last
Supper being a Passover sedar include the
references to it occurring on the Day of
Preparation for the Passover (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).
In total, it does seem that some
modifications were made between Yeshua’s
sedar meal and the main seder that
would have been observed during His time. This
may account for Yeshua’s Last Sedar being a
“teaching sedar,” which may have been
practiced by many Rabbis of His day the day
prior to the Passover.
(For a brief examination of this
issue consult the article “The Last Supper and
the Passover” in the Archaeological Study
Bible, p 1611).
added 18 April, 2006
Virtual Passover
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 evolved
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.
Pesahism, 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” (pp 266-267).
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.
added 04 April, 2006
Virtual Passover
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 that they were actively involved in, 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
in, 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
were in was one that could bring them a
reasonable living. Would this living be made by
making tallits or prayer shawls 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) is 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 critical scholarship in the New
Testament confirms that skeinopoios (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
would have enabled them to incur significant
monies to live, as their market for work would
have been limited to solely the Jewish
community, as 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 we as 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 60’s 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, 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 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 liberals, many of whom merely
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 of 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. Blaicklock 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.
Blaicklock, 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 1900’s 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 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.
posted 29 May, 2008
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 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 (2007-2010)
will be on completing commentaries on the
smaller Pauline Epistles (Galatians, Ephesians,
Colossians-Philemon, 1&2 Thessalonians, Pastoral
Letters, 1&2 Peter-Jude, 1-3 John) and the
Gospel of Mark. 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 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 the majority
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 orients 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 intensel |
