|
Sabbath, Jewish tradition: To what extent, if any, do you believe that we should follow
Jewish tradition in our Sabbath observance?
Biblically, we are told that the Sabbath day is to be a time of
rest for our bodies, and that we are to make it
holy (Exodus 20:11; Deuteronomy 5:12). The
Scriptures tell us that Shabbat is to be
“a holy convocation” (Leviticus 23:3). How we
“fill in the details” of doing this requires us
to examine instances in the Scriptures where the
Sabbath is being kept and determine with
accuracy the halachah that was practiced
in the First Century community of faith. Jewish
studies in the New Testament are revealing more
and more that Yeshua and the Apostles indeed
kept many of the traditions of their time. We do
not believe it is wise for us to simply dismiss
tradition, as many do, but once accurately
determining what the Apostles would have done in
the First Century, we must ask what they would
do today. Would they have gone to the synagogue
on Shabbat? Would they light Shabbat
candles? Would they flip on a light switch?
The Sabbath is one of the most important elements of Torah
observance in the Jewish community today, and
there are many wonderful traditions that we can
practice as Messianic Believers in making
Shabbat a holy time. The Sabbath table of
the candle lighting, the challah bread,
the kiddish wine, and the Shabbat meal,
are all elements that can be partaken of today.
Attending Shabbat services where Hebrew
liturgy is used and the Torah is honored in a
service can be partaken of. These are all
elements of Jewish practice that are quite
commonplace in the Messianic community that we
encourage everyone to follow, as they can all
trace their origin back to the First Century
period of the Messiah, and immediately before
and immediately after. Of course, there are many
variants among these basic elements of
Shabbat practice among the Jewish community
today, both in Israel and the Diaspora, and we
certainly expect that you would adopt them
similarly and those things with which you are
most comfortable.
The alternative to not following any mainline Jewish custom to make
the Sabbath a special time is sitting in the
dark and eating cold bread—as was the errant
practice of many Karaites during the Medieval
period. Some in the Messianic community insist
that if something is not explicitly in the
Written Torah, then it should not be followed.
Unfortunately for those who hold this view,
following edifying traditions was commonplace
among the First Century world of Yeshua, and in
the Apostolic halachah we see in the
Messianic Scriptures. Yeshua and His Disciples
were by no means “Karaites,” and we believe that
if they were living today they would adhere to
the basic elements of Sabbath tradition, even
though probably not to the extent of the
Orthodox Jewish community. We believe that they
would make allowances for the evolution of
technology in their orthopraxy.
For a further discussion of these, and related issues, we highly
recommend you consult the
Messianic Sabbath Helper,
published by TNN Press.
posted 16 February, 2006
Sabbath Violation, Alleged by Yeshua: How do you respond to the various claims that Yeshua broke the
Sabbath?
Some Christians are of the position that our
Messiah Yeshua, the sinless Lamb of God and
perfect sacrifice for our sin, actually broke
the Sabbath. This is a serious claim because if
He broke the Sabbath and if He sinned, then
perhaps Yeshua could not be the Messiah and His
sacrifice could not atone for our sin—which 1
John 3:4 tells us is lawlessness or disobedience
to the Torah.
There are two specific instances we will discuss
that some Christians believe give reference to
the Messiah breaking Shabbat.
The first claim given to prove that Messiah
“broke the Sabbath” is when His Disciples were
plucking grain in the fields (Matthew 12:1-8;
Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5):
“At that time Yeshua went through the
grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples
became hungry and began to pick the heads of
grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw
this, they said to Him, ‘Look, Your
disciples do what is not lawful to do on a
Sabbath.’ But He said to them, ‘Have you not
read what David did when he became hungry, he
and his companions, how he entered the house of
God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which
was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with
him, but for the priests alone?’” (Matthew
12:1-4).
Those who tell us from these verses that Yeshua
broke the Sabbath usually quote the Pharisees
who said, “Why
are you doing what is not permitted to be done
on the Sabbath days?”
(Luke 6:2, Amplified Bible). The Complete Jewish
Bible translates this as, “Why are you violating
Shabbat?” While Yeshua is not picking the
heads of grain, His Disciples are, and this
reflects back on Him as their Teacher and Rabbi.
It is important for us to first note that there
is no specific commandment in the Torah that
forbids picking heads of grain on the Sabbath.
The Greek exesti (exesti)
correctly means “it
is allowed, it is in one's power, is possible”
(LS,
273). The Mishnah includes two types of work on
the Sabbath that were prohibited by Rabbis in
Yeshua’s day, which He could have been accused
of breaking: reaping and threshing (m.Shabbat
7:2). Those holding a rigid interpretation of
the Oral Law would have immediately accused
Yeshua of doing something that was not permitted
on the Sabbath. However, Luke 6:2 notably tells
us, “But some of the Pharisees said.” The
Scripture does not indicate that this was a
position held by all of the Pharisees.
Placing this Scripture in its appropriate
historical context is imperative.
Secondly, in His response to these Pharisees,
Yeshua gives the example of David and his men
eating the consecrated bread that was only
reserved for the priests to be eaten. This is
recorded in 1 Samuel 21:3-4, 6:
“‘Now therefore, what do you have on hand? Give
me five loaves of bread, or whatever can be
found.’ The priest answered David and said,
‘There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there
is consecrated bread; if only the young men have
kept themselves from women’…So the priest gave
him consecrated bread; for there was no
bread there but the bread of the Presence which
was removed from before the
Lord,
in order to put hot bread in its place
when it was taken away.”
In the example given from the Tanach regarding
David and his men, it is important to realize
that the priest provided them with food from the
Bread of the Presence, which was only permitted
for the priests to eat. The Torah says in
Leviticus 24:9 that this bread “shall be for
Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a
holy place; for it is most holy to him from the
Lord’s offerings by fire, his portion forever.”
However, because they were hungry and required
sustenance, the priest gave them this bread.
Eating something to provide sustenance and thus
maintain one’s physical life falls into a
category that the Rabbis of Judaism call
Pikku’ach Nefesh
or “regard for human life.” It is based on
Leviticus 19:16: “neither
shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy
neighbour” (1917 JPS).
The ArtScroll Chumash commentary states,
“If someone’s life is in danger, you must try to
save him” (p 661). It is important that we note
that this understanding has also been taken to
mean, in regard to the Sabbath, that any work
that is required to save a person’s life takes
precedence over the ritual Shabbat
commandments of the Torah. This is the reason
why in the modern State of Israel today,
doctors, police, and the military are permitted
to work on Shabbat.
Yeshua’s example of David being fed by the Bread
of the Presence was poignant in that the priest
followed Leviticus 19:16 by providing needed
sustenance to David and his party. And, His
Disciples were likewise only providing for
themselves the necessary food for survival.
Yeshua’s Disciples plucking heads of grain on
the Sabbath was well permitted within the larger
theological construct of First Century Judaism,
but not liked by a few extremists.
Another example often used by those who say that
Yeshua broke Shabbat comes from John
5:6-18 where He heals a sick man on the Sabbath
and then commands him to pick up his pallet and
walk:
“When Yeshua saw him lying there, and
knew that he had already been a long time in
that condition, He said to him, ‘Do you wish
to get well?’ The sick man answered Him, ‘Sir, I
have no man to put me into the pool when the
water is stirred up, but while I am coming,
another steps down before me.’ Yeshua said to
him, ‘Get up, pick up your pallet and walk.’
Immediately the man became well, and picked up
his pallet and began to walk. Now it was
the Sabbath on that day” (John 5:6-9).
In these verses, we can most certainly see
application of Pikku’ach Nefesh. Yeshua
was saving the life of a person by healing him
on the Sabbath. In response to this, we see the
response of some of the Jews watching this: “It
is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for
you to carry your pallet” (John 5:10). These
Pharisees were dismayed that the man would carry
his pallet on Shabbat, because they
believed that it was in violation of Nehemiah
13:19-20:
“It came about that just as it grew dark at the
gates of Jerusalem before the sabbath, I
commanded that the doors should be shut and that
they should not open them until after the
sabbath. Then I stationed some of my servants at
the gates so that no load would enter on
the sabbath day. Once or twice the traders and
merchants of every kind of merchandise spent the
night outside Jerusalem.”
These verses indicate that it was prohibited for
loads to be carried on the Sabbath, but
specifically loads relating to business and
commerce. These loads were being carried into
Jerusalem for buying and selling on Shabbat,
which is why Jerusalem’s gates were closed.
Without a doubt, many Pharisees considered this
to be a “burden” or masa (aFm),
which means “load, burden, lifting, bearing,
tribute” (BDB, 672), which would include
pallets. The Septuagint translates masa
as bastagma (bastagma),
something specifically meaning “that which is
borne, a burden” (LS, 148), but it is
not used in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures.
What the healed man specifically carried was
what the Greek calls a krabbatos (krabbatoß),
or “a pallet, camp bed” (Thayer,
358). UBSHNT renders krabbatos as
mishkav (bKvm),
or simply “bed.” While sizes of beds no doubt
differed, it is doubtful that this invalid’s
pallet was something large and heavy. AMG
offers us the following valuable description of
a krabbatos:
“A small couch used by the poor. It denotes a
simple kind of bed…[which] usually consisted of
a padded quilt or thin mattress to be used
according to the season or the condition of the
owner with or without covering” (p 883).
With a proper understanding of
Pikku’ach Nefesh,
Yeshua did not violate the Sabbath at all by
telling the healed man to pick up his pallet
that was a light bed that only weighed a few
pounds. Yeshua did, however, no doubt “violate”
the theological opinions of this group of
Pharisees. Stern observes in his Jewish New
Testament Commentary, “they could not see
that the formerly crippled man’s ability to
carry his mat attested to God’s glory” (p 168).
The arguments from those who do not want to keep
Shabbat will go on and on. Many people
will try to present cases that seemingly prove
that Messiah Yeshua, the sinless Lamb of God and
who is One with the Father, violated the Sabbath
and broke His own commandments. Sadly, these
arguments are not placed within the framework of
First Century Judaism, and often relate to
Christians’ ignorance of the historical
occurrence of Biblical events. Knowing what
these things properly mean and how they relate
to us today is only further reason for us to
continually study the Gospels from a distinct
Messianic viewpoint.
(This includes excerpts from the editor’s
article “Is
Sunday ‘the Lord’s Day’?”)
posted 19 February, 2006
Sacrifices, Millennium: Do you believe that there will be animal sacrifices during the
Millennial Kingdom? If so, would these
sacrifices be an affront to the final sacrifice
of the Messiah?
Ezekiel chapters 40-44, speaking of the Millennial Temple, tell us
that there will be animal sacrifices during the
Messianic Age. Ezekiel 44:10-11 describes the
Levites in the Millennial Temple performing
animal sacrifices:
“But
the Levites who went far from Me when Israel
went astray, who went astray from Me after their
idols, shall bear the punishment for their
iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in My
sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the
house and ministering in the house; they shall
slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice
for the people, and they shall stand before them
to minister to them.”
Many Christian prophecy teachers, who we would describe as being
against the validity of the Torah for Believers
today, even recognize the reality of animal
sacrifices being performed by Levites during the
Millennium. Tim LaHaye states in his Prophecy
Study Bible, commenting on Ezekiel 43:15-27,
that “The offerings will be memorial and
retrospective, looking back to Christ’s finished
work on the cross, instead of looking forward to
Christ” (p 885). These same sentiments are
repeated by John F. Walvoord, former chancellor
of Dallas Theological Seminary, in his book
Israel in Prophecy:
“A number of Scriptures also describe the temple worship which will
characterize the millennial kingdom. According
to Ezekiel, a magnificent temple will be built,
and a system of priesthood and memorial
sacrifices will be set up…Some have felt it
impossible to have a system of animal sacrifices
subsequent to the one sacrifice of Christ on the
cross in light of New Testament passages stating
that the sacrifice of Christ makes other
sacrifices unnecessary. Though varied
explanations have been given for Ezekiel 40-48
which unfolds these details, no satisfactory
explanation has been made other than that it is
a description of millennial worship. In any
case, it is clear that the sacrifices are not
expiatory, but merely memorials of the one
complete sacrifice of Christ. If in the wisdom
and sovereign pleasure of God the detailed
system of sacrifices in the Old Testament were a
suitable foreshadowing of that which would be
accomplished by the death of His Son, and if a
memorial of Christ’s death is to be enacted, it
would not seem unfitting that some sort of a
sacrificial system would be used” (pp 125-126).
Any animal sacrifices restored to the Temple in Jerusalem during
the Millennium will be a memorial of Yeshua’s
final sacrifice for us. As pre-millennialists,
we all believe the Lord will be there in person
to explain to us the exact significance of what
these sacrifices mean.
updated 30 December, 2006
Samuel, Books of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Books of Samuel?
The Books of 1&2 Samuel are named for the Prophet Shmuel (laWmv)
whom God used to establish Israel’s monarchy. It
is largely an account of three individuals:
Samuel as Israel’s last judge, Saul as Israel’s
first king, and David as Israel’s greatest king.
The Prophet Samuel anointed both Saul and David,
and his role in this period of Israel’s history
is similar to that of Moses several centuries
earlier (Psalm 99:6; Jeremiah 15:1). The Books
of 1&2 Samuel tell us a great deal about the
human condition as lived out in the lives of
political figures. 1&2 Samuel depict a type of
kingship unique to the Ancient Near East, where
kings were often absolute rulers. With the
examples of Saul and David, we see that a
delicate balance existed between Israel’s
monarchs and the religious authorities (Jewish
Study Bible, 559), making the king
accountable to God.
Samuel was originally a single book, but became divided in two by
the Third-Second Centuries B.C.E. by the
translators of the Greek Septuagint (ABD,
5:957; NIDB, 893). This likely occurred
because the Greek translation of the Hebrew
required two scrolls instead of one (ABD,
5:957; New Interpreter’s Study Bible,
391). The division of Samuel into two books
started appearing in standardized Hebrew texts
in the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries C.E. (NIDB,
893), possibly to accommodate Christians in
Europe (IDB, 4:203; Harrison, 695;
NBCR, 284; ISBE, 4:313). The division
between 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel occurs naturally
as King Saul dies and the reign of King David
begins.
Throughout history this text has actually had a variety of names.
The Septuagint originally used the designation
Bibloi Basileōn (Bibloi
Basilewn) or Books of the Kings for what we today consider 1&2 Samuel and
1&2 Kings, dividing them into 1, 2, 3, and 4
Kings. This pattern was also followed by Jerome
in his Latin Vulgate translation, as he
designated them Libri Regum. Over time,
however, the most common designation became 1&2
Samuel (EXP, 3:553).
In the Jewish canon the Books of Samuel are placed among the Former
Prophets, and they appear right after Judges. In
the Christian canon, following the order of the
LXX, 1&2 Samuel are placed in the histories.
Many hypotheses have been proposed for the composition of 1&2
Samuel. Jewish tradition in the Talmud ascribes
authorship to the Prophet Samuel (b.Bava
Batra 14b), but exclusive authorship has
extreme problems considering that the events of
1 Samuel 25-31 and all of 2 Samuel occur after
his death (NIDB, 893). It is notable,
though, that Samuel was a writer (1 Chronicles
29:29), and he may have had a hand in composing
some of the sources that would have been used in
a book that bears his name (NBCR, 284).
Some consider that the Prophets Nathan and Gad
could have been later compilers of the sources
for Samuel (b.Bava Batra 15a; cf.
Harrison, 709; ISBE, 4:313; EXP,
3:554), based on the testimony of 1 Chronicles
29:29:
“Now
the acts of King David, from first to last, are
written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in
the chronicles of Nathan the prophet and in the
chronicles of Gad the seer.”
Another possible source for Samuel includes what
would have become 2 Samuel 9-1 Kings 2, the
so-called “succession narrative.”
If Samuel, Nathan, and Gad composed various accounts of Saul and
David’s kingships, these independent sources in
Israel’s court history could have later been
edited together (ISBE, 4:315). Whomever
was the ultimate author or editor of 1&2 Samuel
would have needed access to records detailing
the lives of Samuel, Saul, and David. It is fair
for us to assume that Samuel and some of the
other prophets had more influence on the text
than is commonly assumed, even if they are not
responsible for its final form (EXP,
3:554). Ultimately, many conservative scholars
are forced to conclude that the author of Samuel
must be considered anonymous (Dillard and
Longman, 136), with many placing it at the feet
of Israel’s court historians (ISBE,
4:314). Even though Jewish tradition ascribes
authorship to Samuel, it is notable that the
author does not identify himself in the text.
Attributing the name of Samuel to these books
comes as an attribution of honor.
There are some varied independent sources that may have been used
in the composition of Samuel that are proposed
by various conservatives. Some consider a
non-extant Book of Jashar to be such an
independent source (2 Samuel 1:18), even though
Jewish scholarship largely holds “the Book of
Uprightness” (ATS) to be the Torah. The author
of Chronicles references “the
account of the chronicles of King David” (1
Chronicles 27:24), as well as the chronicles of
Samuel, Nathan, and Gad (1 Chronicles 29:29).
Many of these potential sources probably
included first hand accounts, and the author of
Samuel demonstrates a knowledge of being an
historian himself.
Chronologically, the events of 1&2 Samuel take
place over a period of about 200 years, at the
beginning of the Eleventh Century B.C.E. to the
end of the Tenth Century B.C.E. Many
conservatives advocate that Samuel was written
at the end of David’s life, and prior to or
during the reign of Solomon (NBCR,
284),
placing it at the end of the Tenth Century B.C.E.
Some have noted that the text tends to favor the
Southern Kingdom of Judah over the Northern
Kingdom of Israel (Harrison,
709),
leading some conservatives to believe that
Samuel was written in the Ninth Century B.C.E.
after the division of Israel. Regardless of
whether Samuel was composed in the Tenth or
Ninth Century B.C.E., the audience that would
have received this text would have a document
legitimizing the reign of King David and his
dynasty (1 Samuel 16:13).
As with many Biblical texts, there are some
chronological uncertainties, and some events may
not be given in a strict sequential order (NBCR,
286).
Some events are repeated not because they are
different, but possibly because their
perspectives are different or supplementary
information is added later (Harrison, 701-708).
The Books of Chronicles often reconcile the
differences. Some perceived differences may be
on account of varied textual traditions where
the Hebrew MT is incomplete (Ibid., 708).
Liberal theologians today largely consider 1&2 Samuel to be among
the so-called Deuterononomistic Histories (DH)
of Joshua, Judges, and Kings, following the lead
of Martin Noth (ISBE, 4:317; Harrison,
697; ABD, 5:959-960; Dillard and Longman,
139-140). There are a few conservatives who
believe that Samuel reached its final form along
with these texts (NBCR, 284), possibly
before the Babylonian exile, but often use
“Deuteronomic” to describe the influence of
Deuteronomy on the text, not that it was written
after or during the exile (EXP,
3:556-557; Dillard and Longman, 136). Noth
advocated that the DH were written to call
Israel to repentance during the reforms of
Josiah in the Seventh Century B.C.E. as a single
work, recalling the “glory years” that the
people should return to. Most liberals today
continue to agree with Noth’s DH proposition,
with some moderate variance (ABD, 5:966).
Some liberals argue for literary unity of 1&2
Samuel, especially with 1&2 Kings (IDBSup,
777), and date the text immediately prior to,
during, or after the Southern Kingdom’s exile to
Babylon. Only a few liberals believe in a dating
immediately after the time of David (NIDB,
893).
Earlier liberals tried to import elements of the JEDP documentary
hypothesis (see
Genesis
FAQ entry for a summarization of the JEDP
documentary hypothesis) of the Torah into Samuel
(IDB, 4:204-208; Harrison, 697; IDBSup,
778-780), claiming that the (perceived)
contradictions in Samuel can only be solved by
understanding the sources behind the text,
probably the same sources behind the Pentateuch.
This view has largely died out in favor of
Noth’s hypothesis of DH unity (ABD,
5:959). Conservatives have frequently responded
to these views by asserting that there is unity
of language and style throughout Samuel (NIDB,
893), and that harmonization of the text can be
accomplished by a closer reading.
Liberal positions on the historicity of 1&2 Samuel vary, with some
believing that it presents an accurate
portrayal, and others believing that the text
has been grossly exaggerated to cast David in
too positive a light (IDB, 4:209).
Conservatives generally counter this by noting
that 2 Samuel reflects on the largely
dysfunctional nature of David’s family, and
presents him as a human being with real human
problems. It is notable that historically the
rise of the Davidic monarchy took place when no
major superpower overshadowed the Land of
Israel, easily allowing Israel to become a
regional force.
Both liberals and conservatives recognize that there are some
serious textual problems in the Hebrew MT of
Samuel (IDB, 4:209; EXP,
3:559-560), with some considering it to be “the
worst of the OT books,” even though “it is not
evident to the ordinary reader” (IDBSup,
777). Samuel “has suffered from extensive
textual corruption, particularly in the omission
of words or phrases” (ISBE, 4:313). A
notable one appears in 1 Samuel 13:1, where the
MT simply says “Saul
was ... years old when he became king, and he
reigned over Israel two years” (NJPS). A few
versions supply “thirty” (NASU, NIV) as a
guess as to Saul’s age.
Some passages in various English translations of
Samuel have to be supplemented with information
from parallel texts in Psalms, Chronicles, and
ancient versions such as the Greek Septuagint
(NBCR, 285),
Dead Sea Scrolls, or even information from
Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews.
Notable among these sources is the LXX, which
some consider to be “an
indispensable source for the text of Samuel” (ABD,
5:958), frequently expanding the text where the
Hebrew leaves the reader puzzled by incomplete
statements (Dillard and Longman, 143-145). Many
Christian Bibles will provide supplementary
information from the LXX when the Hebrew is
unclear, whereas Jewish versions will often just
indicate textual difficulties in margin notes.
The Septuagint version of Samuel likely reflects
an older, non-extant Hebrew text that was
considerably longer than the present MT
(Harrison, 708, 717-718).
1 Samuel largely details the establishment of Israel’s monarchy
headed by a human king, and the events that
necessitated it. The birth of Samuel (1 Samuel
chs. 1-3) foreshadows the events that are to
take place. The ark narratives (1 Samuel chs.
4-6) describe Israel’s battling with the
Philistines, and how the Ark of the Covenant is
stolen several times. Samuel as a judge of
Israel (1 Samuel 7) calls Israel to repentance,
and they experience victory over the
Philistines.
After this takes place, the narratives of 1 Samuel 8-12 describe
the establishment of the monarchy, and how there
is some tension. On the one hand, Samuel is told
by God to give the people a king (1 Samuel 8:7,
9, 22; 9:16-17), but on the other hand Israel’s
desire for a king is considered to be a
rejection of God (1 Samuel 8:7; 10:19; 12:12,
17, 19-20). Moses himself had anticipated
Israel’s desire for a human king (Deuteronomy
17:14-20), but this was not to take place at the
expense of Israel rejecting God as its Great
King.
A Benjamite named Saul is brought to Samuel and is chosen to be
Israel’s first king (1 Samuel chs. 9-10), and he
begins his reign at Gilgal (1 Samuel chs.
11-12). Challenges arise when the people of
Israel have to choose between ultimate loyalty
to this new human king or to the Lord. Saul
himself has difficulty as a king who must answer
to God (1 Samuel chs. 13-15). He refuses to
destroy the Amalekites at His command, and as a
result is rejected as Israel’s king (1 Samuel
15:23).
1 Samuel concludes with God choosing David to be Saul’s successor
(1 Samuel chs. 16-31), and the conflict that
steadily arose between Saul and David. It
culminates in the death of Saul and two of his
sons, including David’s close friend Jonathan.
2 Samuel continues the narrative of David, and focuses extensively
on his kingship. 2 Samuel chs. 1-4 detail how he
is gradually accepted as king by the tribes of
Israel. David captures the city of Jerusalem and
makes it his royal residence (2 Samuel 5:13-16),
later bringing the Ark of the Covenant to the
city (2 Samuel 6; Psalm 132:3-5). David’s rule
and influence expands from Egypt in the south to
the Euphrates River in the north (2 Samuel 8).
David is told by the Prophet Nathan that he is
not permitted to build a permanent house for the
Lord, as God is the One who would build him a
house or dynasty (2 Samuel 7). The institution
of the Davidic Covenant is a theme that we see
emphasized numerous times by the Prophets who
predict the coming of a King who will perfectly
fulfill the role that David models.
2 Samuel chs. 10-20 detail the darker aspects of David’s reign. We
see his sin of adultery with Bathsheba, the
leniency he has toward his wicked sons and with
family squabblings, and the rebellion of
Absalom. 2 Samuel 22:31-51 ends with David
praising the Lord.
The Books of 1&2 Samuel have much to teach us about God’s
involvement in politics and what good government
actually is. The dilemma that anyone faces is
how one can be loyal to both God and the state,
understanding how He is directly involved with
human rulers as He is with the rise of Saul and
David to power. These are two kings whose
personal characteristics can be easily compared
and contrasted. We can also see that although
David is a very godly man, he is also a man of
war and can easily fall prey to sin. The king’s
family serves as a model—whether good or bad—to
the nation. While 1&2 Samuel can often be viewed
as “Sunday school” material, this text has a
great deal to tell us about the human condition
that cannot be ignored. “As a rule, human
beings, not God, occupy the central stage, their
lot being determined by their conduct” (Jewish
Study Bible, 558).
The common themes seen in 1&2 Samuel are undoubtedly employed in
the Apostolic Scriptures, and form a major part
of the worldview of Yeshua and His Apostles.
Even though Samuel is not directly quoted in the
New Testament, its figures are mentioned quite
regularly. 1&2 Samuel have proven to be a rich
resource “for countless sermons, lectures, and
lessons throughout the centuries” (EXP,
3:559). Both the Jewish and Christian
theological traditions have always had a high
regard for the message of Samuel.
When interpreting 1&2 Samuel today, it is very important that we
keep in mind that this text represents a
pre-exilic perspective of Israel’s monarchy and
King David. We cannot forget the passing
influence of Deuteronomy on the message of
Samuel (EXP, 3:556; Dillard and Longman,
145), and the fact that Samuel helps lay the
groundwork for the ideas of Messianism and an
Anointed King who will save Israel (Dillard and
Longman, 146-147). The Books of Samuel are an
excellent place to see Israel asserting itself
as a regional power. The question they must
continually answer in order to be a blessed
power is whether or not they will obey God.
There is not a great deal of examination of 1&2 Samuel in today’s
Messianic movement, even though it is an
excellent place for one to see the “Torah in
action” on a national scale with the
establishment of Israel’s monarchy. Any
Messianic handling of Samuel, however, will have
to take into account varied literary factors,
the role of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls
in complimenting the Hebrew MT, as well as the
various historical criticisms against its
message. It will also ask us many questions
about loyalty not only to God and to state, but
how we can balance loyalty to our native
countries and maintain a high regard for Israel.
Perhaps most importantly, Messianic Believers
have a profound opportunity to teach on the
human condition when examining Samuel, and how
obedience to God is imperative to living a
happy, productive life.
Bibliography
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. “First Samuel,” in Jewish
Study Bible, pp 558-618.
_______________. “Second Samuel,” in Ibid., pp
619-667.
DeVries, Carl E. “Samuel, Books of,” in NIDB,
pp 893-894.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Samuel,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 135-147.
Flanagan, James. W., and Walter Brueggemann.
“Samuel, Book of 1-2,” in ABD, 5:957-973.
Grizzard, Carol. “1 Samuel,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 391-438.
____________. “2 Samuel,” in Ibid., pp 439-477.
Harrison, R.K. “The Books of Samuel,” in Old
Testament Introduction, pp 695-718.
Klein, R.W. “Samuel, Books of,” in ISBE,
4:312-320.
Payne, D.F. “1 and 2 Samuel,” in NBCR, pp
284-319.
Szikszai, S. “Samuel, I and II,” in IDB,
4:202-209.
Tsevat, M. “Samuel, I and II,” in IDBSup,
pp 777-781.
Youngblood, Ronald F. “1,2 Samuel,” in EXP,
3:553-1104.
posted 25 January, 2007
Scripture Interpretation: Can you give me some basic guidelines for interpreting Scripture?
1. Always let Scripture interpret Scripture. Many things in the
Bible can often be understood by looking at a
variety of verses. If we consider God to be the
ultimate author, then there are no (significant)
contradictions in the text, and if something
looks like it contradicts something else, it
must be reconciled in some way. In all things,
Yeshua the Messiah’s words stand as the final
revelation.
2. Make regular use of Hebrew and Greek lexicons and dictionaries.
Remember that there are limitations with English
Bible translations. This is true of both
Christian and Jewish Bibles. Always be sure to
consult the meanings of original language words,
which you will find often have a wide array of
meanings.
3. Never forget the historical context of the writing of Scripture.
Know what was going on in the world or in the
region of a Scriptural event. It is important,
for example, to understand about Ancient Egypt
to understand the Exodus. Know something about
Ancient Assyria, Babylon, and Persia to
understand the division and dispersion of the
Northern and Southern Kingdoms and Judah’s
return to the Land of Israel. Be especially
familiar with Israel at the time of Yeshua and
the divisions that existed between the Pharisees
and Sadducees. Knowing about Ancient Greece and
Rome is imperative to understand what Paul
encountered on his missionary journeys and the
letters he wrote to specific congregations.
4. Take into account various idioms or expressions, especially in
the Gospel accounts. In many cases,
misinterpretations of Scripture have occurred
because people have failed to understand a
specific expression or saying that has been
translated literally into English, and because a
knowledge of the times has not been emphasized,
people have often misinterpreted it. A modern
day example would be like saying “Bob Smith is a
cool guy” and in Spanish saying that “Bob Smith
es un hombre frío,” and Spanish-speakers
assuming that his body has a temperature control
problem, not that he is a good person. The same
can often be said of various expressions in the
Gospels. We must know the history behind them.
updated 30 December, 2006
Seat of Moses: I have heard a teaching regarding Matthew 23 and the “seat of
Moses.” The teacher said that we do not have to
concern ourselves with any of the teachings or
beliefs of the Pharisees. What do you believe?
Matthew 23:2-3 has Yeshua the Messiah telling us “The
scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves
in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they
tell you, do and observe, but do not do
according to their deeds; for they say things
and do not do them.” This English
translation, rendered from a Greek source text,
essentially tells us that we are to follow the
instructions of the Pharisees, “But do not
according to their works” (LITV), as His
following comments in the chapter are a rebuke
of the Pharisaical leaders for their hypocrisy.
This would seem to suggest that theologically
and practionally speaking we are to take our
lead from the Pharisees, but obviously be very
careful regarding their example. The need to
ultimately test everything against the Word of
God remains certain.
The claim that we are not to concern ourselves
with the teachings of the Pharisees at all is
often based from what some Messianic teachers
believe the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
is actually telling us. The Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew is a Fourteenth Century anti-missionary
document, which the majority of conservative
Biblical textual critics believe to be a Hebrew
translation of a Greek source text. (They do not
recognize this text as being primary to the
Greek, and the text is not considered legitimate
by United Bible Societies or the American Bible
Society.)
George Howard’s English translation of Matthew
23:2-3 does not say anything different from most
translations from the Greek: “Upon the seat of
Moses the Pharisees and the sages sit. Now all
which (they) say to you keep and do; but
(according to) their ordinances and deeds do not
do because they say and do not” (HGM). This
again would seem to suggest that we are not to
follow the hypocritical works of the Pharisees,
but we are still to follow their theological
lead.
A few have decided to render the Hebrew from
this source text differently as “On Moshe’s seat
sit the scribes and the P’rushim. And all that
he says to you observe and do. But do not you
according to their works, for they say, but do
not” (HRV), from a minority reading of the
anti-missionary text. The implication by this
rendering (and it can be debated from the Hebrew
whether or not it is a correct rendering) is
that we are only to follow Moses, and are to
totally ignore any of the teachings or
theologies of the Pharisees. But this does not
fit with what we see in the Apostolic Scriptures
and current research being done in the field of
Jewish New Testament studies. We see all of the
original Disciples and Apostles of Messiah
Yeshua, notably the Apostle Paul, as still
belonging to the theological party of the
Pharisees:
“But perceiving that one group were Sadducees
and the other Pharisees, Paul began
crying out in the Council, ‘Brethren, I am a
Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for
the hope and resurrection of the dead!’” (Acts
23:6).
“[S]ince they have known about me for a long
time, if they are willing to testify, that I
lived as a Pharisee according to the
strictest sect of our religion” (Acts 26:5).
The Encyclopaedia Judaica, under its entry for “Pharisees,”
plainly attests that “Pharisaic
doctrines have more in common with those of
Christianity than is supposed, having prepared
the ground for Christianity with such concepts
as Messianism, the popularization of monotheism
and apocalypticism, and with such beliefs as
life after death, resurrection of the dead,
immortality, and angels” (Menhahem Mansoor,
“Pharisees”).
The idea that we are not to follow any teaching
of the Pharisees is consistent with the claim
among some Messianics that we are to totally
dispense with any of the “Oral Torah” or “Oral
Law,” even for background information in our
study of the Scriptures. These Messianics fail
to recognize the reality that while the Oral
Torah is something that is not superior to
actual Scripture, there is much good it in that
is edifying to Believers, that was in fact
practiced by Yeshua the Messiah Himself. The
fact that Yeshua did, in fact, keep much of the
Oral Torah along with the Written Torah, is
recognized by many Jewish and Christian
scholars, and needs to be recognized in our
continual examination of the Gospels and
remainder of the Apostolic Writings. While there
is no absolute requirement for us as Messianic
Believers to follow the Oral Torah, to dispense
with it entirely would be ill-advised—as the
customs and traditions of normative Judaism,
which give the application of the Torah’s
commandments much meaning—are largely derived
from it. We have to always ask ourselves the questions of not only how the
Jewish Apostles and their communities would have
lived in ancient times, but how they would live
today. Of course, this involves many value
judgments that have to be made.
While Yeshua did have problems with many of the
Pharisees’ attitudes toward the Torah, and
notably their attitudes toward Himself, Yeshua’s
theology and teachings and those of His early
followers were nonetheless Pharisaical. We
believe that the correct understanding of
Matthew 23:2-3 is that we should follow the
theological lead of the Pharisees, except where
they clearly contradict Scripture and/or the
words of Yeshua. Because the Pharisees of the
First Century were human men, many of them were
hypocrites in their following of the Torah at
the expense of its ethics and morality, which is
what the Messiah’s words in Matthew 23 address.
We believe we are to follow their theological
lead, as opposed to the Sadducees or any other
group, and that we cannot afford to
over-simplify things.
For a further discussion of this issue, consult
the editor’s article “You
Want to Be a Pharisee.”
updated 08 February, 2006
Sensationalism, Messianic:
It seems to me as though many Messianic Bible
teachers rely on sensationalism. Can you explain
why this might be the case?
In all candor, we cannot be responsible for
other Messianic Bible teachers. Simply because
one might call himself or herself “Messianic,”
does not automatically mean that all Messianic
Bible teachers are in agreement on various
doctrinal issues, or for that same matter have
the same kind of attitude or teaching style.
It is very true that there is sensationalism
employed by various teachers in the Messianic
community today. Such teachers often rely on
“one-liners” or incomplete statements that are
designed to manipulate a crowd, as opposed to
delving into the Scriptures in a fair-minded and
scholarly way. Sadly, there are those whose
ministries are focused more on what “sounds
good,” than on what helps people grow
spiritually. These ministries focus too much on
the ills of mainstream Christianity and use
insulting and degrading techniques to get their
points across, rather than being constructive
and spiritually edifying with a firm Biblical
foundation.
TNN Online abhors sensationalism and the
techniques employed by a few. The message of
Torah observance and one being a part of the
Commonwealth of Israel is controversial enough,
and fuel does not need to be added to an already
hot fire. We purposefully choose to distance
ourselves from sensationalistic methods, and
instead rely on the Scriptures for our answers
and let appropriate Biblical scholarship
persuade others of our positions. Insulting
people or trying to come across as so-called
“prophets” or “men of insight” is not something
we believe is appropriate for the growth and
development of the Messianic community.
updated 30 December, 2006
Septuagint (LXX): Why do you consult the Septuagint frequently?
The Septuagint (LXX) is the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible, dating at least two centuries before the
First Coming of Yeshua. It was originally
compiled for the Jewish community in Alexandria,
and quickly became the authorized Scriptures of
Diaspora Judaism. The Septuagint largely
represents a Pharisaic style of theology,
halachah, and messianic expectation, and
clarifies many things in the Tanach where the
Hebrew may be imprecise or vague. As should be
expected, there are some distinct theological
interjections into the text, as it is not a
“word-for-word” translation of the Hebrew. The
LXX would read more like today’s New
International Version, when compared to the more
literal New American Standard. The LXX gives us
an excellent “bridge” of vocabulary words
between the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, enables
us to see how Jews translated the Tanach Hebrew
into Greek, and allows us to see how they used
the Greek language.
In the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament), there has been
misunderstanding among some Christians when it
comes to words that are often only examined in
the context of the Greek New Testament, and
perhaps even classical Greek philosophy. The
Septuagint, as it is known toady, was
well-circulated throughout the Mediterranean,
and was the canonical Scripture of the
Greek-Speaking Jewish synagogues of the
Diaspora. The majority of quotations or
allusions in the New Testament from the Old
Testament come from the Septuagint. The author
of Hebrews, for example, makes all of his unique
arguments about Yeshua from the distinct
renderings we see in the LXX. Keeping this in
mind, we gain valuable insight in understanding
the Greek vocabulary that is used in the New
Testament, as the same would have been used in
the Septuagint. Seeing these Greek words in the
Septuagint, we can often see Hebraic concepts
behind them via the Tanach, thus gaining a
fuller theological picture of what a Biblical
author may be trying to communicate.
The Apostles’ usage of the Septuagint in the Gospels and Epistles
is a strong indication that they gave it a great
deal of authority—otherwise they would not have
used it. Unfortunately, much of today’s emerging
Messianic movement does not consider the
historical importance of the Septuagint, and the
LXX gets frequently put aside in our exegesis.
This will have to change in the coming years if
we intend to have a better and more complete
picture of the First Century world in which the
Apostles lived. While our exegesis of the Tanach
should come first from the Hebrew text, we
should certainly give the Greek Septuagint
strong consideration as it is its oldest textual
witness, and was validated by the Apostles.
For a further examination on the importance of the Septuagint,
consult the book The Use of the Septuagint in
New Testament Research by R. Timothy McLay
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
updated 17 August, 2006
Sitz im Leben:
I have seen you use the term Sitz im Leben
in some articles and books. What does this term
mean?
Sitz im Leben
is a German term that in theological studies is
used in reference for “Situation in Life.” What
it refers to, more than anything else, is the
historical and cultural time and place of
Biblical and modern events. In Scriptural
studies, each one of us has to consider the
“Situation in Life” of the events that are
occurring. We cannot simply read the Bible as
though it was written yesterday directly to us.
While the Scriptures were written for us, they
were written over a 1,300-1,500-year period from
after the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt to the
exile of John on the island of Patmos. Divorcing
the Scriptures from their original historical
setting is very dangerous, and can lead to many
inaccurate interpretations. A good Bible student
always tries to interpret what the Word meant
for its original audience first—before
then asking what a text means for us living
today in the Twenty-First Century. In Messianic
Bible studies, where we are trying to return to
the First Century theology and practices of
Yeshua and the Apostles, the importance of
Sitz im Leben cannot be overstated.
posted 26 February, 2006
Smoking, Tobacco: Does the Bible say anything about smoking tobacco?
As it relates to the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy
14, many Christian pastors declare from the
pulpit that God has made all animals acceptable
for eating, while at the same time strongly
condemning the consumption of alcoholic
beverages and smoking tobacco. We believe that
this is a double standard used to judge others
because there is more spoken of in the
Scriptures about food and eating then about
drinking or smoking. Alfred J. Kolatch astutely
observes in his Jewish Book of Why, “The
smoking of tobacco is not mentioned in the
Bible” (p 295).
We do not encourage people to regularly smoke tobacco, as there are
health risks associated with it. However, there
is no specific reference to smoking tobacco at
all in the Scriptures, so technically the Word
of God does not directly condemn it as “sin.”
Smoking is not a healthy habit.
updated 30 December, 2006
Software, Bible: Is there any Bible software that you can recommend that I use for
my studies?
There are some excellent software programs on the market, each of
which includes a good balance of Bible versions,
original language texts, Hebrew and Greek
lexicons, Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias,
and commentaries. Depending on how much money
you want to spend, “the sky’s the limit,” so to
speak.
By far, the best software program available on the market for MS
Windows users is BibleWorks (www.bibleworks.com).
This application is used by most seminaries and
includes a wide array of English translations
and original language texts, and includes the
ability to search the original language texts.
Logos (www.logos.com)
and QuickVerse (www.quickverse.com)
both offer users with a wide array of packages
ranging from tools for the standard user to the
Biblical scholar. They range in price with the
amount of resources you purchase from them.
An excellent free software program that many people have started
using is E-Sword (www.e-sword.net)
which has a variety of translations, lexicons,
dictionaries, and commentaries. One downside to
using E-Sword is that you must install it module
by module, as opposed to all at once.
updated 30 December, 2006
Song of Songs:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Song of Songs?
The correct Hebrew title of this book of the Tanach is Shir
HaShirim (~yryVh
ryv)
or Song of Songs. While many are agreed that
Solomon is somehow related to this “song,” Song
of Songs is the more correct title. Songs of
Songs is placed among the Megillot in
Jewish tradition, commonly being read during
seasons such as Passover or Sukkot. In
Roman Catholic tradition, this book is commonly
referred to as Canticles, derived from the Latin
Vulgate’s rendering of Shir HaShirim as
Canticum Canticorum.
Song of Songs 1:1 ascribes authorship to Solomon by name, and he is
referred to frequently throughout the text (1:1,
5; 3:7, 9, 11; 8:11-12), with other verses
making reference to “the king” (1:4, 12; 7:5).
Whether Solomon was the actual author or
composer of Song of Songs has been debated, as
some Jewish tradition ascribes authorship to the
men of Hezekiah (b.Bava Batra 15a). In
favor of Solomonic involvement are references to
places throughout the text that were a part of
Solomon’s kingdom (Harrison, 1049).
Conservatives generally accept Solomonic
authorship or some kind of Solomonic
involvement, as Solomon is attested as having
been responsible for 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32).
Liberals tend to date Song of Songs to the Persian period, and
widely consider it to be a post-exilic work,
possibly composed as late as 250 B.C.E. They
often assert that Song of Songs is a selection
of poems joined together (New Interpreter’s
Study Bible, 943), and any kind of perceived
unity in the text is likely the result of
considerable redaction. This is often done so
because of the usage of Persian words in Song of
Songs, as well as a single Greek term (IDB,
4:421; ISBE, 1:608; NIDB, 956;
EXP, 5:1209) in its Hebrew text, causing
liberals to conclude that the book must be from
a later period. Conservatives usually respond to
this by saying that Solomon had interactions
with other cultures (1:9; cf. 1 Kings 4:33),
with a few suggesting that the foreign loan
words are from much earlier and are actually
Sanskrit (Harrison, 1050; ISBE, 1:608).
Dating Song of Songs to the Tenth Century contemporary to the reign
of Solomon is not impossible. The distinct
references to Tirzah and Jerusalem places the
text, or at least a proto-text, some time before
King Omri (1 Kings 16:23-24). It is notable that
not all conservatives are convinced of a Tenth
Century composition for Song of Songs because of
the amount of loan words used in the book. Some
conservatives advocate that the text reached its
final form during the Hellenistic era (Harrison,
1052; ISBE, 1:608). Ultimately, however,
no one can know with certainty the date for Song
of Songs, similar to how no one can know the
exact date for all of the Psalms (ABD,
6:150).
No significant controversy has ever surrounded Song of Songs’
canonical status (ABD, 6:150), as it has
been widely valued in Jewish tradition (m.Yadayaim
3:5). In fact, fragments of Song of Songs were
discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (EDB,
1243), indicating that the Qumran community had
some kind of regard for it.
Interpreting Song of Songs properly has been an interesting
phenomenon in theology over the centuries.
Today, scholars expel a great deal of time
comparing Song of Songs to other forms of
Biblical composition, notably the Wisdom books
and apocalyptic genres. Likewise, Proverbs is
frequently examined to gain insight for Song of
Songs’ more difficult sayings. Other literature
that is often consulted includes Egyptian and
Babylonian love songs (IDBSup, 837;
ABD, 6:151; New Interpreter’s Study Bible,
943). The contemporary debate surrounding Song
of Songs primarily concerns its original
literary type and function.
Historically, both the Jewish and Christian traditions have
allegorized the Song of Songs (IDB;
4:422-423; ISBE, 1:606; NIDB, 956;
EXP, 5:1202-1203). “There is
extraordinary agreement between both Jewish and
Christian tradition on this point” (ABD,
6:154). Some have suggested that this tendency
came as the direct result of Hellenistic
influence on both the Synagogue and the Church,
with views of the body being sinful (Dillard and
Longman, 261). Any reference to lovers cannot be
the original intent of Song of Songs, so instead
the Synagogue widely considered it to be a love
story between God and Israel (cf. b.Avodah
Zara 29a). The Targum on Song of Songs
follows suit, interpreting the text
allegorically, with it generally being followed
as such in various celebratory fashions. Song of
Songs was used by the Zionist movement, for
example, to consider the Paradise of Zion (Jewish
Study Bible, 1566). Christian tradition has
followed suit and has widely interpreted Song of
Songs as representing a love story between
Christ and the Church (NBCR, 579; ISBE,
1:606).
It is speculated that this view of Song of Songs was introduced
after the book was accepted in the Biblical
canon. More likely Song of Songs played a more
prominent role in Ancient Israel’s culture (Jewish
Study Bible, 1565) and had less spiritual
ideas in mind than were attributed later.
More modern interpretations of Song of Songs lean toward the book
being some kind of love story involving Solomon
and one of his wives, or more literally the
maiden for her shepherd lover resisting the
appeal of Solomon (NBCR, 579). Some are
undecided as to what the involvement of Solomon
or the woman actually is, believing that we
should not force some kind of “story” onto the
text and simply view it as love poetry (IDB,
4:420; Jewish Study Bible, 1564).
Theologically speaking, Song of Songs hardly affects any major
Biblical doctrines—but it does profoundly affect
how one looks at human sexuality. A great deal
of teachers today, both Jewish and Christian,
wishing to rejuvenate a healthy view of sex from
the Bible, give significant attention to Song of
Songs. A consensus of interpreters agree “that
the Song of Songs has to do with human love in
the literal historical sense” (IDBSup,
837). They point out that the Ancient Hebrews
demonstrated a high degree of sexual morality
compared to their neighbors (IDB, 4:425).
God certainly wants to restore a healthy and
meaningful sex life to all His people, where one
can explore the joys that He intends a
heterosexual couple to have (EXP,
5:1207-1208). The text of Song of Songs is
somewhat provocative from this vantage point, as
it is erotic with its references to various
anatomical parts (4:1-7; 5:10-16; 6:4-10;
7:1-9). Song of Songs asks couples today many
questions that those of previous
eras—particularly the Victorian Era—did not want
to answer. Young people preparing to marry are
now often encouraged to closely consider Song of
Songs.
Your average Messianic teacher often does not examine Song of
Songs. Those who have taken the time to do so
will often avoid the references to sexuality and
focus on more traditional allegorical
interpretations. It is difficult for many in our
ranks to break out of the Nineteenth Century
Victorianism (ECB, 474), often because
issues like sexuality are not able to be easily
discussed. Song of Songs should certainly be a
text examined in more detail for Messianic
Believers who want a sound handle on sexuality,
and what is acceptable for married persons
having intercourse. But even if read
figuratively, Song of Songs should cause us to
have more intimacy with God.
Bibliography
Balchin, J.A. “The Song of Solomon,” in NBCR,
pp 579-587.
DeVries, Carl E. “Song of Songs, Song of
Solomon,” in NIDB, pp 956-957.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Song of Songs,” in An Introduction to the
Old Testament, pp 257-265.
Gottwald, N.K. “Song of Songs,” in IDB,
4:420-426.
Harrison, R.K. “Canticles or the Song of
Solomon,” in Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 1049-1058.
Kinlaw, Dennis F. “Song of Songs,” in EXP,
5:1201-1244.
Knutson, F.B. “Canticles,” in ISBE,
1:606-609.
Landy, Frances. “Song of Solomon,” in EDB,
pp 1242-1243.
Murphy, Roland E. “Song of Songs,” in IDBSup,
pp 836-838.
________________. “Song of Songs, Book of,” in
ABD, 6:150-155.
________________. “The Song of Solomon,” in
New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 943-953.
Rogerson, John W. “Song of Songs,” in ECB,
pp 474-481.
Stern, Elsie. “The Song of Songs,” in Jewish
Study Bible, pp 1564-1577.
posted 17 May, 2007
Strong’s
Concordance:
Why do you seem to discourage Believers from
using Strong’s Concordance?
We discourage Believers from using Strong’s Concordance because
Strong’s Concordance is an incomplete resource.
First of all, the Strong’s Concordance Hebrew
and Greek dictionary is an abbreviated
dictionary, and does not include detailed usages
of words in various Biblical contexts. Secondly,
its English concordance is limited to the King
James Version of the Bible (or other versions
depending on the edition), and can be easily
replaced by employing Bible software that will
do extensive text searches in any version.
Thirdly, for a Messianic movement that
desperately needs to improve its scholastic
abilities, it must be emphasized that Strong’s
Concordance is not used in academic circles.
Strong’s Concordance was compiled to be a lay
resource, for those with little or no knowledge
of Biblical languages or how to search the
Scriptures. It was put together to give the
layperson a “taste” of these things, but by no
means be the “final” source.
One of the extreme problems that exist among Bible students who are
“stuck” using Strong’s Concordance is thinking
that it is the “end-all” place for answers. It
is not. Simply looking up the definition of a
Hebrew or Greek word in Strong’s Concordance
will often not help with one’s theology or
understanding of a Biblical text. The definition
of Hebrew verbs, for example, is affected by
what verb stem is being used. The only way to
identify the proper verb stem is to know Hebrew,
and either have the verb stems memorized, or be
able to use an analytical lexicon or parsing
tool to know what it is. Likewise, the proper
translation of Greek verbs is often affected by
the mood, aspect, and time of the verb, and
these can only be identified by knowing Greek,
and either having them memorized, or employing
an analytical lexicon or parsing tool.
Furthermore, Strong’s Concordance will not tell
you the basic details of either Hebrew or Greek
grammar, which affects our theology every bit as
much as the definitions of a word. Being able to
make a theological point from Hebrew or Greek
grammar requires one to have a working knowledge
of these two languages, and this is not a skill
possessed by most Messianic Bible teachers.
In addition to this, our theology is also substantially affected by
the history and culture in the times in which a
Scripture text was composed. Strong’s
Concordance does not go into the details of
describing how Hebrew or Greek words were used
in their ancient setting, notably how they may
have been used in extra-Biblical contexts.
What we encourage Believers to do is to go beyond the incomplete
resource that Strong’s Concordance is, and take
advantage of many of the inexpensive, and more
user-friendly tools that are on the market.
There are some excellent, more thorough
resources available for the layperson that will
help immensely, and answer many questions that
Strong’s Concordance is simply incapable of
answering. Two resources that we highly
recommend, for those of you who are unfamiliar
with either Hebrew or Greek, are the Complete
Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament and
Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament,
both produced by AMG Publishers.
For a further examination of this subject, consult the editor’s
article “Getting
Beyond Strong’s Concordance.”
posted 29 January, 2006
Sukkot:
How do I celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles? My
Messianic fellowship is going away to a large
gathering of thousands of people and I cannot
get off work.
One of the instructions regarding Sukkot or the Feast of
Tabernacles is, “Seven
days you shall celebrate a feast to the
Lord
your God in the place which the
Lord
chooses” (Deuteronomy 16:15a). Few would
disagree that this place or maqom (~Aqm)
is Jerusalem. (It is not some rural campground
in North America or elsewhere.) The Feast of
Tabernacles is a holiday where it was originally
commanded, “Three times in a year all your males
shall appear before the
Lord
your God in the place which He chooses”
(Deuteronomy 16:16a), as Sukkot was
originally one of the three pilgrimage festivals
along with Passover and Shavuot.
The purpose of commemorating the Feast of
Tabernacles was so that the Israelites could
remember the journeys of their ancestors in the
wilderness—delivered by God from Egypt.
Leviticus 23:43 specifies that it was codified,
“so that your generations may know that I had
the sons of Israel live in booths when I brought
them out from the land of Egypt.” But far be it
from the Feast of Tabernacles being some kind of
rural festival; being brought to Jerusalem to
celebrate Sukkot makes it a very
cosmopolitan festival. It is a picture of the
ultimate tabernacling or dwelling in eternity
between God and the redeemed, specified in
Revelation 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God
is among men, and He will dwell among them, and
they shall be His people, and God Himself will
be among them.” This will occur in the city of
New Jerusalem. The cosmopolitan aspect of
Sukkot is emphasized in the mainline Jewish
observance and traditions of the festival.
While many observant Jews, and even Messianics,
make the effort to go to Jerusalem during the
festival of Sukkot, most are not able to
do so because of economic constraints. Instead,
the local synagogue and one’s home become the
focal points of one’s remembrance. Jewish
synagogues often erect some kind of sukkah
(hKs)
on the congregation’s property, often with an
event or series of events throughout the week
where the synagogue members can fellowship and
commemorate. Congregational members will
likewise be encouraged to erect a three-sided
sukkah in their backyards, or if they have
an apartment, on their outer patio or terrace.
The sukkah will be a place where many
people eat their meals, and even where a few
people will sleep. For the most part, Messianic
Jewish observance of Sukkot is not that
unlike the Synagogue, with the congregation and
one’s home being the main places of remembrance.
Since the mid-to-late 1990s, though, it has
become quite en vogue—at least in some sectors
of the independent Messianic community—to
celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles at a rural
campground, often with thousands of other
people. Families will often put aside money and
actually spend the week of Sukkot as
their yearly vacation. At these various
Sukkot functions, there will often be a
variety of teachings and Messianic workshops on
Torah observance, Messianic lifestyle issues, a
marketplace for sales, etc. People with minutely
small congregations and fellowships find these
functions as the only time that they can really
interact with Messianics on any kind of large
scale. Being present in the company of hundreds
of other Messianics for a week of Sukkot
commemoration and teaching is perceived to be
the yearly highlight of their Messianic faith
experience.
This latter style of observing the Feast of
Tabernacles, while perhaps fulfilling a need for
some people, has actually developed a few issues
that congregational leaders and teachers need to
be aware of for their local ministry. Many
congregational leaders who have larger
fellowships may witness a small “exodus” of
various families and people to these large
Sukkot gatherings—away from the focus of
their local congregational body and plans.
Likewise, the sheer size of many of these large
Sukkot gatherings at rural campgrounds,
means that properly monitoring things becomes
impossible, and there can inevitably be some
kind of an incident among the attendees. As a
ministry who has monitored this over the past
decade, we do know of several large Feast of
Tabernacles gatherings where the testimony to
the local Christian community is not that people
are being changed by the Lord and receiving a
greater portion of His Holy Spirit. Attendees
often return to their home congregations from
these functions having heard various
sensationalistic teachings (usually about
end-time predictions), complicating what the
local leader must teach on with a new Torah
cycle preparing to begin.
The Feast of Tabernacles is a wonderful time for
us to consider our Heavenly Father’s desire to
commune with us in a very real way. None of us
should forget the Apostle John’s teaching about
Yeshua’s Incarnation: “the Word became flesh,
and did tabernacle among us” (John 1:14a, YLT).
As a ministry, we encourage Sukkot to be
a time of both family and congregational
bonding. It is a time where Messianic
fellowships can minister to the local community
by having a sukkah on their
congregational property, and where families can
have a sukkah in their backyards. Just as
the Lord invites us to dwell with Him, so can we
invite our friends, neighbors, and colleagues to
dwell with us during the week. Sukkot is a time when we remember the rural
conditions of the Ancient Israelites in a very
cosmopolitan way.
posted 13 October, 2008 |
