|
6,000 Year
Teaching:
Do you believe that we are rapidly approaching
the Biblical year 6,000?
In the past ten to twelve years
in the Messianic movement (1996-2008), there has
been a great number of predictions released
relating to the so-called “Biblical year 6,000.”
All of these predictions relate to the Second
Coming of Yeshua, and as of today almost all of
them have failed to one degree or another.
While the Bible itself is completely mute about
a year 6,000—and instead focuses on various
spiritual and/or sociological phenomena as being
the clues to consider regarding the Second
Coming—this still does not stop people from
running numbers and releasing new and revised
time charts.
It is undeniable to anyone who
examines Jewish history that the 6,000 year
teaching is a teaching of many of the ancient
Sages (b.Sanhedrin 97a-97b). The premise
for the 6,000 year teaching comes from the
seven-day week, and that man has been allotted
six 1,000-year periods since Creation, with the
seventh 1,000-year period picturing the Sabbath
and/or the Millennial reign of the Messiah. But
is the 6,000 year teaching an implicit teaching
of Scripture, or is it too “packaged” or even
artificial? How do some of the passages used to
support the 6,000 year doctrine stand under some
scrutiny?
Psalm 90:4 proclaims, “For a
thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday
when it passes by, or as a watch in the
night.” The Psalmist could be declaring
something about Biblical chronology, but it
seems much more likely that he is speaking of
God’s timelessness. A thousand Earthly years do
not seem that long at all to the Almighty,
Eternal One. The Apostle Peter builds on this
sentiment when he writes, “But do not let this
one fact escape your notice, beloved,
that with the Lord one day is like a thousand
years, and a thousand years like one day” (2
Peter 3:8). Is Peter talking about a date
calendar on which the Lord operates, or might he
also be speaking of His timelessness? Certainly
while Peter has the judgment of God in mind (2
Peter 3:10-14), too many overlook these critical
words:
“The Lord is not slow about His
promise, as some count slowness, but is patient
toward you, not wishing for any to perish but
for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).
Our Heavenly Father is very
patient when it comes to judging the human race.
While He is absolutely faithful, “not slow about
His promise,” He still desires all to come to
repentance. It is perfectly valid for one to ask
whether or not Peter would allow God to be held
to a 6,000 year time calendar, when his own view
is that God is going to be patient for as many
as possible to be allowed an opportunity to be
saved.
Hosea 6:2 is also commonly
offered as support for the 6,000 year teaching,
as the Prophet says, “He will revive us after
two days; He will raise us up on the third day,
that we may live before Him.” Using the one
day=1,000 years presupposition, many assume that
this refers to the past 2,000 years since the
First Coming of Yeshua and that we stand on the
brink of the “third day,” i.e., the Millennium.
But we do have to ask ourselves whether or not
this view is consistent to the larger scope of
Hosea’s prophecies, which specifically concern
the redemption and salvation of Israel:
“Come, let us return to the
Lord. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has
wounded us, but He will bandage us. He
will revive us after two days; He will raise us
up on the third day, that we may live before
Him. So let us know, let us press on to know the
Lord.
His going forth is as certain as the dawn; and
He will come to us like the rain, like the
spring rain watering the earth” (Hosea 6:1-3).
The answer of “He will revive us
after two days; He will raise us up on the third
day, that we may live before Him” is given
regarding how Ephraim and Judah (Hosea 6:4) are
to be restored before the Lord. Hosea is clear
to say, “like Adam they have transgressed the
covenant; there they have dealt treacherously
against Me” (Hosea 6:7), indicating that Israel
stands before God as a representative of all
humanity. The issue in Hosea 6 is not the Second
Coming and some long term future end-time
scenario, it is rather how Israel can be
restored to faithful covenant status before God
no different than how Adam and Eve ate the
forbidden fruit, whose descendants (all mankind)
also must be restored.
The answer to Israel’s
deliverance is found in two days, and a third
day. Many historical interpreters have never
associated Hosea 6:2 with some end of the world
timetable, but instead upon the need for Israel
to be identified with the Messiah in His
death, burial, and resurrection. This would be
akin to the Apostle Paul’s words, “do you not
know that all of us who have been baptized into
Messiah Yeshua have been baptized into His
death?” (Romans 6:3). The answer for the
salvation of Israel is to be found in the
Messiah’s resurrection and atonement for not
only Israel’s sin, but sin going all the way
back to Adam!
The common passages used in
support of the 6,000 year doctrine can be
demonstrated to have alternative meanings that
do not at all require Yeshua the Messiah to
return on, or even around, the so-called
“Biblical year 6,000.” But there are other
things that need to be considered regarding a
6,000 year chronology for human history.
Many point to the genealogical
charts of Genesis chs. 5 and 11, add up the
lifespan numbers of the people listed, and
believe that human history extends for
approximately 6,000 years. But the Biblical text
itself does not add up any of the numbers, and
the actual numbers for the ages of these people
differs substantially among the witnesses of the
Hebrew Masoretic Text, Greek Septuagint, and
Samaritan Pentateuch. Furthermore, if Genesis
chs. 5 and 11 are two telescoped genealogies as
is consistent with Ancient Near Eastern forms of
reckoning, how many actual people are missing
from the lists? If parts of these lists go from
great-great-great grandfather to
great-great-great grandson, human history can be
considerably longer than 6,000 years. (Consult
the FAQ entry “Genesis
5, 11 Genealogies.”)
The validity, or non-validity, of
the 6,000 year teaching is also a very difficult
subject to consider in today’s Messianic
community, particularly as it relates to
different forms of Creationist cosmology. Are we
dealing with 6,000 years of just human history,
or a 6,000 year old universe? While the
significant majority of Messianics today are
advocates of Young Earth Creationism which
posits a six 24-hour day Creation cycle, a
growing minority of Old Earth Creationists is
beginning to assert itself in the Messianic
movement (including the editor). These people
strongly repudiate the Darwinian theory of
evolution, but do acknowledge the antiquity of
the universe as created in six yamim (~ymy)
or “days” equaling long periods of time. Such
views have the capacity to change much of
today’s Messianic thought regarding the validity
of the date setting for Yeshua’s return, which
we currently witness en masse. (Consult the FAQ
entry “Creationism.”)
Almost all of the people in
today’s Messianic movement are pre-millennialists,
believing that Yeshua the Messiah will return
before His Millennial reign on Earth. No one
argues that the reign of Yeshua on Earth during
this time will be at least 1,000 years (cf.
Revelation 20:2ff). Yet, there is much that is
not given to us regarding this time, and the
Lord Himself will be present among us to answer
many of our presently unanswered questions about
it. For the present, let us not find ourselves
slacking off in His Kingdom’s work now
looking for an elusive “Year 6,000,” which may
not come because it has already passed.
Let us, rather, be earnestly considering our
mission and calling as His people, and how we
are to change the lives of men and women who
need to enter into His Kingdom—by experiencing
His salvation!
Regarding future developments of
the 6,000 year teaching, too many Messianics
have used the so-called “Year 6,000” coming as
an excuse not to plan or prepare for the future,
and this has not helped the long term grown or
viability of this movement. As a movement, we
are behind where we need to be spiritually and
theologically. (Consult the editor’s article “Where
Should the Messianic Movement be in 2107?”)
Due to the scores of failed end-time predictions
associated with a 6,000 year chronology and date
setting, it is entirely valid to re-examine, if
not severely question, whether the 6,000 year
teaching really does have Biblical support. In
the future, while more predictions are likely to
be formulated, there will also be Messianics who
abandon the 6,000 year teaching altogether.
posted 15 April, 2008
Abomination
of Desolation:
What do you believe the Abomination of
Desolation will be? Do you believe the Temple
will be rebuilt?
Yeshua indicates in His Olivet
Discourse, in Matthew 24:15, that the
Abomination of Desolation is the key sign that
will occur indicating that His return is near.
We believe that the Abomination of Desolation is
when the antimessiah/antichrist “will put a stop
to sacrifice and grain offering” (Daniel 9:27)
on the Temple Mount, will proclaim himself to be
a god (2 Thessalonians 2:4), and the false
prophet will erect an image of him (Revelation
13:14). The antimessiah will demand worship, and
those in the city of Jerusalem at this time are
commanded by Him to flee (Matthew 24:16-20).
Some in the Messianic community
believe that the Temple does not have to be
rebuilt in order for these prophecies to take
place, and only an “altar” will be erected. They
view the Temple as only being the “holy place”
of the Temple Mount. This, however, is not what
the Apostle Paul says, as specific vocabulary is
employed in his letter to the Thessalonicans. In
the Hebrew Scriptures, the Temple of God is
usually called the beit
Adonai
(hwhy-tyB),
literally “House of the
Lord,”
and the Tabernacle is called the mishkan
Adonai
(hwhy
!Kvm).
The Greek LXX renders mishkan as skēnē
(skhnh),
“tabernacle” or “dwelling,” and beit as
either oikos (oikoß),
meaning “house,” or as naos (naoß),
“temple.” Paul says that the antimessiah “will
oppose and will exalt himself over everything
that is called God or is worshiped, so that he
sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming
himself to be God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Paul
says that this takes place in ton naon
[accusative masculine singular] tou Theou
(ton
naon tou qeou),
or the Temple.
Given the differences between
skēnē,
oikos, and naos, Paul chose
naos meaning “Temple.” It is thus a
prerequisite that in order for the Abomination
of Desolation to occur the Temple should be
rebuilt in Jerusalem. In many cases, those
claiming that the Temple does not have to be
rebuilt are making hastily drawn conclusions
about prophecy, and are trying to force current
events to fit the Biblical text, rather than let
events play out naturally.
updated 06 April, 2006
Acts, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Acts?
The Acts of the Apostles, the
Greek title of which is Praxeis (PRAXEIS)
or “Actions,” is the second book in a set
written to Theophilus (1:1). Traditional
authorship is given to Luke the evangelist, also
author of the Gospel of Luke. Conservative
theologians generally hold to Acts being written
several years after the Gospel of Luke, and as
Luke’s Gospel takes us from Yeshua’s birth to
His crucifixion in Jerusalem and subsequent
resurrection, Acts takes us from Jerusalem to
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to Paul’s
trial in Rome. The events in the Book of Acts
span almost thirty years from Yeshua’s ascension
into Heaven to Paul’s trial, from approximately
30-60 C.E. (ISBE, 1:43). Consequently,
any dating for Acts must begin at least at 60,
ranging perhaps to the early 80s.
The early Christian Church
recognized Lukan authorship of Acts. Eusebius
writes in his Ecclesiastical History in
the Fourth Century, “That Paul preached to the
Gentiles and established churches from Jerusalem
and as far as Illycrium is evident both from his
own expressions and from the testimony of Luke
in the Book of Acts” (3.4.1). We know that Luke
was a traveling companion of Paul, thus any
reference to “we” in the text referring to
Paul’s company would by necessity include Luke
(16:10-17; 20:5-21:19; 27:1-28:16). Like his
Gospel, Luke was immediately directing his
account to Theophilus, likely a Roman official
or his patron. As Acts ends with Paul in Rome,
it may be safely assumed that Luke wrote Acts
from Rome, and from Rome it was disseminated
throughout the congregations of Believers in the
Eastern Mediterranean.
There are two distinct schools of
thought concerning when Acts was composed. Those
who advocate that Acts was written prior to 70
C.E. appeal to the fact that Paul’s trial is not
mentioned and that the text ends abruptly.
Speculating on this, it is believed that Acts
was composed just prior to Paul’s trial, and
possibly that Luke was executed or died shortly
thereafter. The fact that the fall of Jerusalem
to the Romans in 70 C.E. is not mentioned is
likewise used as evidence in support of a pre-70
C.E. composition. A post-70 C.E. composition of
Acts is not impossible considering the fact that
the author may have been hurried to get the
history of the early Messianic community written
down. Due to all the turmoil, he would not have
known how the early “Messianic movement” would
last, and would want to get something written
down. While Acts is described by some as an
“incomplete story,” what it addresses is
historically accurate, thorough, and
demonstrates that it was written for a wide
audience of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers
(Guthrie, 371-372).
Some believe that in addition to
Acts having been written to simply attest to the
history of the early community of faith, that it
was actually written as a defense for the gospel
message. Guthrie explains, “The author appears
to go out of his way to show the close
connection between Christianity and its
antecedents in Judaism. The Christians, and
particularly Paul himself, still observe Jewish
ceremonial requirements: Timothy is circumcised
and Paul takes a vow, while James, both at the
Council of Jerusalem and on the occasion of his
later meeting with Paul, draws attention to the
relationship between Jewish practices and
Christian procedure. The appeal to the Old
Testament as predicting events which were
happening in the Christian church would
influence Jewish readers in the direction of a
favorable view of the church. But it is in its
approach to official relationships with the
Roman Empire that Acts becomes most clearly
apologetic” (Guthrie, 367). This viewpoint
attests that Luke knew his historical account
was going to be read by a broad group of people,
and it had to be accurate regarding Jewish
theological expectations, and be factual for
Romans regarding the placement of the events in
their historical and geographical locations.
Considering that Luke was likely
in Rome when he composed Acts, and the target
audience of this book of history, it is
impossible that it was written in Hebrew or
Aramaic. A few Messianics espouse Hebrew or
Aramaic origin of this text, but it is an
opinion not based on fact. Like his Gospel, the
Book of Acts demonstrates a vocabulary of a very
high level of Greek, but certainly includes
Semitic influences via the Septuagint and
“perhaps Aramaic or Hebrew documents relating
the early events of Christianity in and around
Jerusalem” (Gundry, 296). These documents would
likely have been second-hand notes regarding
historical events. Bruce explains, “It is
noteworthy that the clearest evidence of an
Aramaic substratum beneath Luke’s Greek appears
in the first five chapters of Acts” (ISBE,
1:39). Of course, the events of Acts 1-5 are
contained to Jerusalem and the immediate
vicinity, easily explaining oral Semitic
influences on the written Greek. As the events
of Acts spread beyond the Land of Israel, less
and less Semitic influence is seen in the text.
Beyond a doubt the Greek text has a grammar
consistent with the LXX (EXP, 9:222-223).
IDB comments on this in more detail:
“On the one side it has been
argued that the whole first part of Acts is
based upon a lost but coextensive Aramaic
composition, which shows through the present
Greek text by both overliteral translation and
mistranslation. On the other hand, it is
supposed that both the book of Acts and any
written sources which it used were composed
exclusively in Greek. If Semitisms appear, they
then are to be attributed to the oral stage of
transmission, and are echoes of the original
speakers and narrators in Palestine…It is,
however, not to be forgotten that the final
author of both volumes could vary his style and
was not incapable of importing, under the
influence of the Greek OT which he knew,
‘Septuagintisms’ while composing himself in
Greek” (IDB, 1:35).
Acts was composed to create a
history of the early Messianic community,
bridging the narratives of Yeshua’s life to the
spread of the good news throughout the First
Century world. It gives us a defense of the
early Messianic faith, depicting Believers’
endurance through persecution. The Book of Acts
is historically accurate in its detail, and the
author uses speeches from the early Apostles to
communicate his main points.
The storyline of Acts begins with
the ascension of Yeshua into Heaven, and the
events that followed shortly thereafter with the
giving of the Holy Spirit at Shavuot or
Pentecost. From there we see how the Believers
in Jerusalem grew in number, and how indeed many
Jews came to faith in the Messiah of Israel and
were Spirit filled. A rabbi from Tarsus, Saul,
has an encounter with Yeshua on his way to
Damascus to persecute Believers. Following his
conversion to faith, he is commissioned by the
Messiah to spread the good news to the nations.
Non-Jews of the nations begin to come to faith
in massive numbers and debate arises as to how
they are to be incorporated into the fold. One
of the book’s most important events is the
Jerusalem Council, which laid the groundwork for
the inclusion of non-Jewish Believers into the
assembly, and what they were expected to do.
Acts contains much internal
Biblical background information behind Paul’s
epistles to the new congregations of Asia Minor,
Greece, and the Aegean basin, and the missionary
journeys which he undertook. In the second half
of Acts, we see Luke’s account from him
accompanying Paul on these journeys. Acts ends
with Paul being tried in a religious court in
Jerusalem, him testifying to his Jewish brethren
about the Messiah, and then with Paul traveling
to Rome with the intention of going before
Caesar and testifying of Yeshua before him as
well.
Christian theologians have often
considered Acts to represent the “beginnings of
the Church,” whereas Messianic Believers should
consider it to be the starting point for the
good news to go out to the nations, a critical
part of the ultimate restoration of the Kingdom
to Israel.
Bibliography
Bruce, F.F. “Acts of the Apostles,” in ISBE,
1:33-47.
Cadbury, H.J. “Acts of the Apostles,” in IDB,
1:29-42.
Gundry, Robert. “Acts: A Promotion of
Christianity in the Greco-Roman World at Large,”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
295-338.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Acts of the Apostles,” in
New Testament Introduction, pp 351-402.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Luke-Acts, Book of,” in
ABD, 4:403-420.
Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the
Apostles,” in EXP, 9:207-573.
Reid, Barbara E. “Acts,” in New Interpreter’s
Study Bible, pp 1953-2006.
Russell, Emmett. “Acts of the Apostles,” in
NIDB, pp 12-14.
updated 06 February, 2006
Acts 15:24:
Acts 15:24 says that the non-Jews in Antioch
were not expected to be circumcised and keep the
Law of Moses. I understand that your Messianic
interpretation of Acts 15:21, “Moses is preached
in the synagogue every Sabbath,” is that they
were expected to keep the Torah. What do you do
about this verse?
Acts 15:24 appears the Greek
Textus Receptus or Received Text, the source
text for the King James Version (as well as for
Young’s Literal Translation and Jay P. Green’s
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible), as
“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which
went out from us have troubled you with words,
subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be
circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave
no such commandment” (Acts 15:24, KJV).
The statement “Be circumcised and keep the Law”
(LITV) does not appear in the oldest
Greek manuscripts of the Apostolic Scriptures
that our at our disposal. Newer translations,
based on older Greek manuscripts, will read
“Since we have heard that some of our number to
whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you
with their words, unsettling your souls”
(NASU).
The phrase humōn legontes
peritemnesthai kai tērein ton nomon (umwn
legonteß peritemnesqai kai threin ton nomon)
is omitted from the oldest extant Greek texts.
In its explanatory notes which demonstrate the
alternative reading among extant texts of the
Apostolic Scriptures, United Bible Societies’
Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition
indicates that this phrase first appears in the
miniscule 1175 (p 476), which dates from the
Tenth Century C.E. (p 17). The phrase tērein
ton nomon (threin
ton nomon)
or “keep the Law” first appears in quotations of
Acts 15:24 in the Apostolic Constitutions and in
the writings of Amphilochius (p 467). In its
list of the Greek Church Fathers, Amphilochius
is listed as having died “after 394,” and the
Apostolic Constitutions are dated “about 380” (p
31).
We believe that the phrase “keep
the Law” was added to the text of Acts 15:24 by
the Fourth Century C.E., at the same time that
Roman Catholicism was getting its start. The
last thing that this new religious establishment
wanted was for its members to be following the
Torah or Law of Moses. By the Tenth Century, “be
circumcised” had been added to the text as well.
Thankfully, due to textual criticism, that is
the science of examining and comparing ancient
Biblical texts and translations of texts to
determine the original reading of them, we have
discovered that “be circumcised and keep the
Law” was not in the original reading of Acts
15:24.
(It is notable that the phrase
“You must be circumcised and keep the Law” [Lamsa],
or “you must be circumcised and observe the
Torah” [HRV], does appear in the Aramaic
Peshitta version of Acts 15:24. In our opinion,
this is internal theological evidence that the
Aramaic Peshitta is a translation of the Greek
New Testament, and is not primary to the Greek
New Testament like some in the Messianic
movement believe.)
The Jerusalem Council ruled that
circumcision and Torah observance were not
prerequisites for salvation in Acts 15. But, as
James recognized that all Israel was in the
process of being restored (Acts 15:16-18; cf.
Amos 9:10-11), and in that restoration process
the Torah would be written on the hearts of the
people, it was necessary for the non-Jews to
become Torah obedient. This would not come
immediately, but would come as these new
Believers matured in their faith and were
properly trained and discipled. They needed to
enter into the community of faith first,
before they were taught the truths of the
Scriptures, amending their pagan ways. On the
contrary to what many Christian theologians
would like us to believe, the first non-Jewish
Believers in Messiah were indeed told to obey
the Law of Moses. The Jerusalem Council ruled in
Acts 15:19-21 that those from the nations coming
to faith were to go to the local synagogue on
the Sabbath and learn the Torah.
For a further discussion of
textual issues, we recommend you consult A
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
by Bruce M. Metzger.
(This entry includes adapted
quotations from the editor’s book
The New Testament
Validates Torah.)
updated 21 November, 2006
Alcohol:
Do you believe it is acceptable for Believers to
consume alcoholic beverages?
We do not see any specific
prohibition in the Bible against the drinking of
alcoholic beverages, including wine, beer, or
other forms of liquor. Wine was used in the
Tabernacle and Temple service by the Levites,
and the consumption of alcohol in moderation is
not prohibited in Judaism. However, there are
many sins in the Bible associated with the
consumption of alcoholic beverages, mostly the
consumption of wine in extreme excess.
There are various Christian
denominations which consider drinking alcohol to
be a “sin,” on the basis of 1 Corinthians
6:19-20, which tells us that our bodies are the
Temple of God and the habitation of the Holy
Spirit, and that we are not to harm our bodies.
Certainly, we can harm our bodies by drinking
alcohol, but we can also harm our bodies by
eating too much, failing to exercise, or working
in toxic environments. We understand how this
Scripture has been applied by some to prohibit
drinking alcohol, but do not entirely agree with
it. Yeshua’s first miracle was forming water
into wine at Cana, and the Apostle Paul told
Timothy to drink a little wine for his frequent
stomach ailments (1 Timothy 5:23).
While there are no Scriptures
that directly prohibit the consumption of
alcohol, we are told in Ephesians 5:18, “do not
get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation,
but be filled with the Spirit.” We are also
told, “Let us behave properly as in the day, not
in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual
promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and
jealousy” (Romans 13:13). Drunkenness is not a
quality becoming of Believers in Messiah Yeshua,
as Paul asks the Corinthians, “do you not know
that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the
kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). There
are no Scriptures which tell us that we “must
drink,” and there are repeated warnings against
becoming drunk with alcohol.
We do not think that the Bible
tells us that we cannot drink, but we do not
believe that it is entirely appropriate for us
as Messianic Believers to always drink in
public, either. There are Messianics who come
from Christian backgrounds which prohibited
drinking alcohol, who sometimes go to an extreme
with their “newfound freedom” when they enter
into the Messianic community, which by-and-large
does not discourage drinking. We urge caution
and consideration of outsiders’ opinions of
drinking, and believe that if you do drink
alcohol occasionally, that you do it in the
privacy of your home or solely around trusted
friends in public.
updated 21 November, 2006
All Israel:
What do Two-House teachers do with references
from the Tanach or Old Testament that seem to
indicate that “all Israel” was reunified after
the Babylonian exile?
Ezra 8:25 is sometimes used as a
proof text to show that “all Israel,” those of
both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, were
present in the Land of Israel after the
Babylonian exile. Certainly, we do believe that
individuals from the Northern Kingdom, who were
loyal to the Lord, became a part of the Southern
Kingdom after the death of King Solomon.
Likewise, we believe that there were
individuals, who in spite of the Diaspora forced
upon them by Assyria, remained faithful to their
Israelite heritage and remembered their tribal
designations. However, in the dedication of the
Second Temple in Ezra 8:25, the text clearly
describes “all Israel present there” or
“all Israel who were present” (NJPS), kol
Yisrael ha’nimetzaim (~yacmNh
larfy-lk).
It is specifically talking about those who were
at the dedication ceremony. It is not
categorical proof that “all Israel” was reunited
after the exile, and the glory of Israel that
was to be revealed in the eschaton has been made
manifest.
Ezra 10:5 clarifies who was at
this ceremony, stating, “Then Ezra rose and made
the leading priests, the Levites and all Israel,
take oath that they would do according to this
proposal; so they took the oath.” All Israel
present, and the Levites, who were attending
this dedication ceremony had to make the vow to
God to put away any of the foreign wives they
had married, and follow His commandments as laid
out in the Torah (Ezra 10:3).
Perhaps what some Two-House
teachers have failed to note is that there were
those of the scattered Northern Kingdom of
Israel/Ephraim who were not assimilated into the
nations, and became part of the Southern Kingdom
or Jewish people. This would include individuals
like Anna the prophetess who was from the tribe
of Asher (Luke 2:36). However, individuals like
this appear to be the exception, as corporately
the Northern Kingdom was assimilated into the
nations.
updated 30 March, 2006
All lies:
I heard a Messianic Bible teacher speak on
Jeremiah 16:16-20 and tell me that everything
that Christianity teaches is a complete “lie.”
This is disturbing to me, especially as my
Christian family is very godly and they minister
for the Lord.
A few Messianics in the Two-House
community readily quote Jeremiah 16:19 which
speaks of the nations saying, “O
Lord,
my strength and my stronghold, and my refuge in
the day of distress, to You the nations will
come from the ends of the earth and say, ‘Our
fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood,
futility and things of no profit.’” These
teachers apply this Scripture as meaning that
everything that Christianity stands for is
one big lie and everything that they have
come out of as (so-called) “returning Ephraim”
is likewise a big lie. As has been our
unfortunate observation, if all of Christianity
is a big lie, then so is the idea that Yeshua is
Messiah. This is something that we cannot
accept, or will ever
accept.
But let us understand the context
of the entire Scripture passage, so we do not
misapply Jeremiah’s words:
“‘Therefore behold, days are
coming,’ declares the
Lord,
‘when it will no longer be said, “As the
Lord
lives, who brought up the sons of Israel out of
the land of Egypt,” but, “As the
Lord
lives, who brought up the sons of Israel from
the land of the north and from all the countries
where He had banished them.” For I will restore
them to their own land which I gave to their
fathers’” (Jeremiah 16:14-15).
If we have a proper understanding
of the Last Days, then we know that there will
be a return of the people of Israel, both of
Judah and scattered Israel/Ephraim, to the Land
of Israel prior to Yeshua returning. After this
occurring, the Lord is going to send out
fisherman and hunters to gather the remainder of
the lost people:
“‘Behold, I am going to send for
many fishermen,’ declares the
Lord, ‘and they will fish for them; and afterwards I will
send for many hunters, and they will hunt them
from every mountain and every hill and from the
clefts of the rocks. For My eyes are on all
their ways; they are not hidden from My face,
nor is their iniquity concealed from My eyes. I
will first doubly repay their iniquity and their
sin, because they have polluted My land; they
have filled My inheritance with the carcasses of
their detestable idols and with their
abominations.’ O
Lord, my strength and my stronghold, and my refuge in the day
of distress, to You the nations will come from
the ends of the earth and say, ‘Our fathers have
inherited nothing but falsehood, futility and
things of no profit.’ Can man make gods for
himself? Yet they are not gods!” (Jeremiah
16:16-20).
Who are the fishermen and hunters
in these verses? Who are those people who go out
and search for the nations who say that their
fathers have accepted all lies? We believe these
to be the 144,000 sealed servants spoken of in
Revelation 7:4-8, of both Houses of Israel and
the twelve tribes, who will be responsible for
spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew
24:14) prior to Yeshua returning. (Consult the
editor’s commentary in Chapter 12 of his book
When Will the Messiah Return?, “The Gospel
of the Kingdom.”)
We cannot assert that
Christianity has accepted “all lies” because
certainly the Bible is not a lie and Christians
do follow much of the Bible. On the contrary,
the Koran, the Vedas, and the writings and
practices of other false religions are the lies
talked about here. The false gods are Allah,
Buddha, and the millions of deities of Hinduism.
Those of “Christian” Ephraim have not
accepted “all lies.” It is those of “Islamic”
Ephraim, “Hindu” Ephraim, “Buddhist” Ephraim,
and the other nations that have accepted the
complete lies and have continually rejected
Messiah Yeshua as Savior. It is to them that the
144,000 fishermen and hunters will go.
Those of “Christian” Ephraim have
not inherited all lies. For as Hosea
7:8-9 attests of these, “Ephraim mixes himself
with the nations; Ephraim has become a cake not
turned. Strangers devour his strength, yet he
does not know it; gray hairs also are
sprinkled on him, yet he does not know
it.”
If we believe what this verse
says, then returning “Christian” Ephraim has
sevah (hbyf) or has “old age” (ATS). “Gray
hairs also are sprinkled on him.” Ephraim is
partially “gray-headed,” meaning that he is not
as immature as is sometimes perceived. He
does have wisdom, although he is definitely
still maturing. While “Christian” Ephraim must
return and repent of his sins and embrace his
Israelite heritage, if he rejects everything of
his Christian past, including forgetting that
Yeshua is indeed the Anointed One, “the Christ”
or Messiah, then the proper reunification
of all Israel will not take place. All of Israel
must be reunified with Yeshua being the focus of
it, as opposed to man.
For a more detailed explanation,
consult the editor’s complete commentary in
Chapter 2 of his book
Torah In the Balance,
Volume I, “Maintaining
Balance in Our Quest Into the Torah.”
updated 21 November, 2006
Amos, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Amos?
Even though Amos (Heb. Amos,
sAm[)
is listed in the Hebrew book order as the third
of the Twelve Prophets, he was likely the first
chronologically. Amos was from Tekoa (1:1), a
small town just south of Bethlehem. He was not
from a priestly family, but instead earned his
living from the flock and a sycamore fig-grove
(1:1; 7:14-15). It is unknown whether he was the
owner or just a worker (ISBE, 1:114), and
today some scholarship leans toward Amos being
some kind of a civil servant involved in their
maintenance (ABD, 1:203-204; Dillard and
Longman, 376). Regardless of which he was, he
certainly witnessed the hardships of many such
workers.
Amos was certainly not an
ignorant peasant, given his skilled words that
indicate he was well informed of the issues of
his day (Harrison, 886-887), notably the great
prosperity of both the Northern and Southern
Kingdoms (IDB, 1:117; Harrison, 884-885;
NIDB, 43; ISBE, 1:114-115; ABD,
1:205-206). Amos probably did the bulk of his
prophesying in Bethel (7:10-13; cf. 1 Kings
12:28-30), at the location of one of the
Northern Kingdom’s primary worship centers.
Consequently, most of Amos’ prophecies concern
the Northern Kingdom, although there are
warnings issued to the Southern Kingdom.
Questions are asked as to whether
or not Amos was a writing poet, or whether his
prophecies were later collected and written down
by those who followed his ministry. Conservative
theologians generally favor Amos writing the
text (EXP, 7:269), or some of his close
followers composing the text (Harrison, 890).
Amos’ initial composition is often dated to some
time in the Eighth Century B.C.E., perhaps
around 760 (NBCR, 726; ISBE,
1:115; EXP, 7:275). Perhaps the only
parts of Amos that were likely appended by
someone other than himself are the
superscription (1:1) and biographical section
(7:10-17), probably by his disciples.
Liberal theologians have tended
to favor the Book of Amos being some kind of
anthology of prophetic oracles, some of which
are authentic to Amos, but not all. They have
frequently argued that the text of Amos must
post-date the Babylonian exile, and also
commonly claim that the oracles delivered
against the Southern Kingdom of Judah (9:11-12)
must have been added at a later date, as it
implies the fall of the monarchy—which liberals
assert has already occurred (IDB, 1:118).
Many liberals have also doubted
whether Amos even considered himself a prophet,
on the basis of his words “I am not a prophet,
nor am I the son of a prophet; for I am a
herdsman and a grower of sycamore figs” (7:14).
It should be noted, though, that this may be a
response to Amos being a prophet outside of the
“mainline” prophetic guild of his time (IDB,
1:116), which often incurred monies for its
prophesying. Some also suggest that “I am not a
prophet” is just a common response of Amos to
God’s call upon him (ABD, 1:204; Dillard
and Longman, 377).
Fortunately, it does appear that
more critical scholars, on the basis of some
linguistic and historical grounds, are beginning
to lean more toward Amos’ authenticity (ECB,
690).
The authorized Hebrew text of
Amos probably emerged some time during the
Babylonian exile, or the immediate post-exilic
period. The current MT is in fairly good
condition, with few minor variants when compared
to the Greek LXX (Harrison, 897; ABD,
1:211).
Amos prophesied during the reigns
of Uzziah of Judah (792-740 B.C.E.) and Jeroboam
II of Israel (793-753 B.C.E.; IDB, 1:118;
EXP, 7:269-270; Dillard and Longman,
375), and his words affect both the Northern
Kingdom and its subsequent judgment via Assyria,
as well as the Southern Kingdom. Amos addresses
the prosperity of both the Northern and Southern
Kingdoms, as well as their religious
disobedience. Likewise, Amos delivers rebukes
against eight different external powers. The
Book of Amos can be largely divided into three
sections: (1) oracles against the nations (chs.
1-2), (2) a series of judgments against Israel (chs.
3-6), and (3) a group of visions culminating in
ultimate salvation (chs. 7-9; cf. Dillard and
Longman, 379; Harrison, 887-890). In Amos, one
sees that God is sovereign over the affairs of
the universe (Dillard and Longman, 382).
The Book of Amos contains a very
strong message of social justice (5:24; IDB,
1:120-121; NBCR, 727; ISBE, 1:116;
ABD, 1:206; Dillard and Longman,
382-383). While there are similarities between
the message of Amos when compared to Hosea, Amos
is more concerned about the social conditions
inflicted upon the poor of the Northern Kingdom
(NIDB, 43), listing them as a major
reason for the coming judgment. God’s Torah is
upheld as a standard of proper conduct for His
people. Those who were rich and opulent (3:15),
having earned their luxurious wares through
cheating and extorting the poor, were to be
judged severely by God (NBCR, 726).
The answer to the Northern
Kingdom’s severe sin would be swift, national
destruction (4:6-11). Throughout Amos, we see
that God will use outside powers to judge Israel
(6:14), being the King of the whole world (4:13;
5:8; 9:5-6). Amos also criticized “prophets” who
only spoke what the people hearing them wanted
to hear (cf. 7:14-15).
Throughout the Book of Amos, one
should see that the responsibility of Israel is
intensified because they have had God’s Law and
should have known better (3:2; ISBE,
1:114), especially compared to other nations who
did not have the Torah. Amos does have a concern
for the religious life of the people, every bit
as much as he does their conduct regarding the
oppressed (IDB, 1:120; Harrison, 886;
IDBSup, 22; ISBE, 1:117). In spite of
the judgment that was coming, there would be a
remnant that could repent (5:15), and in due
time the House of Israel would be restored as it
was during the life of David (9:11-15).
Amos emphasizes what many would
consider the “weightier matters” of the Torah,
particularly the ethics of Deuteronomy (ISBE,
1:117). The themes of Amos are undoubtedly seen
throughout the Apostolic Scriptures, and form a
considerable part of the mission of the
Apostles. There is no reason to discriminate
between rich and poor in the assembly (1
Corinthians 11:22; James 2:1-10). The poor need
care (James 1:27; 5:1-6). Luke’s Gospel itself
notices the plight of the destitute (Dillard and
Longman, 284). Amos is quoted by Paul where the
evil of Ancient Israel is to be considered
(5:15; cf. Romans 12:9). And, the most
significant quotation of Amos (9:11-12, LXX)
appears in Acts 15:16-16 when James compares the
expanse of the gospel among the nations as
involving the restoration of all Israel (Dillard
and Longman, 384).
The Book of Amos is an extremely
important text today for both Jewish and
Christian social activists, especially as it
concerns the destitute and those who cannot help
themselves (2:6-7; 5:10-12; 6:3-7, 12; 8:4-6).
Of course, these are some of the major concerns
of the Torah that Amos insisted his audience
remember. Interestingly enough, the Labor
movement in the early State of Israel took many
of the themes of Amos very seriously (Jewish
Study Bible, 1176). Likewise, the current
trend of Christian “liberation theology” in
Latin America and other parts of the third world
appropriates a great deal of Amos.
There is presently not a great
deal of Messianic examination regarding Amos,
except for some of the promises relating to
Israel’s restoration. The Book of Amos has a
difficult social message for today’s Messianic
community, much of which tends to isolate itself
from the world at large, rather than being
involved in the welfare of the larger community
(or global community). Amos asks us some
questions that on the whole, we are largely
unprepared to answer today.
Bibliography
Barton, John. “Amos,” in New Interpreter’s
Study Bible, pp 1279-1291.
ben Zvi, Ehud. “Amos,” in Jewish Study Bible,
pp 1176-1192.
Carroll R., M. Daniel. “Amos,” in ECB, pp
690-695.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Amos,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 373-384.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Amos,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
883-897.
____________. “Amos,” in NIDB, pp 43-44.
Jones, Barry A. “Amos, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 56-57.
McComiskey, Thomas Edward. “Amos,” in EXP,
7:269-331.
Motyer, J.A. “Amos,” in NBCR, pp 726-741.
Robertson, J., and C. Amerding. “Amos,” in
ISBE, 1:114-117.
Smart, J.D. “Amos,” in IDB, 1:116-121.
Ward, J.M. “Amos,” in IDBSup, pp 21-23.
Willoughby, Bruce E. “Amos, Book of,” in ABD,
1:203-212.
posted 16 August, 2007
Annihilation
(eternal punishment):
Do you believe that the condemned suffer eternal
torment in the Lake of Fire or are destroyed?
We believe that the condemned who do not receive Yeshua the Messiah
as their Personal Savior will spend a conscious
eternity separated from God. This period will be
never-ending and is described all throughout
Scripture by a number of descriptions such as
separation, outer darkness, torment, banishment,
etc. It is possible that Biblical language
describing fire and smoke in the Lake of Fire
may be figurative, or would only be part of the
scenery of the dimension that those who are
condemned are consigned to. Many conservative
Bible scholars who defend an ongoing eternal
punishment actually consider the diverse images
we see in Scripture to point to them serving as
metaphors—so while the punishment goes on
forever, the idea that sinners will writhe in
fire and brimstone, and have to drink molten
lead, would be an inaccurate or an exaggerated
conclusion of the wider picture.
We consider an annihilation or extinction of the condemned to not
be a viable punishment because it does not
substantiate a viable penalty for sinners.
Atheists and agnostics who deny the place of an
Eternal Judge do not believe in an afterlife or
that they will face any kind of penalty or
reward for their deeds. They simply believe in
eternal non-existence. And, eternal
non-existence is precisely what annihilation
advocates.
Exegetically speaking for Messianics, saying that “eternal
punishment” is not eternal is also problematic.
Messianics who advocate that the Sabbath, the
Biblical holidays, the kosher laws, and that
God’s Torah is eternal and relevant, meaning
never-ending, but then who advocate that eternal
punishment is not eternal, are being
inconsistent with the word “eternal.” If they
were consistent in their application of
something being “eternal,” then it would mean
that the Torah and punishment for sinners are
both never-ending. This selective
usage of the term “eternal” reveals that
Messianic annihilationists do not like the
concept of a never-ending and ever-lasting
punishment for the condemned, and that they are
probably applying their own humanistic character
traits to God.[a]
updated 23 February, 2010
NOTES
[a]
For a further discussion, consult
William V. Crockett, “The Metaphorical
View,” in Four Views on Hell
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp
43-76.
Antimessiah/Antichrist:
Who do you think the antimessiah/antichrist is?
We believe that the man of
lawlessness will be of Roman ancestry
considering that the prophecy of Daniel 9:26
speaks of “the people of the prince who is to
come will destroy the city and the sanctuary,”
in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in
70 C.E. More than likely, this man will be
European, but by no means can he be limited to
Europe. The only way we will know whether or not
a person is the antimessiah/antichrist is when
he receives a deadly wound (Revelation 13:3, 12,
14), which some believe will result in blinding
of his right eye and loss of mobility in one of
his arms (Zechariah 11:17), and whether or not
he initiates the Abomination of Desolation. We
do not want to pinpoint any individual that
might later prove not to be the one.
updated 17 April, 2006
Antimessiah,
Makes or Confirms Agreement:
Do you believe that the antimessiah/antichrist
makes or confirms the covenant
with Israel?
In recent years
there has been a substantial amount of
discussion of the premise that the antimessiah
“signs a treaty with Israel” initiating the
Seventieth Week, in light of some of the events
that we have seen throughout the history of the
Middle East peace process. As these are things
that have yet to occur, we would like to present
several plausible interpretations of how the
Seventieth Week will begin from Daniel 9:27.
In the KJV, Daniel 9:27a is
translated as “he shall confirm the
covenant with many for one week.” Some have
interpreted this as meaning that the antimessiah
will not initiate a peace treaty or agreement,
as is commonly interpreted, but rather give his
assent to an already existing one. The
interpretation of “confirm” is also resonated in
the NIV translation of Daniel 9:27a: “He will
confirm a covenant with many for one
‘seven.’” The verb translated as either “forge a
strong covenant” (ATS) or “make firm” (NASU) or
“confirm” (KJV, NIV) in these passages is
gavar (rbG),
appearing in the Hifil stem (casual action,
passive voice) meaning, “be strong, mighty,”
which BDB indicates means “confirm a
covenant” in this context” (p 149).
Considering the fact that we are
dealing with future events in this text, we must
consider several interpretational possibilities.
It is clear that the Seventieth Week either
begins when this leader makes an agreement with
the government of Israel, or confirms and gives
his support to an existing treaty and
strengthens it. Either way, the overwhelming
conclusion we must draw from this is that the
Seventieth Week does not begin with the
rapture as so many falsely believe.
posted 10 April, 2006
Anti-Semitism, Luther:
What can you tell me about the anti-Semitism of
Martin Luther? How can this great man who
started the Protestant Reformation be
responsible for ungodly sayings about the Jewish
people?
First of all, it can be debated
whether or not Martin Luther was actually the
person who “started” the Protestant Reformation.
The need for radical change in the Church was
recognized by many Catholic scholastics who saw
the high level of corruption and political
intrigue, at the expense of the work of helping
the common people. Martin Luther had difficulty
with the Catholic practice of selling
indulgences, and while he originally intended to
simply reform the Catholic Church from within,
he eventually had to break from it being
declared a heretic.
Luther, as one of the early
Reformers was challenged left and right from
many of his former Catholic colleagues. Some
accused him of denying the Divinity of Yeshua,
and claimed that he only said that He was a
human. In the course of the accusations levied
against him, Luther published many works. One of
his early works, published in 1523, was the
booklet Jesus Christ was born a Jew. This
was specifically intended to show that Luther
believed in the virgin birth, but he had also
hoped to convert Jews to his beliefs as a
secondary result of this. His comments in this
work demonstrate that early on Luther was very
gracious toward the Jews in Germany, recognizing
many of the errors made by the Church, and hoped
to see them come to faith. He wrote,
“Our fools, the popes, bishops,
sophists, and monks—the crude asses’ heads—have
hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who
wished to be a good Christian would almost have
had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had
seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach
the Christian faith, I would sooner have become
a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the
Jews as if they were dogs rather than human
beings; they have done little else than deride
them and seize their property. When they baptize
them they show them nothing of Christian
doctrine or life, but only subject them to
popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see
that Judaism has such strong support in
Scripture, and that Christianity has become a
mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how
can they possibly compose themselves and become
right good Christians? I have myself heard from
pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our
day heard the gospel they would have remained
Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the
rest of their days. For they acknowledge that
they have never yet heard anything about Christ
from those who baptized and taught them.
“I hope that if one deals in a
kindly way with the Jews and instructs them
carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will
become genuine Christians and turn again to the
faith of their fathers, the prophets and
patriarchs. They will only be frightened further
away from it if their Judaism is so utterly
rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and
they are treated only with arrogance and scorn.
If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt
with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the
Jews, there would never have been a Christian
among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us
Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our
turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly
manner in order that we might convert some of
them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very
far along, not to speak of having arrived.”
Perhaps the most important
statement to take note of are Luther’s words,
“If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and
blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith,
I would sooner have become a hog than a
Christian.” He recognizes that the Church of his
time had failed in its job to provoke Jews to
jealousy, and actually uses some very crass
words to describe this.
Some twenty years later, though,
in 1543, Martin Luther published another work on
the Jewish people, called On the Jews and
Their Lies. In this publication he treats
the Jews as a cursed people and worthy of
nothing less than God’s wrath. While there are
many damning excerpts from this publication, the
following quote sums up his thoughts fairly
well:
“I brief, dear princes and lords,
those of you who have Jews under your rule—if my
counsel does not please your, find better
advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the
unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we
become guilty sharers before God in the lies,
blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which
the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly
against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, his
dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and
ourselves. Do not grant them protection,
safe-conduct, or communion with us.... .With
this faithful counsel and warning I wish to
cleanse and exonerate my conscience.”
Luther specifically writes in
this publication that “wherever they have their
synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils
in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies,
blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are
practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes
on them.”
(The complete text of On the
Jews and Their Lies is available to read at
<fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1543-Luther-JewsandLies-full.html>)
How could Martin Luther have gone
from being a supporter of the Jewish people to
one who advocated that the German princes burn
down their synagogues and eject them from their
lands? What were the series of circumstances
that precipitated these terrible things said by
Luther? Did Luther experience a great deal of
rejection from the Jews, and that is why he
lashed out against them? Was Luther under
political pressure from the German princes to
write a treatise against the Jews? Did Luther
possibly suffer from dementia, a mental disorder
that would not have been able to be diagnosed by
Sixteenth Century medicine? Sadly, we will never
know the answer.
What we do know for certain is
that Martin Luther died three years after the
publication of On the Jews and Their Lies.
Luther was born and lived in a society that had
anti-Semitic currents, as the Christians and the
Jews seldom interacted and people were subjected
to a great deal of Jewish stereotypes. Near the
end of his life, Luther had fallen prey to all
of the stereotypes and urban myths circulating
about the Jewish people. He made a foolish and
egregious error in writing On the Jews and
Their Lies, which the Nazi party was able to
use for anti-Semitic propaganda in the 1930s.
The challenge with Martin Luther
and today’s Messianic community is that many
fall into the reverse errors that Luther did.
Luther fell for much of the unsubstantiated
prejudice against Jews that was present in
Sixteenth Century Germany, and some in today’s
Messianic community have invented their own
prejudice against today’s Christian Church.
Martin Luther was by no means the only Reformer,
and he was clearly a human who made mistakes. In
spite of his mistakes, God was still able to use
him, just as He is able to use any of us in
spite of our own weaknesses.
Much of the anti-Jewishness that
we see in any writings of Luther and any of the
other Reformers are largely the result of men
like Ulrich Zwigli, John Calvin, John Knox, and
others never having any kind of interaction with
Jews. Many are simply repeating the prejudices
that they grew up with in the culture they were
born into. We need to understand Luther and the
Reformers for the times and culture in which
they lived.
Interestingly enough, it was not
until after the Napoleonic Wars that
anti-Semitism in Europe began to change. With
Napoleon providing equal citizenship for all in
France, and then moving throughout Europe,
particularly in the German states, Jews began to
receive equal rights with their Christian
neighbors. They began to be integrated into
society and religious ideas began to be shared
between Jews and Christians. Today in the
Twenty-First Century, those of us in the West
are the product of a society that encourages
tolerance and diversity, but we still fall prey
to many stereotypes about the Jews or any other
ethnicity. But when it comes to the errors of
Martin Luther, both the Lutheran Church and many
of its clergy have been very repentant in
denouncing his anti-Semitism.
In the Messianic movement today,
we do have a great deal of maturing to do. We
have a shared theological heritage with both the
Church and Synagogue. Both groups of people
have made errors. Jews have fallen prey to
anti-Christian prejudices because of the
religious culture they have been born into, just
as Christians have fallen into anti-Jewish
prejudices. And it does not just stop with the
Jews, because Christians have been guilty of
holding onto many other racial prejudices, all
of which are ungodly and unacceptable in the
Body of Messiah. Each of us has been guilty for
holding to prejudice at one time or another in
our lives, so to point fingers at Martin Luther
without pointing fingers at ourselves is judging
with an unfair scale. There is a great deal of
prejudice in the Messianic movement toward Arabs
and Muslims today, and on the whole we seldom
pray for their salvation. Messianics need not
have any prejudice, and let God be the final
judge of all human beings—including Martin
Luther. We have to make sure that we are
faithful to the work that the Lord has given us,
and learn from the mistakes of history.
For a further discussion of this
issue, consult the article “Luther and the
Jews” by James Swan <ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20(Web).htm#b8>.
posted 20 July, 2006
Apocrypha:
What is your position concerning the Apocrypha?
Protestants do not consider the
books of the Apocrypha to be canonical because
Jews do not consider them to be canonical. Jews
do not consider these books to be canonical
because the principal copies we have of them are
written in Greek, and not Hebrew, and were an
adjunct part of the Septuagint. The Eastern
Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican
traditions, however, do consider these books to
be canonical. The principal books of the
Apocrypha include:
3 Esdras
4 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The Additions to Esther
Wisdom
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three
Youths, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
The Eastern Orthodox Church adds
3&4 Maccabees to its Apocryphal canon.
We would not consider the books
of the Apocrypha to be “inspired Scripture,” per
se, but do believe that they should be consulted
as a valuable historical and cultural reference.
They do play a significant role in historical
Christian theology, and certainly cannot be
ignored. The traditions and points of view that
the Apocrypha often records do make their way
into many parts of the Apostolic Scriptures, so
the Apocrypha should have some secondary place
after Scripture in determining one’s theology.
You will see Apocryphal books quoted from time
to time with this purpose in mind. Generally
speaking, we quote from the Revised Standard
Version translation of the Apocrypha, as it is
literal and in modern English.
updated 14 August, 2006
Apocrypha,
Versions of:
I know that the Apocrypha is not considered
canonical Scripture by Jews or Protestants, but
I am interested in finding a suitable modern
English translation to use for reference. Which
one(s) can you recommend?
There are five main versions of
the Apocrypha included with some major Bible
versions that our ministry employs in our
research. These include the following in the
order of their publication, along with a brief
description of the Bible they are included with.
This same order happens to be the order in which
we generally use them for study:
1.
Revised Standard Version
(1952): This is considered today to be a
centrist-liberal Bible version, even though
about 95% of it is reproduced word-for-word
in the more conservative New American
Standard. Its Apocrypha translation is
somewhat literal, and true to the Septuagint
Greek text behind it. It represents an
ecumenical Protestant perspective, with some
Anglican and Catholic influences.
2.
New English Bible
(1970): This was the first modern Bible
translation produced for Christians in the
United Kingdom, and represents an ecumenical
perspective including the Church of England,
British Protestant denominations, and
British Catholicism. Its Apocrypha
translation represents a more “dynamic
equivalency” translation, than the RSV
Apocrypha. Overall, the translation is left
of center.
3.
New Revised Standard Version
(1989): This is the revised edition of the
RSV, which primarily updates the RSV to
include new scholarship unavailable when the
RSV was produced. The NRSV represents a
liberal ecumenical perspective, and employs
the concept known as “inclusive language,”
whereby terms relating to “man” or “mankind”
are replaced with “human” or “humanity.” The
NRSV Apocrypha, while not being as literal
as the RSV Apocrypha, notably includes the
Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha, and texts that
neither Roman Catholicism nor the Anglican
Church consider canonical.
4.
Revised English Bible
(1989): This is the revised edition of the
NEB, produced primarily for Christians in
the U.K. It employs inclusive language, and
represents a liberal ecumenical perspective.
5.
New Jerusalem Bible
(2000): This is a Catholic Bible translation
that is Catholic-conservative in its
approach, but employs a total dynamic
equivalence. Its Apocryphal books are not
organized between the Old and New
Testaments, but instead are sorted in with
the Old Testament books.
added 01 January, 2006
Virtual Chanukah
Aramaic
Peshitta:
What is your position concerning the Aramaic
Peshitta?
We consider the Aramaic Peshitta,
the Aramaic version of the Bible, often called
the Syriac, to be a valuable supplementary tool
like the Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, or
Aramaic Targums (paraphrases of the Tanach
Scriptures widely used in the First and Second
Centuries). Textual critics of the Bible make
extensive use of the Peshitta, dating from the
Fourth Century, in determining what the original
reading of a Hebrew or Greek text was. They also
use the Septuagint and Vulgate for the same
purpose.
The Aramaic Peshitta includes one
of the earliest translations of the Apostolic
Scriptures that was made. Bruce M. Metzger notes
in The Early Versions of the New Testament:
Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations
that “Until the beginning of the twentieth
century it was commonly held that the Peshitta
Syriac translation was one of the earliest
versions, if not the earliest, of the New
Testament to be made. The constant tradition
among Syrian Christians has been that it was the
work of one or more of the original Apostles or
Evangelists, some naming Mark and others
Thaddeus as the translator. Among European
scholars there was general agreement that the
Peshitta was in existence by the end of the
second century, and certainly by the beginning
of the third. Several went so far as to suppose
that it was made near the close of the first
century or early in the second” (p 56).
There are some in the Messianic
community today who believe that the Aramaic
Peshitta New Testament is primary to our Greek
New Testaments, even though this is not what the
scholarly community believes. While Aramaic was
a widely spoken language in First Century
Israel, there are problems to this belief. First
and foremost, the Peshitta New Testament does
not include the entire canon of the Apostolic
Scriptures, and it excludes 2 Peter, 2&3 John,
Jude, and Revelation. Secondly, the Aramaic
Peshitta reads more consistently with the Greek
Textus Receptus, the source text used for the
King James Version, Young’s Literal Translation,
and the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by
Jay P. Green. As Metzger notes, “It has been
frequently stated that the type of text
represented by the Peshitta is what Hort
designated the Syrian text and Ropes the
Antiochian—a form of text which also appears in
the writings of John Chrysostom and which
eventually developed into the Byzantine Textus
Receptus” (p 61).
The Textus Receptus has problems
in many places because of its handling of the
validity of Torah, as opposed to the critical
Greek texts used today in modern Bible
translations like the RSV, NASB, or NIV.
Consider the following example from Acts 15:24:
“Forasmuch as we have heard, that
certain which went out from us have troubled you
with words, subverting your souls, saying,
Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law:
to whom we gave no such commandment” (KJV).
“It has been heard by us that men
from us have gone out and disturbed you with
words and have upset your nefeshot while saying
that you must be circumcised and observe the
Torah, which we did not command them”
(Hebraic-Roots Version “New Testament”).
“Since we have heard that some of
our number to whom we gave no instruction have
disturbed you with their words,
unsettling your souls” (NASU).
Notice what the KJV and HRV
versions have. It implies that the non-Jews in
Antioch were not required to go to
the Synagogue to learn the Torah, even though
James the Just plainly ruled it in Acts
15:19-21. The NASU, based on older Greek texts,
does not have this. The NASU and the critical
Greek text it is based on fits with a
conservative Messianic theological position.
This is one critical example that
we have given in favor of the Greek text. Our
ministry has a conservative Torah perspective
that favors the Sabbath observance, that all of
the early Believers were keeping the appointed
times, that all of the early Believers were
eating kosher, and that circumcision, while not
required for salvation, is something that should
be looked upon favorably and be encouraged as a
part of one’s spiritual growth. We by no means
have a liberal theological position regarding
the Torah, and being critical to this have found
the Aramaic Peshitta to fall short in some key
areas.
The Aramaic primacy argument will
be determined more on theological value
judgments, as opposed to textual criticism, than
anything else. Many Aramaic primicists will base
their claims on so-called colloquial expressions
in the text, many of which do not have a
substantial historical basis.
Two primary “idiomatic”
criticisms of the Greek New Testament text
usually deal with Simon the Leper (Matthew 26:6;
Mark 14:3) and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27).
Since the Torah prohibits lepers living in a
community, and eunuchs worshipping at the
appointed place, it is assumed that the Greek
text is in error. However, we believe that those
who advocate this are forgetting one of the
primary rules of Biblical interpretation: let
Scripture interpret itself.
John 21:25 attests that there are
many more miracles of Yeshua that were not
recorded. We must assume that Simon was called
“Simon the Leper” because of a miraculous
healing that occurred and that he was living in
the city because he had already been healed.
Matthew 19:12 gives us a varied context of one
being a “eunuch.” One does not have to have his
sexual organs removed to be a “eunuch.” One can
merely be destined from the womb to never be
married. Richmond Lattimore’s New Testament
translation uses the rendering “sexless men.” We
are not told what context the Ethiopian was a
“eunuch,” but we may assume based on Yeshua’s
words that he was probably celibate due to his
position in the Ethiopian court, not that he
necessarily had his testicles cut off.
Another attestation being made is
that that the Aramaic Peshitta uses the name of
YHWH. This is an assumption, and not a fact.
Where some English translations of the Peshitta
New Testament are using YHWH, the Aramaic text
uses the title maryah (hyrm).
It is assumed that maryah can be used as
a placeholder for the name YHWH, and that the
proper name YHWH originally appeared in the
Aramaic Peshitta. To say that the tetragrammaton
appeared in the early versions of the Aramaic
Peshitta is a serious stretch. The title
maryah could just as well be translated as
“Master,” as the Hebrew title Adonai is
translated as “Lord.” The fact that some need to
see “Yeshua is YHWH [‘maryah’]” in
Scripture, is evidence that somewhere along the
line they of have doubted His Divinity. Yeshua
very clearly demonstrates His Divinity in His
teachings, actions, and deeds more than anything
else, which we believe are being ignored by too
many people, and many Messianics who deny the
inspiration of the Greek New Testament often
only accept the Aramaic New Testament for a
season, before later denying the Messiah
altogether.
These statements should not be
viewed as an attack on the Aramaic Peshitta by
any means. We have found the Peshitta to be an
excellent supplementary tool to use in Scripture
research. We certainly do not deny that there is
a rich Hebraic background behind the Apostolic
Scriptures, and that Yeshua was a First Century
Rabbi in the Land of Israel and spoke Hebrew as
His primary language, and likely Aramaic as
well. But He also existed in a larger world, and
that larger world spoke Greek as its primary
language. Greek is what was used by God to
transcribe the good news when the Gospels were
finally written in the latter half of the First
Century. Greek was a language no different than
English is today. If we believe that God can use
languages like English to restore the truths of
the Torah to His people today, then He could
have most certainly used Greek in the First
Century to spread the gospel message.
Sadly, most criticisms of the
Greek New Testament by Messianics today are
being made on the basis of antiquated English
translations like the King James Version, as
opposed to the Greek itself. Many people are
repeating the statements and teachings of others
without confirming them as the Torah requires.
We believe that the critical Greek New Testament
supports our conservative Torah beliefs, and
that the Aramaic Peshitta falls short of it.
This is one of the reasons why we believe it is
so important for us to continue producing our
“for the Practical Messianic” commentaries, so
these issues can all be addressed in a more
detailed, verse-by-verse manner.
For a summary on the Peshitta and
related Aramaic literature, consult the article
“Versions, Ancient (Syriac),” by S.P. Brock, in
ABD, 6:794-799.
For a further discussion of some
of these issues, consult the publication
Scripture Under Scrutiny:
Was the New Testament Really Written in Hebrew?
available from TNN Press.
updated 21 November, 2006 |
