|
Rapture:
What is your rapture position? Pre-, mid-, or
post?
TNN Online promotes the idea of a
post-tribulational, pre-wrath return of Yeshua
for the saints, which we believe will occur near
or at the end of the Tribulation period. The
Messiah Himself says that He returns “after the
tribulation of those days” (Matthew 24:29-31),
the Apostle Paul says that the resurrection and
transformation of living Believers occurs “at
the last trumpet” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52), and
the Apostle John writes that at the seventh, or
last trumpet, of Revelation, “The kingdom of the
world has become the kingdom of our Lord
and of His Messiah; and He will reign forever
and ever” (11:15), meaning that the Lord returns
to establish His throne on Planet Earth.
We do not believe that harassment
or criticism of those who believe the other
standard pre-millennial views, notably the
pre-tribulation rapture, is godly or spiritually
edifying. While we are post-tribulationists, we
do not consider the rapture debate to be an
issue of salvation, but do encourage reasoned
dialogue about it.
The issue of the rapture is
discussed in several articles on our
Tribulation News
site. We also recommend you read the editor’s
books
When Will the Messiah
Return? and
The Dangers of
Pre-Tribulationism.
updated 10 October, 2006
Reformation:
What is your opinion on the Protestant
Reformation?
We believe that the Protestant
Reformation was absolutely imperative in order
for our faith to be where it is today. Prior to
the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church held
the only copies of the Scriptures, and the Bible
was inaccessible to the common man. When God
started moving on men and women to return to the
Scriptures, Roman Catholic tradition began being
questioned and eliminated from the faith. Many
of these people were hunted down and martyred
for their beliefs, because they dared to
challenge the papal authorities, who not only
held great sway over European religion, but also
politics.
It is easy for
some Messianics to look back on the past and say
that if they had been there during the
Reformation that they would have seen to it that
practices like Sunday church, and replacement
holidays like Christmas and Easter, would have
been totally eliminated from the Protestant
scene. Unfortunately, we cannot go back into the
past and change it. We have to be thankful for
what occurred in the past, because our faith is
in a continual state of reform. The
Reformers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries were used by the Lord to perform a
mighty work, and we have the responsibility to
our ancestors in the faith to continue what they
began, and the responsibility to posterity that
we will endeavor to return to the First Century
faith of Yeshua and His Disciples. We have to
remember that we have much, much more
information than the Reformers did about the
Jewish background of the Apostolic Scriptures,
and they were doing the best they could do with
what they had.
updated 13 July, 2006
Renewed
Covenant:
Why do so many Messianics use the term “Renewed
Covenant”? I have not been able to find support
for this from the Hebrew or Greek.
In significant
sectors of the Messianic community today, it is
not uncommon to hear the term “Renewed Covenant”
being used instead of the more common “New
Covenant.” This is often done so because it is
believed, albeit in error, that the New Covenant
or “New Testament” is an additional set of
Scripture to the “Old Covenant” or “Old
Testament.” But this is not what Paul tells us
the Old Covenant is. He writes that because of
the work of Yeshua we have been “made…adequate
as servants of a new covenant, not of the
letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills,
but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).
The New Covenant is one that brings life,
whereas the Old Covenant can only condemn. The
Old Covenant was the system in which the Torah
operates prior to a person coming to faith in
Yeshua, whereas the New Covenant is the system
in which the Torah operates after a person comes
to faith in Yeshua.
Prior to coming to
Yeshua, all that the Torah can do is condemn us
as sinners. Paul describes it as “the ministry
of death.” Certainly, this ministry of death
“came with glory” (2 Corinthians 3:7), because
it was revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.
But Paul is forced to ask, “how will the
ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with
glory?” (2 Corinthians 3:8). The ministry of the
Spirit comes by us receiving Messiah Yeshua into
our lives. He compares the ministry of death to
a veil that Moses had over his face, so that the
Israelites were unable to see the reflection of
God’s presence that was upon it (2 Corinthians
3:13). Paul further writes, “for until this very
day at the reading of the old covenant the same
veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in
Messiah” (2 Corinthians 3:14). Those who hear
the Torah read as unbelievers without atonement
for their sin can only be condemned by it,
because the Old Covenant is at work and can only
condemn them. The condemnation can only be
removed by the work of Yeshua so we can fully
behold the glory of the Father.
In Pauline
literature the terms old and new are primarily
employed to speak of one’s spiritual condition.
Colossians 3:9, for example, admonishes us “Do
not lie to one another, since you laid aside the
old self with its evil practices.”
Ephesians 4:22 further says, “in reference to
your former manner of life, you lay aside the
old self, which is being corrupted in
accordance with the lusts of deceit.” When a new
self or new man is introduced via one’s
salvation experience, it replaces the old
self or old man. It is by no
means a “renewed man.” The Torah or
God’s Law remains the same, but how it functions
is certainly changed. Leon Morris is absolutely
correct when he says that the New Covenant “will
not simply be the old one patched up and
renewed” (EXP, 12:78). But Morris, and
many other Christians and Messianics
often conclude that Scripture is being talked
about, rather than a condition of how God’s Word
functions in the life of a person. The person
himself or herself is not necessary replaced,
but the personality is changed from one that is
unregenerate to regenerate. The terms old/new in
Pauline theology are used to represent
lost/saved.
Unfortunately,
many in the Messianic community have not broken
out of thinking that the “Old Covenant” and “New
Covenant” are different parts of the Bible, but
are instead conditions in which the Torah
operates in prior to, and after, someone comes
to faith in the Lord. Those who use the term
“Renewed Covenant” do so from the belief that
the “Renewed Covenant,” i.e., the Apostolic
Scriptures, does not negate or replace the
Tanach or so-called “Old Covenant.” However, the
Hebrew and Greek vocabulary behind the terms
b’rit chadashah (hvdx
tyrB) and
diathēkēn kainēn (diaqhkhn
kainhn) do
not support the description of “Renewed
Covenant.”
The most common Hebrew term used
in the Tanach for “new” is the verb chadash
(vdx).
In the Piel stem (intensive action, active
voice) it can mean “to make anew, restore”
(HALOT, 1:294). It is employed in 2
Chronicles 15:8 as such when King Asa “renewed [chadash]
the Altar of
Hashem
that was before the Hall of
Hashem”
(ATS). However, the adjective chadash (vdx)
does not have the same variance that its verb
equivalent has. It is used to indicate things
that are “new, fresh…not yet existing,”
“new things” (HALOT, Ibid.). In this way
the b’rit chadashah of Jeremiah 31:31-33
is to truly be a New Covenant that is unparalled
by what has come before it. Of course, the New
Covenant is absolutely consistent with the
character of God that we see beginning in the
Book of Genesis, but the Lord did not renew what
Paul calls “the ministry of death.” The New
Covenant, in contrast, is “the ministry of
righteousness” brought in by “the Spirit [which]
gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:9, 6).
In the Greek Septuagint, the most
common equivalent for chadash is
kainos (kainoß),
which “pert.
to being not previously present,
unknown, strange, remarkable,
also w. the connotation of the marvelous or
unheard-of” (BDAG, 497). This usage is
continued in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. As
it regards the New Covenant prophesied by
Jeremiah, it was certainly known by centuries of
Jews who read the Prophets and anticipated it
being inaugurated via the end-time restoration
of Israel. What is unexpected or remarkable
about the New Covenant is that the author of
Hebrews in Hebrews 8 connects its inauguration
to the priestly work of Yeshua in Heaven. This
is what makes it such a New or remarkable
Covenant. Yeshua Himself attested to this at His
Last Sedar meal:
“And He said to
them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to
you, I shall never again eat it until it is
fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ And when He
had taken a cup and given thanks, He
said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves;
for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit
of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God
comes.’ And when He had taken some bread
and given thanks, He broke it and gave it
to them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given
for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in
the same way He took the cup after they
had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured
out for you is the new [kainos] covenant
in My blood’” (Luke 22:15-20).
With Yeshua’s
death for us on the cross and Him spilling His
blood forth, the ministry of death or the Old
Covenant can be rendered obsolete in our lives.
The New Covenant or b’rit chadashah of
Jeremiah 33 and Hebrews 8 is not the ministry of
death revisited or “renewed” by any means, but
is the Torah operating in its fullness by God
writing His Instruction onto our hearts and
minds. This is something that is totally new in
the life of a person who is no longer subject to
the Old Covenant of the Torah condemning him,
but now has the commandments of God written on
his heart by His Spirit.
Most in the
emerging Messianic movement use the term
“Renewed Covenant” innocently, and are often
repeating what they have heard from those who
have not examined the issue fully. They have not
broken out of the belief that “covenant” does
not constitute Scripture, but rather how
Scripture is applied in the life of a person. We
use terms like Tanach or Apostolic
Scriptures/Writings, to affirm that these texts
all compile authoritative instruction from God,
but they do not make up a “covenant.” The
covenants of God, rather, are detailed inside
these texts. When necessary, we do find
ourselves using terms like “Old Testament” or
“New Testament” for the familiarity of others
who are new to Messianic things, but that should
be infrequent. What we need to understand more
than anything else is that the New Covenant is
not something divorced from the Tanach, but it
is something that is likewise only accessible
through Yeshua. It is not the ministry of
condemnation revisited and reworked, but is
something entirely new that is inaugurated only
by the Spirit of God.
For a more detailed explanation
of this subject, we recommend the DVD teaching
“What’s So New About the New Covenant?” by Tim
Hegg, available from
First Fruits of Zion.
(This entry includes adapted
excerpts from “Excursus on the ‘New Covenant’ or
‘Renewed Covenant’?” appearing in the editor’s
commentary
Hebrews for the Practical
Messianic.)
posted 02 July, 2006
Resurrection,
Sunday:
Is it really true that Yeshua was resurrected on
Sunday?
Aside from all of the debates
surrounding the chronology of Yeshua’s
frequently-called “Passion Week,” which are
present in both evangelical Christianity and the
Messianic movement, it can be legitimately
challenged from the Greek text of Matthew 28:1
whether or not the Messiah was resurrected on a
Sunday morning. In most versions, the text reads
as, “Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week, Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the
grave” (NASU). Notably different from this is
the 1901 American Standard Version, which has,
“Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week,
came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see
the sepulcher.”
The difference between “after” or
“late on” depends how one renders the Greek
preposition opse (oye),
which can mean “after
a long time, late,”
or applied as “late
in the day, at even”
(LS,
582). Did the Marys leave to go to Yeshua’s tomb
on Sunday morning, or late on the Sabbath day on
what we would consider Saturday evening? This is
a subject that will require further discussion
and analysis.
Certainly, by the first day of
the week, the Marys and many of the Disciples
had discovered that Yeshua the Messiah had
resurrected from the dead. Most in Christianity
believe that because of Yeshua’s so-called
“Sunday morning resurrection” that it validates
the transference of the Sabbath to Sunday, or
the institution of “the Lord’s Day” in place of
the Sabbath. Yet, the Apostolic testimony that
we see in the Book of Acts continues to indicate
that they continued to observe the seventh-day
Sabbath. The “first day” Biblically understood
begins in the evening on Saturday, and would
have been an appropriate time for the First
Century Believers to handle the business and
financial affairs of their assemblies, which
they would have not done on the Sabbath.
posted 16 April, 2006
Virtual Passover
Revelation,
Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Revelation?
The Book of Revelation, perhaps
more than any other text in the Apostolic
Scriptures, is one of the most confusing, as
well as controversial, for Believers to digest.
There are a wide variety of opinions concerning
how Revelation should be interpreted, and what
its message is for Believers today.
The author of Revelation
identifies himself in the text as being John
(1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). All of the early Church
Fathers from the Second Century believed that
the author was John the Apostle (Guthrie, pp
930-931). Liberal theologians today lean toward
believing that the author of Revelation was John
the Elder, or a psudonynymous person (ABD,
5:702). While the bulk of conservatives today
believe in genuine Johannine authorship, some
doubt it because of the extensive usage of
Jewish literary forms unique to apocalyptic
literature of the period (EXP, 12:405). A
lack of strong tradition regarding who John the
Elder was, in Guthrie’s estimation, points to
John the Apostle as the author (Guthrie, 933).
It is very easy to realize the
fact that Revelation is the only text in the
Apostolic Scriptures that is “exclusively
prophetic in character” (NIDB, 859). The
Book of Revelation was received as authentic
Scripture in the early Second Century (Ibid.;
Gundry, 458; IDB, 2:60; ABD,
5:695). Revelation was debated in the early
centuries of the emerging Christian Church,
however, and some of the Reformers even
questioned its authenticity. “Erasmus, Luther,
and Zwingli questioned the Johannine authorship
because it teaches a literal 1,000-year reign of
Christ” (NBCR, 925).
There are two views for the
dating of Revelation’s composition. Some date
Revelation being written from 54-68 C.E., during
the reign of Nero Caesar. Others date Revelation
being written in the reign of Dometian Caesar,
from 81-96 C.E. The dating of Revelation is
influenced by one’s eschatological position of
either preterism or futurism, meaning whether
the events of Revelation occurred in the late
First and early Second Centuries, or still
largely remain to be fulfilled in the distant
future. Liberal theologians, who largely adhere
to preterism, often lean toward the early date (ISBE,
4:172; NBCR, 1279). Preterists largely
ask the question, “Was Nero the antichrist of
Revelation?” Futurists are keen to point out
that if Revelation was indeed written in the
50s-60s C.E., that would mean that would it
pre-date many of the Pauline Epistles (EXP,
12:405). The Church Fathers of the Second
Century largely believed in a late First Century
composition of Revelation (NIDB, 860),
and such a sentiment is likewise believed among
conservatives today, who favor a general date of
90 C.E. Traditions from Victorinius of Pettau
and Jerome assign genuine Johannine authorship
to Revelation, including John being exiled to
the island of Patmos by Dometian (ABD,
5:700).
The actual language and grammar
of Revelation is very intriguing to scholars. It
is widely recognized by theologians that there
are many untranslatable Hebraisms in the text (NIDB,
860). Black points out, “the grammar of
Revelation…reflects the work of a
Semitic-speaking person who is just learning
Greek” (It’s Still Greek to Me, 150). Why
this is the case has been a matter of great
academic discussion. Ladd, for example,
indicates, “Undoubtedly the book reflects
Semitic influences, but some of its solecisms
appear to be deliberate, and possibly the
writer’s emotional state accounts for others” (ISBE,
2:172). Perhaps the best explanation is offered
by Gundry, who believes in genuine Johannine
authorship for Revelation, and is a futurist:
“It is true that from a
grammatical and literary standpoint the Greek
style of Revelation is inferior to that of the
gospel and epistles. But in part the ‘bad
grammar’ may be deliberate, for purposes of
emphasis and allusion to Old Testament passages
in Hebraic style, rather than due to ignorance
or blundering. In part the ‘bad grammar’ may
also stem from an ecstatic state of mind, due to
John’s having received prophecies in the form of
visions. Or writing as a prisoner on the island
of Patmos in the Aegean Sea, he did not have the
advantage of an amanuensis to smooth out his
rough style, as he probably did have for his
gospel and epistles” (p 458).
The author of Revelation
identifies his location as being the island of
Patmos: “John… was on the island called Patmos”
(1:9). Patmos was an island approximately 15
miles west of Ephesus (ISBE, 4:171). Some
traditions espouse that John was forced to work
in a mine on Patmos during his exile. His
initial audience is clearly identified in the
first three chapters of Revelation. The
Revelation is composed for seven congregations
in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum,
Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.
These were all Greek-speaking congregations.
While some Messianics would like
to believe that Revelation was originally
written in Hebrew or Aramaic, no extant,
authenticated text has surfaced to substantiate
such wishes. Theologian C.C. Torrey advocated in
the early Twentieth Century that Revelation was
originally written in Aramaic (NBCR,
1279), but many of his claims have been
dismissed by both liberals and conservatives per
no available text to substantiate his theory. (Torrey
himself also repudiated much of the veracity and
the reliability of the Tanach.) In fact, “The
book of Revelation was definitively rejected by
the Eastern Syrian Church. It was not included
in the early Syriac translation of the NT, the
Peshitta” (ABD, 5:695; cf. Guthrie, 932).
The conservative position concerning
Revelation’s language seems to be the best. The
Book of Revelation was a Greek composition with
a high Hebraic style to clue in the reader to
texts and concepts seen in the Hebrew Tanach.
The “bad grammar” could have been overlooked by
the Johannine communities, and not corrected by
them, because of the strong apocalyptic nature
of the work.
Chs. 1-3 of Revelation include
letters from the Messiah Yeshua to specific
assemblies that existed in ancient times. This
part of Revelation is primarily directed to a
late First Century-early Second Century
audience. This thrust of the book is an
unveiling by Yeshua to encourage these Believers
through their persecution, and that they will be
vindicated by His return. The overarching theme
of Revelation, no matter what interpretation one
takes, is “the mind and purpose of God as seen
in redemptive history” (IDB, 4:58). The
Book of Revelation is to ultimately have a
message of hope for those in distress, as the
Lord will right the wrongs of this fallen Earth.
The language of Revelation is
apocalyptic, and much of its terminology is
symbolic. Regardless of what school of thought
you hold to regarding its interpretation, most
do recognize this. Generally speaking, there are
four distinct groups of interpretation relating
to the Book of Revelation:
1.
Preterists
hold to the belief that Revelation was
written in the mid-First Century, during the
reign of Nero Caesar, and that most of the
events prophesied in Revelation, as well as
in Scriptures like Matthew 24, were
prophetically fulfilled by the early Second
Century. Preterists generally believe that
Nero was the antichrist of the Book of
Revelation, and largely make up a liberal
segment of Christian eschatology.
2.
Historicists
hold to the belief that Revelation speaks to
the many centuries of Christianity, and
should be interpreted in light of the
history of the Church. Historical events in
Christian history are represented by the
imagery of Revelation. Many of the early
Reformers were historicists, as are some
Roman Catholic theologians today.
3.
Futurists
hold to the belief that Revelation was
written in the late First Century, and
although it had a message for the early
Believers (chs. 1-3), is primarily speaking
of events to occur in the distant future (chs.
4-18), and believe in a literal
thousand-year reign of Yeshua on Planet
Earth. The majority of the early Church
Fathers were futurists, as are many
evangelical Christians today, and most
people in the Messianic movement. Futurists
may all be described as being pre-millennialists,
believing that Yeshua returns before His
thousand-year reign. There are distinct
viewpoints within the pre-millennial camp,
however, notably the “rapture debate”
between pre- and post-tribulationists.
4.
Idealists
are those who widely do not take sides in
the actual debate over what Revelation
means, but simply believe that it speaks of
the Messiah’s final battle over Satan, sin,
and evil in the world. Some Roman Catholic
theologians are idealists.
It is notable that there are
futurists who adhere to some of the elements of
the other three groups, as some concede that a
wider portion of Revelation may have been more
applicable for the late First-early Second
Century Believers than others (EXP,
12:412). There are some problems with futurists
who only focus on the first three chapters of
Revelation in teaching, but largely ignore the
rest. Johnson notes, “The chief problem with it
is that it seems to make all but the first three
chapters of Revelation irrelevant to the
contemporary church. This objection is pressed
more strongly when adherents to the futurist
view affirm, as many do today, that the church
will be removed from the earth before the events
described in 6:1ff. occur” (Ibid., 12:409). In
stark contrast to this, “Liberal scholars
largely endorse the ‘preterist’ view and
repudiate the predictive elements of the book” (NBCR,
1279).
Most in the emerging Messianic
movement today are futurists, even though
specific interpretations of the Book of
Revelation widely vary. Many Messianic
interpretations of Revelation are carbon-copies
of dispensational, pre-tribulational dogma
concerning “the rapture of the Church.” Many
other interpretations of Revelation are post-tribulational
in nature.
As we examine the Book of
Revelation, it is absolutely imperative for us
to know other prophetic Scriptures that give us
clues as to its background. In particular, it is
important that we have a grasp on prophetic
texts like Daniel and Ezekiel (EXP,
13:399), as well as Zechariah (Guthrie, 965).
These will give some of us the background data
we need to be able to have a better handle on
why the author of Revelation uses the verbiage
and terms that he does.
Contemporary Messianic
discussions regarding Revelation include debates
over what the “churches” represent; whether or
not “Babylon” exclusively represents Rome and
Roman Catholicism, and the proper attitude we
should have regarding it; and debate over what
“666” really means. More than anything else,
because Revelation is such a confusing book for
many, it is sadly overlooked by many in the
Messianic community. Many hold to the sentiment
that being Torah observant and believing in
Yeshua is controversial enough, and that they
will deal with the Book of Revelation when the
end-times are upon us. Sadly, a root for these
attitudes may be present in the fact that our
Torah studies are not always complemented by
studies of the Prophets. Likewise, it may also
be rooted in a negative view of prophecy that
focuses more on the beast and destruction to
befall Earth, as opposed to the end result of
it: the restoration of God's Kingdom.
Bibliography
Black, David Alan. “The Greek of
the New Testament,” in It’s Still Greek to Me,
pp 147-153.
Bowman, J.W. “Revelation, Book of,” in IDB,
4:58-71.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Revelation, Book of,” in
ABD, 5:694-708.
Gundry, Robert H. “Revelation: Jesus is Coming!”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
457-476.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Book of Revelation,” in
New Testament Introduction, pp 929-985.
Johnson, Alan. “Revelation,” in EXP,
12:399-603.
Ladd, G.E. “Revelation, Book of,” in ISBE,
4:171-177.
Murray-Beasely, G.R. “The Revelation,” in
NBCR, pp 1279-1310.
Tenney, Merill C. “Revelation, Book of the,” in
NIDB, pp 859-861.
Walvoord, John F. “Revelation,” in BKCNT,
PP 925-991.
posted 15 December, 2005
Revelation
22:14:
Which is the correct reading of Revelation
22:14, “Blessed are they who keep His
commandments,” or “Blessed are they who wash
their robes”?
Revelation 22:14 reads
differently in the Greek Textus Receptus of the
Apostolic Scriptures, than it does in the
critical Greek texts used today for most English
Bible versions. In the KJV, Revelation 22:14
reads as follows:
“Blessed are they that do
his commandments, that they may have right to
the tree of life, and may enter in through the
gates into the city.”
In modern English Bibles, using
critical Greek texts, the verse reads slightly
differently:
“Blessed are those who wash their
robes, so that they may have the right to the
tree of life, and may enter by the gates into
the city” (NASU).
The difference is obviously that
the Textus Receptus includes the phrase,
“Blessed are they that do his
commandments,” versus “Blessed are those who
wash their robes.” Some may claim foul play with
the Scriptures, and that texts have been
deliberately altered to support a particular
doctrinal bias. However, the reading “Blessed
are those who wash their robes” is older.
Bruce Metzger notes in his work A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament that
the change happened rather innocently, because
in ancient times the Greek Scriptures were
copied with one person reading the text out
loud, and multiple scribes copying it. This
inevitably led to some textual deviations
occurring. He comments,
“Instead of
plunonteß taß stolaß
autwn,
supported by
a
A about 15 minuscules (including 1006 2020 2053)
itar vg copsa al,
the Textus Receptus, following 046 most
minuscules itgig syrph, h
copbo al, reads the somewhat
similar sounding words
poiounteß taß entolaß autou.
The latter reading appears to be a scribal
emendation, for elsewhere the author uses the
expression
threin taß entolaß
(12.17; 14.12)” (p 765).
Hearing the audible phrase
plunontes tas stolas autōn, some Greek
copyists wrote poiountes tas entolas autou.
This latter phrase means “Happy are those doing
His commands” (YLT). There is no foul play here,
but innocent human error. Metgzer is keen to
note that both Revelation 12:17 and 14:12
previously emphasize God’s people keeping His
commandments, and how a copyist would have had
this idea in mind when hearing what text to
write down. However, the correct reading is
plunontes tas stolas autōn, “Blessed are
those who wash their robes.”
In a Messianic movement that
strongly encourages Believers to keep and follow
the Torah or Law of Moses, determining the
correct reading of this verse can be a problem.
When we determine what the correct reading of
this verse should be, we have to ask the
question of what is more important: Is keeping
God’s commandments more important than having
our robes washed in the Messiah’s blood? Or, is
being covered by His blood and having salvation
more important than keeping God’s commandments?
Many in today’s Messianic
community, unfortunately, will say that
observing the Torah is superior to knowing
Messiah Yeshua as our Lord and Savior. As
keeping God’s commandments is a theme of
Revelation, we have to understand that you
cannot hope to enter into His Kingdom without
being washed by the Messiah’s blood. Our Torah
observance is to come as a result of us being
transformed by God’s power, and us being
continually sanctified and renewed as we grow in
our faith. But, our Torah observance is not
to precede our salvation experience—and is
not more important than knowing Yeshua.
There may be many people who are
disappointed—and who were “Torah observant”—when
they are not allowed into the Messiah’s Kingdom.
posted 30 January, 2006
Romans,
Epistle to the:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Epistle to the Romans?
All ancient authorities are
agreed that the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle
to the Romans. There are no disputes in early
Christian history made about the authorship of
this letter. Second and Third Century
Christianity used Romans, along with 1 & 2
Corinthians, and Galatians, to establish much of
its early theology. Romans stands as the longest
of all the individual Pauline letters, and is
often viewed as being the most significant.
Without a doubt, Romans lays out how Paul
preached the gospel to a broad audience of Jews
and non-Jews. Romans 1:16 says, “For I am not
ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of
God for salvation to everyone who believes, to
the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Paul makes
the salvation message one that is readily
available to all members of the human race,
regardless of ethnicity.
Romans demonstrates all the
classic characteristics of being a letter, or an
epistle. Paul’s friends were with him when he
wrote this letter (16:21-23). The letter was
specifically written down by Tertius, a scribe
who issued his own greeting in 16:22. Romans is
more formal than any of Paul’s other letters,
because he was only familiar with a few of the
Believers in Rome (Gundry, 379). Most
conservative theologians place the dating of
Paul’s letter being somewhere in 56-57 C.E.,
during Paul’s Third Missionary Journey. Romans
was written by Paul prior to his going back to
Jerusalem with offerings (15:25-28), and it
follows his composition of 1 & 2 Corinthians. A
most likely place for its composition is either
in Corinth (adjacent to Achaia) or Cenchrea
(16:1).
While there is not total
agreement, Paul’s audience was likely a mixed
group of both Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in
Yeshua, probably focused around some kind of
synagogue. The assembly in Rome was not founded
by Paul (1:10-15; 15:20-22), but likely by Jews
from Rome who had seen the Holy Spirit poured
out at Shavuot/Pentecost (NBCR,
1012). Paul’s letter to the Roman Believers was
written prior to Peter’s visit to Rome, as it is
not mentioned. Paul would have known about the
Roman community of faith from Jewish Believers
such as Priscilla and Acquila (Acts 18:2), who
had been among the Jews expelled from Rome by
Emperor Claudius. One of the distinct reasons
for Paul writing his letter was likely because
there were leadership issues at the congregation
in Rome after Claudius’ death. Jewish Believers
were returning to Rome and the non-Jewish
leaders in the congregation, who did not have to
leave Rome, had difficulty sharing the
leadership with them. Paul warns these
non-Jewish Believers not to have an attitude of
superiority to their fellow Jewish brethren
(11:17-32).
While there have been those in
the Messianic community who would like to think
that Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in
Hebrew or Aramaic, the history surrounding the
letter’s composition reveals otherwise when we
consider his audience. IDB notes, “When
Paul wrote his letter, this church was well
established and already known and esteemed
throughout the Christian world (1:8; 15:23-29).
It was composed mainly of Gentiles, with a
certain number of Jewish members, and was
certainly a Greek-speaking community, which
means that its membership was drawn chiefly from
the Levantine population of the city. This Greek
character continued until the later years of the
second century, for it is not until then that we
find the earliest Latin documents of the Roman
church” (4:114).
Simply because Paul’s audience
was largely Greek speaking does not by any means
diminish the fact that Paul’s letter is very
Hebraic in character. There are sixty direct
quotations from the Tanach in Romans. “Paul
feels perfectly free to quote the law and other
portions of the Hebrew Scriptures even when
writing to Gentile churches…Many Gentile
converts to the gospel had previously attended
the synagogue as God-fearers and there had heard
the OT read and expounded” (EXP, 10:9).
The purpose for Paul’s writing
this letter was to prepare the Roman Believers
for a personal visit from him. Paul’s work in
the East had largely been accomplished, and now
he was planning to expand it to the West. Many
believe that just as Antioch had been a staging
area for Paul and his associates to use for
evangelizing the East, Paul was planning to use
Rome as a hub for evangelizing the West, as he
indicates a desire to travel to Spain (1:10-15).
Paul’s letter to the Romans
begins by him expressing comments on the general
plight of mankind, man’s rejection of the One
True God, and the sin that He has let them
practice out of their own fallen nature. Paul
writes about the need for all human beings to
receive God’s salvation, and how this is an
important act of faith. Later on, Paul goes into
extreme detail describing the relationship of
Jews and non-Jews as a part of the community of
faith and the olive tree of Israel (chs. 9-11).
Disputes had arisen in the Roman assembly
regarding Torah-related and extra-Biblical
practices (ch. 14). Paul assures the Roman
Believers that salvation is the same for all of
God’s people, and goes to lengths describing the
example of Abraham, and mentions the fact while
“all Israel” will be saved, it is but only a
remnant (11:26). A major theme of Romans is
justification by faith in Yeshua the Messiah.
Romans has been used by many of
the influential Christian theologians of our
time, and has most certainly been a debated
text: “Augustine acquired his idea of original
sin from Romans 5, Luther gained his
understanding of justification by faith alone
from Romans 3-4, John Calvin obtained his
doctrine of double predestination from Romans
9-11, John Wesley got his distinctive teaching
on sanctification from Romans 6 and 8, and Karl
Barth learned of the importance of the
righteousness of God from Romans 1 and 2” (ABD,
5:817).
Paul’s epistle to the Romans is
also frequently discussed among many Messianic
Believers today, who believe that the
traditional Christian view of Paul saying that
the Torah is no longer to be followed is
invalid. Those who believe that the Law of Moses
is valid instruction often wrestle with Paul’s
words to the Romans, which, like all of his
teachings about the Torah, relate to its proper
place in the assembly, and largely how it is to
be handled by the new, still-maturing non-Jewish
Believers. Sadly, many Christian theologians who
have taught Romans present it via a “law versus
grace” model, as opposed to a “law and grace”
model. The doctrine of justification by faith is
not something new that was invented by Paul, as
it is clearly spoken of by Yeshua in His
parables of the prodigal son, the laborers in
the vineyard, and the great supper. It is
something deeply rooted in the words of the
Prophet Habakkuk: “Behold, as for the proud one,
His soul is not right within him; but the
righteous will live by his faith” (Habakkuk
2:4). Paul simply developed the doctrine of
justification by faith and adapted it for a
distinctively Jewish and non-Jewish
audience (Gundry, 376).
When reading Romans, it is
important to note that there are sections of the
text specifically directed to the Jewish
Believers in Rome, and the non-Jewish Believers
in Rome. In Romans 11:13, for example, he says
“I am speaking to you who are Gentiles,” and the
text following specifically applies to the
non-Jewish Believers in Rome. In writing his
epistle, Paul recognized the reality that more
non-Jews would be coming to faith in the Messiah
of Israel.
According to most Christian
theologians, there are three major reasons why
Romans was written: “the relation of (1) the OT
Scriptures, (2) contemporaneous pharisaic
Judaism, and (3) the gospel implemented by the
earthly work of Christ” (NIDB, 870). Most
Messianics are agreed with them on points #1 and
#3. Paul’s letter to the Romans employs a vast
amount of knowledge, wisdom, and insight from
the Hebrew Tanach, and Paul by no means
diminishes the “Old Testament.” Paul’s epistle
also uplifts the atoning work of Messiah Yeshua,
and how He is the only way to salvation. As far
as Pharisaic Judaism is concerned, recent
studies in First Century Judaism, coupled with
Jewish-Christian dialogue, have led many
Christian theologians to reconsider Paul’s view
of the Law, to at least a more moderate position
of him not demeaning it to the point of saying
that it has been “abolished.”
Those Christian theologians
taking a “new perspective” to Paul, have
advocated that Paul believes that the Torah is
still to be followed by all Jews, and that
non-Jewish Believers are to respect it and
follow it in all matters except those which
relate to specific Jewish identity (i.e.,
circumcision, the Sabbath, the kosher laws).
This is certainly a step forward for many
Christian theologians, and their extant research
has certainly helped a Messianic community which
believes that Paul advocated Torah observance
for all of God’s people, but one that comes as
part of an individual’s growth in the faith. Of
all the texts of the Apostolic Scriptures, this
has been one which has created many Messianic
Bible studies, and several distinct
commentaries.
Bibliography
Beare, F.W. “Romans, Letter to the,” in IDB,
4:112-122.
Buswell, Jr., James Oliver. “Romans, Letter to
the,” in NIDB, pp 869-871.
Davidson, F., and Ralph P. Martin. “Romans,” in
NBCR, pp 1012-1048.
Gundry, Robert. “The Major Epistles of Paul,” in
A Survey of the New Testament, pp
359-389.
Guthrie, Donald. “Epistle to the Romans,” in
New Testament Introduction, pp 403-431.
Harrison, Everett F. “Romans,” in EXP,
10:3-171.
Miller, D.G. “Romans, Epistle to,” in ISBE,
4:222-228.
Myers, Jr., Charles D. “Romans, Epistle to the,”
in ABD, 5:816-830.
updates 06 February, 2006
Romans
1:26-17:
I have heard liberal Bible scholars teach that
Romans 1:26-27 allows for homosexuality. Is this
at all true?
Paul’s epistle to the Romans is
often considered to be his theological magnum
opus, and for good reasons. It is a well
drawn out presentation on the gospel as he
proclaims it among the nations, as Paul is
preparing to move to the Western Mediterranean,
and wants the Roman Believers to know what the
mission is that the Lord has entrusted to him.
Most expositors agree that Romans was written
against a backdrop of either Corinth or Achaia,
and such places were harbingers of gross sexual
sin, likely affecting Paul’s choice of words. It
should thus be no surprise that Paul considers
idolatry and inappropriate sexual
behavior as direct consequences of the fall of
humanity. As he describes,
“For they exchanged the truth of
God for a lie, and worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them
over to degrading passions; for their women
exchanged the natural function for that which is
unnatural, and in the same way also the men
abandoned the natural function of the woman and
burned in their desire toward one another, men
with men committing indecent acts and receiving
in their own persons the due penalty of their
error” (Romans 1:25-27).
The traditional interpretation of
this text throughout centuries of Christian
theology has undoubtedly and undeniably
viewed it as relating to homosexuality. Only
in recent days as homosexuality has become legal
in the West and acceptable as an “alternative
lifestyle” have some liberal Christian
theologians viewed Romans 1:26-27 as relating to
behavior other than homosexual
intercourse. Skewed definitions of Biblical
concepts are appearing in some theological
resources, as EDB summarizes, “The Bible
does not appear to say anything directly about
homosexuality in this modern sense of the term,
but a few passages do refer to same gender
genital acts” (L. Wm. Countryman,
“Homosexuality,” in EDB, 602). It goes on
to say, in regard to verses such as Genesis
18:16-33 and Leviticus 18:22; 20:1, “None of
[these passages] appears to address modern
questions directly” (Ibid., 603).
The debate in favor of
homosexuality from liberal theologians often
focuses on the so-called “relational” side,
arguing that since the Bible does not directly
address the modern questions of commitment
between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman,
it could thus be acceptable as “love” is the
principal thrust of the gospel. Even
evangelicals who would strongly oppose today’s
Messianic movement and its emphasis on a Torah
foundation, still will agree that in Romans
1:26-27 Paul is speaking about homosexuality and
considers it a gross sin. Ben Witherington III
candidly states, “Vv. 26-27 are about as clear a
condemnation of homosexual and lesbian behavior
as exists in the NT” (Paul’s Letter to the
Romans: A Socio-Historical Commentary, 69),
even though he provides no Tanach references in
favor or support of Paul’s position.
Evangelical Old Testament scholar
Walter C. Kaiser—who holds to a much higher view
of the Torah in his theology—represents a
standard conservative view, summarizing,
“To prohibit homosexuality today,
some would argue, would be like forbidding
unclean meats. It is admitted, of course, that
there is a category of temporary ceremonial
laws, but I do not agree that homosexuality is
among them. Nothing in its proscription points
to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty
demanded for its violation places it in the
moral realm and not in temporary ceremonial
legislation” (Toward Old Testament Ethics,
118).
Those in the Jewish Synagogue
today who believe that homosexuality is a valid
behavior are consequently often very liberal,
believing only that a cultural Judaism is what
God asks of His people. And that cultural
Judaism is very much pick-and-choose, “changing”
with the times!
It is, of course, very important
to understand the worldview of the Apostle Paul
when writing vs. 26-27. This is not an issue
that is going away, and we need to be prepared to
directly encounter it should homosexual issues
arise in our Messianic communities, or more
likely we find people asking honest questions
about it in the context of sexual ethics from
Scripture.
Paul remarks that as a direct
result of the Fall, human beings have rejected
the primacy of God in their lives: “They
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and
worshiped and served created things rather than
the Creator” (NIV). He then goes on to say,
“their women exchanged natural relations for
those that are contrary to nature; and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women
and were consumed with passion for one another”
(vs. 26b-27a, ESV).
Because of discussions
circulating today not only in society, but also
in theology, it is absolutely critical that
Believers understand the distinct worldview of
Paul—so as to accurately understand what he is
telling the Romans. It is not uncommon for some
to conclude that only homosexual activity
involved with idolatry, rather than homosexual
intercourse independent of such religious
practice, is only what is being talked about.
We should begin by asking
ourselves how the good Rabbi from Tarsus, a
Pharisee trained by Gamaliel, would have thought
about homosexuality from the Torah and Tanach.
Paul very clearly says that due
to the curse on the world, men and women have
both exchanged natural functions for unnatural
functions. When God created man and woman, He
made them in His own image (Genesis 1:27), and
decreed “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the
earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the sky and over
every living thing that moves on the earth”
(Genesis 1:28). In Genesis 2:18-24, in the
second account of Creation, we see how God made
woman to be the man’s partner in his endeavors:
“Then the
Lord
God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be
alone; I will make him a helper suitable for
him.’ Out of the ground the
Lord
God formed every beast of the field and every
bird of the sky, and brought them to the
man to see what he would call them; and whatever
the man called a living creature, that was its
name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and
to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of
the field, but for Adam there was not found a
helper suitable for him. So the
Lord
God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man,
and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and
closed up the flesh at that place. The
Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken
from the man, and brought her to the man. The
man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.’ For this
reason a man shall leave his father and his
mother, and be joined to his wife; and they
shall become one flesh.”
Yeshua the Messiah and the
Apostle Paul directly appeal to Genesis 2:24
regarding the Divine estate of marriage (Matthew
19:5; Mark 10:7, 8; 1 Corinthians 6:16;
Ephesians 5:31). God originally made the woman
to be the partner of the man—not another man for
the man—so that the two might reproduce and tend
the wonderful Creation that He made for them.
Acceptance of anything other than relations
between a man and a woman mars not only God’s
original intention for them as “one flesh,” but
also the fact that human beings have been
created in His image and for His Divine
purposes. Furthermore, as Douglas J. Moo points
out, “it is clear that Paul depicts homosexual
activity as a violation of God’s creation order,
another indication of the departure from true
knowledge and worship of God” (New
International Commentary on the New Testament:
The Epistle to the Romans, 115). Thus, it
can be easily seen that homosexual acts are not
only sinful, but they are idolatrous in and
of themselves as men and women “worship
themselves” in a reality that is seen outside of
the realm decreed by the Lord.
The fact that prohibitions
against homosexual activities are seen in the
Torah should be self-obvious to this discussion:
“You shall not lie with a male as
one lies with a female; it is an abomination”
(Leviticus 18:22).
“If there is a man who
lies with a male as those who lie with a woman,
both of them have committed a detestable act;
they shall surely be put to death. Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).
The commands v’et zakar lo
tishkav mishkevei ishah (hVa
ybKvm bKvt al rkz-taw)
in Leviticus 18:22a, and v’ish asher yishkav
et zakar mishkevei ishah (hVa
ybKvm rkz-ta bKvy rva vyaw),
both concern a man “lying” with another man—as
he would with a woman. Clearly, some kind of
sexual intercourse is what is in mind. The verb
shakav (bkv)
or “to lie down” can very much have connotations
“to lie down and have sexual intercourse” (HALOT,
2:1487). The Lord is very clear in that He
considers this behavior to be toevah (hb[AT)
or an “abomination.” The severity of this act merits capital
punishment.
The first major instance we see
regarding homosexuality in the Torah concerns
the men of Sodom wanting to burst into the home
of Lot, and gang rape his angelic visitors:
“Before they lay down, the men of
the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the
house, both young and old, all the people from
every quarter; and they called to Lot and said
to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you
tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have
relations with them.’ But Lot went out to them
at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,
and said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act
wickedly’” (Genesis 19:4-7).
Here, the outcry of the men of
Sodom is “Where are the men who came to you
tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can
have sex with them” (NIV). The verb yada
([dy)
or “to know” is used to describe this demand,
and in the Qal stem (simple action, active
voice) it can certainly mean “to know sexually,
have intercourse with, copulate” (HALOT,
1:391). A similar instance is seen in Judges
19:22, clearly attesting that the Ancient
Israelites encountered homosexual activities
among the Canaanites:
“While they were celebrating,
behold, the men of the city, certain worthless
fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the
door; and they spoke to the owner of the house,
the old man, saying, ‘Bring out the man who came
into your house that we may have relations [yada;
‘have sex,’ NIV] with him.’”
The Apostle Paul’s training in
the morality of the Hebrew Tanach would
certainly never allow him to accept homosexual
intercourse or relationships as a valid practice
for the faith community. Not only did it go
against God’s intention at Creation for the man
and woman to reproduce, but the examples seen in
the Tanach of homosexual behavior often
associate it with violence. From a First Century
Jewish perspective, acceptance of any kind of
homosexuality was never an option.
Homosexuality was a perversion to be associated
with the pagan Gentiles, and to say otherwise is
to create an artificial world of the First
Century Synagogue that never existed. James D.G.
Dunn indicates,
“In the Greco-Roman world
homosexuality was quite common and even highly
regarded…It was a feature of social life,
indulged in not least by the gods…and
emperors…But Jewish reaction to it as a
perversion, a pagan abomination, is consistent
throughout the OT” (Word Biblical Commentary:
Romans 1-8, Vol 38a, 65).
What is interesting about Paul,
is that even though his declarations against
homosexuality are firmly rooted within the Torah
and Tanach—is that in writing to the Romans he
makes use of some important classical terms that
also describe the practice. He uses tēn
phusikēn (thn
fusikhn)
to describe the “natural function” (NASU) or
“natural relations” (RSV) between men and women.
C.E.B. Cranfield concurs that by using this,
“Paul clearly means ‘in accordance with the
intention of the Creator’…For this appeal to
‘nature’ in the sense of the order manifest in
the created world compare 1 Cor 11:14, where
h fusiß auth
[hē phusis autē] might almost be
translated ‘the very way God has made us’” (International
Critical Commentary: Romans 1-8, pp
123-124). Dunn states that phusis (fusiß)
“is not a Hebrew concept…The concept is
primarily Greek, and typically Stoic—to live in
harmony with the natural order and its divine
rationality” (WBC, 38a:64). In writing to
a predominantly non-Jewish audience in Rome,
Paul feels at liberty to use terminology that
they are familiar with to communicate the moral
truths of God’s Torah.
Today among some liberal
commentators para phusin (para
fusin)
or what is “against nature” is sometimes argued
to not necessarily concern condemnation upon
homosexuality. Instead, some suggest that Paul
is speaking against heterosexuals engaged in
unwarranted homosexuality, which would be
contrary to one’s predetermined disposition.
This view is intended to provide theological
support for the concept that some are
homosexual, and others are heterosexual, from
the time of birth. With this in mind, rather
than male or female homosexuality stemming as a
result of man and woman’s fall and rejection of
God, all that Paul is condemning is homosexual
behavior on the part of heterosexuals, likely in
the context of Roman temple prostitution or
religious rites.
Furthermore, lexical support for
the homosexual agenda may be provided as the
preposition para, when joined with an
accusative noun (indicating direct object) can
mean “more than” or “rather than” (CGEDNT,
131). To soften the blow it is said, Paul is
really just speaking about things “more than
nature” or “rather than nature.” So from this
angle, Paul certainly cannot be condemning two
men or two women in a committed
relationship—that just or simply “goes beyond”
Creation’s purpose of a union resulting in
childbearing. Yet this line of reasoning makes a
severe and fatal flaw: it assumes that the term
para phusin is used only by Paul, and has
no parallels in ancient literature.
The Jewish historian Josephus
employs para phusin to describe
homosexual activities:
“[W]hat reason can there be why
we should desire to imitate the laws of other
nations, while we see they are not observed by
their own legislators? And why do not the
Lacedemonians [Spartans] think of abolishing
that form of their government which suffers them
not to associate with any others, as well as
their contempt of matrimony? And why do not the
Eleans and Thebans abolish that unnatural
[para phusin] and impudent lust, which
makes them lie with males?” (Against
Apion 2.273).
“[T]he Greeks…ascribed…sodomitical
practices to the gods themselves, as a part of
their good character; and, indeed, it was
according to the same manner that the gods
married their own sisters. This the Greeks
contrived as an apology for their own absurd and
unnatural [para phusin] pleasures”
(Against Apion 2.275).
In these two quotations from
Josephus, he criticizes the homosexuality of the
Spartans, and later how the Greek religion
allowed for homosexual activities among their
gods (as well as incest). Para phusin is
used to describe these sinful acts.
The Jewish philosopher Philo also
had a great disdain for homosexual activities,
in describing the men of Sodom (On Abraham
133-141). His scathing words against them
testify,
“As men, being unable to bear
discreetly a satiety of these things, get
restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked,
and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great
and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and
drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only
did they go mad after women, and defile the
marriage bed of others, but also those who
were men lusted after one another, doing
unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting
their common nature” (On Abraham 135).
Here, Philo expands the sins of
the men of Sodom as first involving the rape of
women, but later devolving into homosexual
activities. He says that they had no regard for
ton tēs phuseōs nomon (ton
thß fusewß nomon)
or “the laws of nature,” clearly being guided by
a Torah ethic.
These examples from Josephus and
Philo, of course, appear in the mileu of
Hellenistic Jewish literature. They attest that
para phusin or “against nature” clearly
does relate to homosexual activities that were
considered abominable in the sight of God. Many
of the Jews in Rome would have known how the
Diaspora Synagogue could have adopted “para
phusin” to refer to such an abominable
Gentile sexual act. Yet, what really nails the
coffin for those arguing that para phusin
does not refer to homosexuality—is that
para phusin was used in a classical context
to refer to homosexuality, independent of
its Jewish usage. Richard B. Hays remarks,
“There are abundant instances,
both in the Greco-Roman moral philosophers and
in literary texts, of the opposition between
‘natural’ (kata physin) and ‘unnatural’ (para
physin) behavior…In particular, the
opposition between ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ is
very frequently used…as a way of distinguishing
between heterosexual and homosexual behavior”
(“Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to
John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” Journal
of Religious Ethics 14, no. 1 [1986]: 192).
Hays gives a variety of examples
from classical literature, where para phusin
is clearly used to refer to homosexuality:
“Plutarch has Daphnaeus, one of
the speakers in his Dialogue on Love,
disparage ‘union contrary to nature with males’
(hē para physin homilia pros arrēnas), as
contrasted to ‘the love between men and women,’
which is characterized as ‘natural’ (tē
physei). A few sentences later, Daphnaeus
complains that those who ‘consort with males’
willingly are guilty of ‘weakness and
effeminacy,’ because ‘contrary to nature (para
physin),’ they ‘allow themselves in Plato’s
words “to be covered and mounted like cattle”’ (Dialogue
on Love 751C, E). Plutarch’s reference to
Plato demonstrates the point that Paul did not
originate the application of the kata physin/para
physin dichotomy to heterosexual and
homosexual behavior. Its common appearance in
the writings of the Hellenistic moral
philosophers is testimony to a convention which
can be traced back at least as far as Plato (Laws
I.636C), almost variably in contexts where a
negative judgment is pronounced on the morality
or propriety of the ‘unnatural’ homosexual
relations” (Ibid., 193).
In Plato’s Laws, a defense
of the Athenian style of life is seen when
compared against that of the Spartans and
Cretans. An Athenian is attested as saying,
“For instance, these gymnastic
exercises and common meals, useful though they
are to a state in many ways, are a danger of
their encouragement in revolution…More
especially, the very antiquity of these
practices seems to have corrupted the natural
pleasures of sex, which are common to man and
beast. For these perversions, your two states
may well be the first to be blamed, as well as
others that make a particular point of gymnastic
exercises. Circumstances may make you treat the
subject either light-heartedly or seriously; in
either case you ought to bear in mind that when
male and female come together in order to have a
child, the pleasure they experience seems to
arise entirely naturally. But homosexual
intercourse and lesbianism seem to be unnatural
crimes of the first rank, and are committed
because men and women cannot control their
desire for pleasure” (The
Laws,
1.636c; trans. Trevor J. Saunders [London:
Penguin Books, 1970], pp 18-19).
Here, we have some direct
attestations about how para phusin was
used among classical philosophers to refer to
homosexuality, and even how perverse these pagan
philosophers considered the practice. These
Hellenistic witnesses agree that male and female
homosexuality were viewed as being forbidden and
taboo.
The Apostle Paul’s Jewish
training and high regard for the Torah of Moses
would never have permitted him to concede that
homosexuality was anything less than an
abomination. Furthermore, the attestation that
para phusin or “against nature” is used
in classical literature to refer to
homosexuality—and that the Jewish Paul and Greek
philosophers actually agree on its
perverseness—strengthens the case against
it, and surely does not weaken it. The
propagation of homosexual activity is a
rejection of God’s will for man and woman to
procreate, and one of the human principal acts
of rebellion against His authority to be equated
as idolatry against Him as an act of
self-worship.
Those who would argue that
para phusin can mean something other than
“against nature”—and not be a direct reference
to homosexuality—have committed extreme
eisegetical error. They have read a modern
social situation into an ancient text, and have
ignored sound hermeneutical skills. Not only
have advocates of the homosexual agenda severely
misapplied Romans 1:26-27, but they have created
an artificial construct by which to at best
allow (as seen in the errant translations “more
than nature” or “rather than nature”), and at
worst actually condone, homosexual intercourse
and relationships (the majority of which are not
“monogamous”).
The larger issue that is asked of
us as Believers in Yeshua, particularly as it
concerns gays and lesbians today, is that
although their actions are clearly opposed by
Scripture—how do we treat them as fellow human
beings? In Romans 1:26-27 Paul neither asks nor
answers the question how a Believer is to
specifically regard a homosexual man or woman.
Kaiser’s thoughts are well taken:
“Homosexuality must be listed as
a sexual perversion, a defilement of a country
in which it is practiced, and an abomination in
God’s eyes. Anything less than this is a form of
specious reasoning. It is a sin that must be
dealt with as any other sin even though the
gospel also offers freedom, forgiveness, and
healing from this sin as from any other—or it is
no gospel at all” (Toward Old Testament
Ethics, 197).
Indeed, Yeshua’s declaration to
those in His home synagogue at Nazareth speak
volumes to this problem:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon
me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good
news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
liberty to the captives and recovering of sight
to the blind, to set at liberty those who are
oppressed” (Luke 4:18, ESV; cf. Isaiah 61:1).
Witherington is one who thinks
that in Romans 1:26-27, “Paul speaks of actions,
not inclinations, attitudes or genetics” (Paul’s
Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Historical
Commentary, 69). Yet, the person who thinks
about homosexual acts is just as guilty as the
one “who looks at a woman with lust for her [and
who] has already committed adultery with her in
his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Many people engulfed
in the sin of homosexuality, no different than
those engulfed in heterosexual adultery, are
looking for acceptance and love. Homosexuals are
those who have been unable to find any kind of
acceptance or love among the opposite gender,
and so they look to their own gender to find it.
Certainly while Paul considers the actions of
homosexuality to be unacceptable; the thoughts
of homosexuality are equally as unacceptable.
Paul states that such people will receive “the
appropriate penalty for their perversion” (HCSB).
The transforming power of the
Messiah Yeshua to not only proclaim the good
news of His Kingdom, but also the proclamation
of liberty to captives and the oppressed, can
release people from the power of homosexuality.
Only when a homosexual person recognizes the
sinfulness of his or her act, confesses of such
sin, and then asks for God’s transforming power
to change him or her—can His overwhelming
love engulf that person in the acceptance
that was sought via homosexuality. But this
acceptance is unconditional, it is restorative,
and it goes above and beyond what any kind of
sexual act can bring. It is the love of our
Heavenly Father toward a child that has returned
to Him and His desiring to live by His original
intention at Creation. We must be there as His
representatives and ambassadors—the Body of
Messiah (Him working through us)—to offer the
freedom from bondage that only Yeshua provides.
The issue of homosexuality is not
going away anytime soon, especially with the
homosexual agenda and political bloc for gay
rights that have emerged on the world scene.
Today, many Christian denominations are dividing
over this issue. Many evangelicals are greatly
concerned that a firm Biblical ethic is being
tossed out the window in favor of extreme
compromise with sin. As many evangelicals leave
their denominations, this is where only the
emerging Messianic movement in the future can
offer a valid and more consistent
theological perspective given our high view of the Torah. In
the future, we could actually see ourselves
significantly swell in numbers. Yet in order to
do this, we must become a more stable and mature
spiritual movement, and engage more with the
world as God’s Word does indeed have answers for
those in bondage!
(Other Pauline passages that
reference homosexuality, that are worthy of
further consideration on your behalf, include: 1
Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.)
posted 10 January, 2008
Romans 10:4:
I am confused. How can you say that the Law of
Moses is still to be followed today when Paul
himself says that “Christ is the end of the
Law”?
“For Messiah is the end of the
law for righteousness to everyone who believes”
(Romans 10:4, NASU).
Many believe that
Romans 10:4 is definitive evidence that the
Torah is no longer to be followed. The claim
that “Christ is the end of the Law” is quite
frequent in discussions between Christians and
Messianics relating to the position that the Law
of Moses plays, or does not play, in the lives
of Believers today. In fact, the Contemporary
English Version translates Romans 10:4 with,
“But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary.”
Is this what Paul is really saying in Romans
10:4? Is the Apostle who in Romans 3:31 says
that we are to “establish” or “uphold the law”
(RSV, NIV), and who in Romans 7:12 says that
“the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy
and righteous and good,” and who in Romans 7:14
says “the Law is spiritual,” and who even says
in Romans 7:22 “I joyfully concur with the law
of God in the inner man,” suddenly saying that
the Law of Moses is of no value? And, would this
not again contradict the Messiah’s words in
Matthew 5:17-19 about the Torah not passing
away?
If one were to only examine the
English text of this verse, it would seem that
some have a legitimate claim against us who
believe that the Torah should still be followed
today. Many Christians would eagerly point out
the word “end” and say, “Jesus Christ terminated
the Law of Moses.” But even this is a stretch
for the English language. Webster’s
Intermediate Dictionary, designed, as
clearly printed on its cover, “for young
teenagers,” provides one critical definition for
“end,” that can go overlooked even by the most
well-trained seminary professor. This definition
of the English word “end” is “the goal toward
which an agent acts or should act” (p 245). In
the English language alone is an available
definition of “end” that does not mean
“termination” or “abolishment.”
We should not be surprised that
the Greek word telos (teloß)
too has a wider connotation of definitions not
limited to “end.” A critical definition of
telos provided by BDAG includes, “the
goal toward which a movement is being directed,
end, goal, outcome” (p 998).
Thayer offers us the definition, “The end
to which all things relate, the aim, purpose”
(p 620). Vine says that it can mean “‘the
aim or purpose’ of a thing” (p 199), and
CGEDNT provides the definition “outcome,
result, goal, aim, fulfillment” (p 180).
Perhaps most importantly, AMG remarks
that telos “does not, as is often
supposed, mean the extinction, end or
termination…It simply means the goal reached” (p
1376). The English word “teleology” derives from
telos, which the World Book Dictionary
defines as “the fact or quality of being
purposeful.”
It would not be wrong by any
means to translate Romans 10:4 as “Christ is the
goal of the Law” or “Christ is the aim of the
Law” or “Christ is the purpose of the Law.” It
all depends on one’s theological
presuppositional bias. If one’s theological bias
is that the Messiah abolished the Torah, then
Scripture will be translated accordingly. If
one’s theological bias is that the Messiah
fulfilled the Torah and showed us how to live it
correctly so that we might properly obey God,
likewise Scripture will be translated
accordingly. Romans 10:4 is a very clear-cut
example of this. It should be no surprise to us
then that a footnote exists in the Contemporary
English Version for Romans 10:4 that says, “Or
‘But Christ gives the full meaning to the Law.’”
What is Paul trying to really say
in Romans 10:4? The Complete Jewish Bible
renders this verse as, “For the goal at which
the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers
righteousness to everyone who trusts.” In Romans
ch. 10, Paul is discussing the salvation message
and how it is related to God’s commandments. He
is telling us that coming to faith in the
Messiah is indeed the resultant end or telos,
the consummation at which the Torah reaches. He
is not telling us that Yeshua terminated the
Law, as Romans 10:4 is so commonly
misinterpreted. The purpose of the Torah, and
indeed all of Scripture, is that it must point
to our need for a Savior. As we see that as
human beings we are incapable of keeping God’s
commandments perfectly, and we see that we fall
short of His high standard, we must be convicted
of our sin, cry out in repentance before God,
and receive the forgiveness that He offers. The
Torah is to always show us the need for a
Redeemer, and the fact that we need salvation.
The NIV translates Romans 10:4
with the all too common “Christ is the end of
the law.” But a very interesting footnote exists
in the NIV Study Bible which says,
“Although the Greek for ‘end’ (telos) can
mean either (1) ‘termination,’ ‘cessation,’ or
(2) ‘goal,’ ‘culmination,’ ‘fulfillment,’ it
seems best here to understand it in the latter
sense” (p 971). This commentary from a widely
used Christian study Bible seems to recognize
the validity of the Torah. But the commentary
goes even further, surprisingly stating, “Christ
is the fulfillment of the law…in the sense that
he brought it to its completion by obeying
perfectly its demands and by fulfilling its
types and prophecies. Christians are no longer
‘under law’…since Christ has freed them from its
condemnation, but the law still plays a role in
their lives” (Ibid.). This commentary, from a
source that you would consider to be anything
but “pro-Torah,” essentially confirms what we
are saying. The Messiah is the goal, aim, or
purpose of the Torah, and born again Believers
are not “under the Law” because we are freed
from its penalties.
(This entry includes adapted
excerpts from the editor’s book
The New Testament
Validates Torah. Also
consult his article “Is
Messiah the Termination of the Torah?”)
posted 07 June 2006
Ruth, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Ruth?
Readers of the Book of Ruth
almost immediately can recognize it for what it
is as a great account of human kindness (IDB,
4:131), as God uses people faithful to Him to
accomplish restoration. Christian tradition,
following the book order of the Greek
Septuagint, places Ruth immediately after
Judges. This was apparently something also
followed by the First Century historian Josephus
(Harrison, 1063), making Ruth an extended
narrative as a part of the histories. In Jewish
tradition Ruth is placed among the Writings,
specifically among the five Megillot (IDB,
4:134; NBCR, 278; ISBE, 4:423;
ABD, 5:846). The Book of Ruth is not placed
in this later part of the Scriptures to demean
women, but because it is used for special
holiday readings. Ruth is frequently read at
Shavuot/Pentecost, partly because of the
belief that King David was born and died at this
time (Jewish Study Bible, 1579).
The name of this text is for Ruth
(Heb. Rut,
tWr),
a young Moabite woman, who would become the
great-grandmother of King David and an ancestor
of Yeshua the Messiah (4:21-22; Matthew 1:1, 5;
cf. IDB, 1:131). Even though this book is
named for Ruth, the principal character is
actually the Israelite widow Naomi, who is
forced to move to Moab during a time of famine
in the Land of Israel. The events that Ruth
portrays occur during the time of the Judges
(1:1), and actually take place during a time of
relative peace between Israel and the Moabites.
The story of Ruth gives us a glimpse into an
Israelite family during this period, and how
various women must fare on their own (ABD,
5:845).
Jewish tradition in the Talmud
points to Samuel being the author of Ruth (b.Bava
Batra 14b), even though there is significant
justificati |
