|
Babylon:
What do you think end-time Babylon is?
There are various views and
opinions among prophecy teachers, and likewise
among Messianics, concerning what end-time
“Babylon” is. These range from believing that
end-time Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church,
mainstream Christianity or today’s “Church
system,” the United States of America, or a
rebuilt Babylon in the Middle East. Some believe
that “Babylon” is purely a system, whereas
others believe that it is “just this” or “just
that.”
In Hebrew, the word translated
“Babylon” is Bavel (lbB).
BDB defines Bavel as “confuse,
confound” (p 93). Consequently, it should
not be surprising that the world was first
confused at Babel (Genesis 11). At Ancient
Babel, God confused the languages and humanity
was forced to scatter across the face of the
planet. It should also be noted that Ancient
Babylon (and the surrounding region of Sumer) is
the same location that some of the pagan sun
worship and rituals originated that impacted the
Ancient Israelites, the same being responsible
for many of today’s errant influences in Roman
Catholicism. It can easily be said that the
paganism originating in Ancient Babylon has been
permeated throughout the globe.
We tend to be more “open minded”
about any specific identification of end-time
Babylon, because the very nature of the
Babylonian phenomenon is something that is
opposed to the Creator God. Understanding that
Bavel means “confuse” implies that this
is something that is purposely going to be
confusing. Therefore, we see legitimacy in
identifying end-time Babylon as composing
religious, political, and societal elements
which all make up the world system that is
opposed to the Lord.
updated 16 February, 2006
Beards:
Do you believe that men should wear beards?
The Biblical commandment
regarding beards appears in Leviticus 19:27,
saying “You shall not round off the side-growth
of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.”
There is a substantial debate within Judaism
what “the side-growth of your beard” (NJPS)
actually means. We see a great deal of
interpretation of this commandment in Judaism
today.
Some interpret this command as
relating to a man’s full beard, others only his
sideburns, and others the extremities of the
beard. Some believe that a man’s facial hair has
actual “boundaries,” more or less defined, and
others believe that the hair on a man’s face
should just grow without any type of grooming.
Some believe that a man can trim and groom his
beard. And, others believe that a man can shave
his beard, provided it is with an electric
razor. Consequently, the same interpretations
have made their way into the Messianic movement,
and one will see a wide variance of
applications.
We recognize and respect the
diversity of opinions within Judaism, and
believe that whatever interpretation you hold
to, that you respect others. It is notable that
there is a distinct Messianic “subculture” that
insists that all men have beards, and they will
often be judgmental and quite harsh of men that
do not have them. Having or not having a beard
is not an issue of spirituality, as our
relationship with the Lord is contingent on us
having hearts and minds that are transformed by
the Holy Spirit, as we demonstrate God’s love to
others in the world. As God had to remind the
Prophet Samuel, “for the
Lord
does not see as mortals see; they look on the
outward appearance, but the
Lord
looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7, NRSV).
Some men are incapable of growing
beards, and that is the way God made them.
Others have beards as a matter of personal
preference. In some Messianic congregations, you
will find that facial hair on men is not an
issue, where in others it is an issue. We choose
not to make it into an issue, although we do
believe that men can wear beards so as to be
easily distinguished from women. We choose to
recognize that having a relationship with God is
much, much more than how one looks.
updated 25 September, 2006
Bible
Versions:
Is there any specific Bible version that you
recommend that I use? I am new to the Messianic
movement.
Two valuable resources that we
recommend if you are brand new to the Messianic
movement, that you will probably find extremely
helpful, are the Complete Jewish Bible
translated by David H. Stern and the
Hebrew-Greek Key New American Standard
edited by Spiros Zodhiates. The CJB will
familiarize you with many of the Hebrew words
and Hebraic terms used in the Messianic
community, and the Hebrew-Greek Key NASB
has many words keyed to Strong’s Concordance,
with a Strong’s dictionary in the Bible for easy
reference.
Generally speaking, our ministry
prefers the New American Standard, Updated
Edition (1995), because it is widely
considered to be the most literal version
available on the market today, and it is
theologically conservative and evangelical. You
will find that many of the newer Christian
Bibles that are marketed today are translated
from the perspective of dynamic equivalence,
whereby the original Hebrew or Greek is not
rendered literally into English, but rather
conceptually, like the New International
Version or New Living Translation.
These can be used as supplementary versions, but
we do not recommend them as primary for detailed
study. Furthermore, many of the newer
translations, such as the New Revised
Standard Version, have been produced by
those who are theologically liberal and they
employ inclusive and gender neutral language
which may be foreign to the source text, i.e.,
using “brothers and sisters” instead of
“brethren.” These translations can be used, but
you must keep in mind the theological bias(es)
of the translators if you choose to use them.
There are only a few Jewish
translations of the Tanach available on the
English market today. The New Jewish Press
Society or NJPS (1999) is a compendium of
Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox translators.
It follows the dynamic equivalency style and
reads very close to the Christian NIV. Another
popular one is the ArtScroll Tanach
(1996), which comes from an entirely Orthodox
perspective. It is fairly literal, and reads
very close to the Christian NASB, but is
probably not as literal in comparison to it.
Ultimately, every English Bible
translation has its limits. This is why we
encourage everyone to have the proper tools to
understanding Scripture, including Hebrew and
Greek lexicons, Bible dictionaries and
encyclopedias, and good commentaries.
updated 16 February, 2007
Bible
Versions, Messianic:
I have seen a variety of Messianic Bible
versions on the market. Is there any particular
one that you recommend? What is your opinion of
them?
You are correct in stating that
there are a wide variety of Messianic Bible
versions available on the market. Some of them
are good, and some of them are questionable, no
different than the many Christian Bibles that
are available today. Some of them represent a
good, conservative theological position, and
affirm foundational doctrines of the faith, and
some of them skew foundational doctrines of the
faith.
We advise that if you have seen
any Messianic Bible version on the market that
you exhibit some caution. Some of these Bible
versions have no clear statement of belief or
principles of translation behind them. Some of
these Bible versions are nothing more than
modified editions of the King James Version,
with selective edits here and there with Hebraic
terms subjectively inserted with no substantial
theological justification. Furthermore, a few of
those who produce Messianic Bible versions
exhibit no training in the Biblical languages of
Hebrew or Greek, and appear to be nothing more
than eclectic re-writings of Scripture to fit
some kind of (gross sectarian) bias.
Sometime in the future, we are
planning to release an article that discusses
the issue of Bible versions, which will include
some reviews of Messianic versions on the
market.
updated 16 February, 2007
Biblical
Calendar:
What is your opinion with the various calendar
issues that seem to be dividing the Messianic
community?
There are a few Messianic groups
or individuals that claim to have produced
“restored” or “corrected” Biblical Hebrew
calendars, most of which differ substantially
from the standard Jewish calendar employed today
by Jews around the world.
We believe, as the
Apostle Paul attests in Romans 3:2, that the
Jewish people “were entrusted with the oracles
of God.” They were also entrusted with the
Temple service and all of the accoutrements of
the protocol of proper worship and Biblical
conduct. We believe that this means that the
Jewish people get to determine (most of) the
proper way of how the commandments of the Torah
are to be interpreted, and because of Judah’s
leadership (Genesis 49:10) we believe we should
follow many of the Jewish interpretations of the
Torah, provided they are spiritually edifying
(Philippians 4:8), align with the ethos of the
Word of God, and are compatible with God’s
mandate of His people making a difference in the
world (Genesis 12:2-3; Deuteronomy 4:5-8).
Part of following
Judah’s leadership, and in an effort for us as
mostly non-Jewish Believers in Messiah Yeshua to
express unity and solidarity with our Jewish
brothers and sisters, is to follow the same
calendar that they do. It is our opinion that
many of those who are developing their own
“restored” calendars are causing, whether
knowingly or not, disunity between Jews and
non-Jews, and are certainly not helping the
prophesied reunion of all Israel.
For the most part, we follow the
Rabbinical calendar employed by most in Judaism
today, perhaps with a few minor exceptions. We
are extremely skeptical of any so-called
“restored Biblical calendar,” either because
those often putting together their own calendars
are not qualified to do so in areas such as
mathematics, science, astronomy, and chronology,
or their motives are questionable. Many
so-called “restored Biblical calendars” have
been used by individuals to pinpoint a date for
the Second Coming or other prophetic events,
some of which have been adjusted when dates come
and go and nothing happens.
updated 16 February, 2007
Biblical
Festivals:
Do you think that Christians should observe the
feasts/appointed times, the moedim,
of Leviticus 23?
We believe that Believers should
keep the Biblical holidays that the Lord
prescribed for His people in Leviticus 23,
including: Passover, Unleavened Bread,
Pentecost/Shavuot, Trumpets, the Day of
Atonement, and Tabernacles. This would include
the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, as it is listed
as one of the appointed times.
Colossians 2:17 tells us that
these appointed times of God are “a shadow of
what is to come; but the substance belongs to
Christ” (RSV), meaning that we are to see the
Messiah in them. It is important to note that
common Christian celebrations do not equal the
number of holidays that God prescribed.
Christmas, Easter, and short Sunday services are
less than the at least six or seven
Biblical appointments (the lowest number count
of the moedim), the weekly Sabbath (which
lasts an entire day), plus additional holidays
like Purim and Chanukah. So, if
people want to honor God as much as possible,
His way obviously has advantages, as today’s
traditional Christian holidays were not
celebrated by the early Believers and were
instead instituted centuries after the death of
the Apostles by the Roman Catholic Church. (In
saying this, please understand that we are not
saying that the commemoration of Yeshua’s birth
and resurrection are unimportant; we are only
saying that they should be integrated into our
celebration of the Biblical holidays.)
Many Christians quote Colossians
2:16, “Therefore no one is to act as your judge
in regard to food or drink or in respect to a
festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day,” as
meaning that Believers should not honor these
things. But in order to come to this conclusion
we must conclude that these things are “empty
deception, according to the tradition of men,
according to the elementary principles of the
world, rather than according to Messiah”
(Colossians 2:8), which is what the Apostle Paul
warns us about. Surely, the Lord’s festivals are
not vain human traditions or deception.
Colossians 2:16 must be taken as meaning that we
should not allow others to judge us for
celebrating His feasts and obeying His
commandments, as opposed to not let them judge
us for not celebrating them.
Consult the editor’s article “Does
the New Testament Annul the Biblical
Appointments?” for a
further discussion of this issue.
updated 16 February, 2007
Birth
Control:
Do you believe it is wrong for Messianic
Believers to practice birth control?
Among some sectors of Messianic
Believers are those who believe that it is
Biblical for a husband and wife to have large
families, beyond the average family size of 3-4
children. Scriptural support that is frequently
given for this may include God’s command to Adam
and Eve to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill
the earth, and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). While
the Scriptures do encourage human beings to be
fruitful, and for married couples to procreate,
do they encourage procreation beyond one’s
means? Many of those who have large families
beyond the average size look down upon those who
only have 3-4 children. Do the Scriptures
prohibit any kind of birth control or family
planning?
This has certainly been a debated
issue for many centuries, and is not limited to
the Messianic movement by any means. The
official dogma of Roman Catholicism, for
example, prohibits any form of birth control.
Liberal Christians and Jews, in stark contrast,
believe that any form of birth control,
including abortion, is acceptable. Many
Conservative and Reform Jews, and evangelical
Christians, take a middle position on birth
control, advocating that some forms of it are
acceptable, while other forms are unacceptable.
Aside from a belief that abortion is
unacceptable, the Messianic world has those who
favor forms of birth control, every bit as much
as it has those who disfavor forms of birth
control.
Those against birth control, in
addition to arguing against it on the basis that
God expects human beings to be fruitful, may
argue against it from Genesis 38:8-10:
“Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in
to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as
a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring
for your brother.’ Onan knew that the offspring
would not be his; so when he went in to his
brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground
in order not to give offspring to his brother.
But what he did was displeasing in the sight of
the Lord; so He took his life also.”
Those against any form of birth
control will often make serious light of the
fact that Onan “spilled his semen on the ground
to keep from producing offspring” (NIV) and was
killed by the hand of God for it. However, the
context of this happening is very important so
we do not make the automatic assumption that all
forms of birth control are wrong. According to
Deuteronomy 25:5, “When brothers live together
and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of
the deceased shall not be married outside
the family to a strange man. Her
husband's brother shall go in to her and take
her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a
husband's brother to her.” “This institution is
known in Hebrew as yibbum. In English it
is called ‘levirate marriage’ (from Latin
levir, ‘a husband’s brother’)” (Nahum M.
Sarna, in Etz Hayim, p 234).
In early Biblical times, because
marriages were property contracts every bit as
much as individual bonds, for a woman not to
produce an heir meant that the inheritance a
deceased husband left would have to be divided,
possibly weakening the family. Onan agreed to
impregnate his sister-in-law in accordance with
the custom of levirate marriage at the command
of Judah. If he had not done this, then the
portion of property he would have inherited from
his brother would have been considerably more
than if Tamar had not gotten pregnant and had
given birth to a son. Onan begins the sexual act
with Tamar, but withdraws at the last minute.
God struck him down for not performing the
proper act that he agreed to do.
We have to consider the fact that
this was an isolated incident, and is not a
blanket event condemning all birth control for
all generations to come.
Further instruction in Deuteronomy allows for a
voluntary renunciation of the practice of
levirate marriage:
“But if the man does not desire
to take his brother's wife, then his brother's
wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and
say, ‘My husband's brother refuses to establish
a name for his brother in Israel; he is not
willing to perform the duty of a husband's
brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city
shall summon him and speak to him. And if
he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take
her,’ then his brother's wife shall come to him
in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal
off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall
declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does
not build up his brother's house’” (Deuteronomy
25:7-9).
Onan did not tell Judah that he
would renounce Tamar, but instead agrees to go
through with the sexual act. However, instead of
performing the act of the levirate, Onan
withdraws at the point of climax, ejaculating on
the ground. It was for not performing his duty
through to the end that Onan was killed—not that
he withdrew.
EJ
largely summarizes the viewpoints of the
Orthodox Jewish community today, which is
largely against birth control:
“It is in the rabbinic responsa,
especially those of the past 200 years, that the
attitude of Jewish law to birth control is
defined and discussed in great detail. The many
hundreds of rulings recorded in these responsa
consider urgent medical reasons as the only
valid justification for certain contraceptive
precautions. Jewish law regards such decisions
as capital judgments and it would, therefore,
insist on dealing with each case on its
individual merits and on the evidence of
competent medical opinion. Where some grave
hazard to the mother, however remote, is feared,
as a result of pregnancy, the rabbinic attitude
is usually quite liberal, all the more readily
if the commandment of procreation (which
technically requires having a son and a
daughter) has already been fulfilled. Under no
circumstances, however, does Jewish law sanction
any contraceptive acts or safeguards on the part
of the male, nor does it ever tolerate the use
or distribution of birth control devices outside
marriage” (Immanuel Jakobovits, “Birth Control,”
in EJ).
The key to note here is that
while Orthodox Judaism is largely against the
practice of a couple not having any children, “Jewish
law regards such decisions as capital judgments
and it would, therefore, insist on dealing with
each case on its individual merits and on the
evidence of competent medical opinion.”
While dealing with each couple on a case-by-case
basis, the Jewish community as a whole,
including Conservative and Reform Judaism, has
largely liberalized its stand on birth control
due to the population explosion of the last
century. “In common with the attitude of most
Protestant denominations, Reform Judaism would
generally leave the decision on birth control to
the individual conscience, recognizing social
and economic factors no less than the medical
motivation” (Ibid).
It is important to
note that on the whole “Jewish law permits
various forms of contraception for medical and
other reasons but prefers methods that do not
destroy the generative seed” (Sarna, in Etz
Hayim, p 234), although there are certainly
various opinions among the Orthodox,
Conservative, and Reform communities. Accepted
forms of birth control that would be used today
among the Conservative and Reform Jewish
communities include the usage of vaginal
sponges, the diaphragm, condoms, and the birth
control pill. Preferred forms are those used by
the woman that prevent the union of egg and
sperm. In some cases withdrawal is permitted.
Spermicide, because it kills sperm, is largely
not permitted. There is also debate over forms
of birth control that one has definite control
over, such as the sponge, diaphragm, or condom,
and those that alter the chemical and hormonal
balance of a woman such as the pill. Likewise,
vasectomy on a male is considered an
unacceptable form of birth control, as is
tubal ligation on a woman, except in extreme medical
cases.
The issue of birth
control is not frequently debated in the
evangelical Protestant community. Not all
evangelicals are in favor of birth control, even
though some favor forms of it. Beliefs vary
among denominations, although most conservative
denominations encourage married couples to have
children, but not at the expense of their own
marriage. In other words, children are
encouraged to come forth out of a love that a
husband and wife have toward one another, not
because they should feel obligated to have
children and simply procreate for the sake of
procreating.
The primary debate
among Protestants often regards the morality of
abortion, with many being against it in any
form. While abortion-on-demand is an ungodly
and horrific procedure, moderates on the issue
do concede that there are exceptions. When a
woman’s life is in danger, abortion may be
necessary. Likewise, a pregnancy involving gross
psychological trauma, such as rape or incest,
may require an abortion. These issues, of
course, must be considered on a case-by-case
basis and must involve the pregnant woman
consulting her husband or father, as well as a
pastor and/or doctor. This is consistent with
much of the Jewish community, which also
recognizes that there can be exceptions
regarding abortion.
On the whole, our ministry
adheres to the basic views of Conservative and
Reform Judaism, as well as evangelical
Christianity, when it comes to birth control.
We do not believe that all forms of birth
control are prohibited by the Scriptures,
but we certainly encourage married couples to
have children as a result of their love.
However, a couple with children needs to be able
to have them within their means. For some,
having multiple children all at once can be a
great physical and psychological strain—not to
mention a financial burden. In Biblical times,
having large families was every bit as much as
an economic decision as it was procreative. One
needed many children to perform household and
agricultural tasks. Today, in strong contrast,
having smaller families is often an economic
decision.
The decision how to have children
ultimately involves a husband and wife and what
they prayerfully decide between themselves and
the Lord. It is not anyone’s place to judge a
couple for not having more than the average 3-4
children, any more than it is anyone’s place to
judge a couple for not being able to have
children, or even to judge an unmarried man or
woman who cannot find the proper spouse. This
issue is one where a couple has to decide for
themselves, based on what they read in
Scripture, whether or not their marriage
relationship is mature enough to allow for
children, and the cultural and economic
considerations that must be made. More than
anything else, this is something that couples
should not have outsiders unnecessarily
interfering with.
posted 27 February, 2006
Birth of Yeshua:
When should Messianic Believers remember
Yeshua’s birth?
Almost all authorities are agreed that Yeshua the Messiah was not
born on December 25, and that the choice of
December 25 for Christmas was an arbitrary date
in ancient history, giving former pagans an
opportunity to remember something different than
what they had previously observed. Today’s
Messianics, recognizing the questionable origins
and traditions associated with Christmas on
December 25, will still often recognize that the
birth of Yeshua, as principally recorded in Luke
2, is still an event worthy of remembering. But
when should it be done? What would be a date or
season that is much more appropriate for us
considering the entry of the Messiah into the
world at Bethlehem?
Many of today’s Messianic Believers are of the conviction that
Yeshua the Messiah was born in conjunction with
the Feast of Tabernacles. This is primarily
based on passages such as John 1:14, which speak
of how “the
Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” The
Greek verb skēnoō (skhnow)
is employed in this verse, with its noun form
skēnē (skhnh)
frequently used in the Torah (i.e., Leviticus
23:34, 42-43) to render the Hebrew sukkah
(hKs).
YLT actually renders John 1:14 with “the Word
became flesh, and did tabernacle among us.” It
is not at all inappropriate to connect the
typology of Sukkot to the Incarnation of
Yeshua. Yet, just like with those ancient
Christian leaders who arbitrarily chose December
25 to remember Yeshua’s birth, so might
concluding that Yeshua was born during the Feast
of Tabernacles also be a bit arbitrary. There is
simply no way for us to know for certain.
It is sad, though, that those who are of the
opinion that Yeshua might have been born during
Tabernacles, have usually been met with varying
degrees of resistance when they have tried to
integrate this into their Sukkot
festivities. Attacks along the lines of “We
should not be remembering anyone’s birth!” are
usually issued. The actual, Biblical record of
Yeshua’s birth can be literally ripped to
shreds. A few contentious people who will
without hesitation claim that “Christmas is
pagan!” now want nothing to do with what the
Gospels tell us about the birth of the King of
Kings, and prefer to excise it from their
Bibles. So to avoid controversy and encourage
unity during the Sukkot season, those who
believe that Yeshua was born during this time
often never bring it up, and keep their thoughts
to themselves.
Certainly, it is justified to question the
spiritual maturity (and even salvation) of those
who will not even read passages like Luke 2 or
Matthew 1-2 that detail the nativity, and what
took place during the early years of Yeshua’s
life, yet claim Him as their Savior. Anyone
who has placed his or her trust in Yeshua still
has to deal with the Biblical text.
Disregarding it completely, as though it does
not exist or that it is too “Churchy” for us to
consider—even when not celebrating Christmas—is
sad evidence of how a few of today’s Messianics
are utter neophytes when it comes to reading
Scriptures about Yeshua’s life and ministry.
Not all are convinced that Yeshua was born
during the season of Sukkot, or are at
least skeptical of this proposal and think it
needs more research. Yet, it is clear that
because the birth of Yeshua is a part not only
of Scripture—but also our faith—that we should
find a time to consider what its message
means for us. Aside from celebrating Christmas,
or trying to remember the nativity during the
Feast of Tabernacles, it might be that the
“safest” time to address the birth of Yeshua is
when Shemot (Exodus 1:1-6:1)
appears in the yearly Torah cycle. What
makes this an appropriate time to consider the
message of Yeshua’s birth, is that parallels
between the birth of Moses and the birth of the
Messiah—who came as a “second Moses”—can be
considered.
Of course, even if we choose to examine the
birth of Yeshua when Shemot appears in
the Torah cycle, there will still be those few
who will oppose it, because they have adopted a
very immature and ungodly attitude toward
Christmas and their Christian brethren.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that can really
be done with this kind of people, other than to
ask them whether they think the Biblical account
of Yeshua’s birth should be removed from the
Holy Scriptures. And if they actually say
yes—then we should wonder whether or not 2 John
7 applies concerning such people:
“For many deceivers have gone out into the
world, those who do not acknowledge Yeshua the
Messiah as coming in the flesh. This is
the deceiver and the antimessiah.”
posted 09 December, 2009
B’rit
Chadashah:
Why do you not call the New Testament the B’rit
Chadashah as some other Messianics do?
There are several reasons why we
as a ministry do not refer to the “New
Testament” as the B’rit Chadashah, unlike
many in the Messianic movement. First of all,
the b’rit chadashah (hvdx
tyrB)
or “new covenant” is promised to the House of
Judah and the House of Israel in Jeremiah 31.
The text says,
“‘Behold, days are coming,’
declares the
Lord,
‘when I will make a new covenant with the house
of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like
the covenant which I made with their fathers in
the day I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they
broke, although I was a husband to them,’
declares the
Lord. ‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the
house of Israel after those days,’ declares the
Lord,
‘I will put My law within them and on their
heart I will write it; and I will be their God,
and they shall be My people’” (Jeremiah
31:31-34).
The b’rit chadashah is
actually a covenant that the Lord has made with
both the Houses of Israel to be fully realized
in the end-times. This is what the author of
Hebrews talks about in Hebrews 8:8-12:
“For finding fault with them, He
says, ‘Behold,
days are coming, says the Lord, when I will
effect a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah; not like the
covenant which I made with their fathers on the
day when I took them by the hand to lead them
out of the land of Egypt; for they did not
continue in My covenant, and I did not care for
them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws
into their minds, and I will write them on their
hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall
be My people. And they shall not teach everyone
his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother,
saying, “Know the Lord,” for all will know Me,
from the least to the greatest of them. For I
will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will
remember their sins no more.’"
As a ministry we believe that it
is a misnomer to call the Hebrew Scriptures the
“Old Testament.” The more correct term to use is
Tanach/Tanakh ($nt),
an acronym for Torah (Law), Nevi’im
(Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). We
certainly will use the term “Old Testament” in
passing for those who are unfamiliar with the
term “Tanach,” but Tanach by far is the
preferred term.
The same is the case when we
consider the “New Testament.” There is nothing
“new” about these Scriptures other than the fact
that they are the continual progressive
revelation of God that attest to the work of
Messiah Yeshua and His early followers. These
are the Divinely inspired works of the early
Disciples and Apostles. Messianics often
compound the confusion that exists among many
Christians regarding the “New Testament” by
using terms such as New Covenant or B’rit
Chadashah. More correct terms to use in
reference to the “New Testament” would be the
Apostolic Scriptures or Apostolic Writings, or
Messianic Scriptures or Messianic Writings. The
New Covenant or b’rit chadashah in
actuality is the prophesied promise of God to
write His Torah on our hearts. The Apostolic
Scriptures do not make up a covenant but rather
record the works of God in the period of the
Messiah’s time on Earth and immediately
following.
updated 26 June, 2006
British-Israelism:
Do you believe in British-Israelism?
While we believe that the
physical descendants of Abraham are, as the Lord
promised, “as the stars of the heavens and as
the sand which is on the seashore” (Genesis
22:17), we do not believe in British-Israelism,
nor advocate its theology. The Lord Promised
Jacob that “Your descendants will also be like
the dust of the earth, and you will spread out
to the west and to the east and to the north and
to the south; and in you and in your descendants
shall all the families of the earth be blessed”
(Genesis 28:14). This means that the seed of
Jacob/Israel went to all four corners of the
Earth, not just to the British Isles, which is
advocated by British-Israel proponents.
Because we believe
that in the Last Days the Two Houses of Israel,
Judah and scattered Israel/Ephraim, will be
reunited before Messiah Yeshua will return
(Ezekiel 37:15-28), we believe that Israel will
be gathered back to the Promised Land from all
over the world. This includes, but it is not
limited to, the British Isles.
British-Israelism is the belief
system that primarily advocates that only
those descended from Britons (English, Scottish,
Irish, and Welsh) are those of the Lost Tribes
of Israel from the Northern Kingdom of
Israel/Ephraim. British-Israelism also advocates
that the throne of Great Britain is also the
throne of David, and frequently is connected
with anti-Semitism and white supremacism. We
firmly reject all of these concepts. We
completely disavow all of the pseudo-history
associated with it. We do not believe that it
can be theologically or historically proven
where the scattered seed of Israel has gone. We
believe, as the Lord promised, that it went all
over the Earth. Obviously, Britain could be one
of those places, but certainly not the only
place.
updated 16 February, 2007
British, word
of Hebrew origin:
I have heard it said that the word “British” is
a word of Hebrew origin. Is there any validity
to this claim?
British-Israel proponents claim
that “British” is a combination of the Hebrew
words
b’rit
(tyrB)
or “covenant” and
ish
(vya)
meaning “man,” implying that God’s covenant is
with those of British ancestry. Such an equation
of
b’rit
and
ish
to “British” reduces the validity of the
promises of multiplicity given to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, limiting it to those of solely
of British ancestry. As Dr. Walter Martin notes
in his classic work
Kingdom of the Cults,
“It is sufficient to point
out…that the Hebrew words berith [b’rit]
and ish literally mean ‘covenant and
man,’ not, ‘men of the covenant,’
as…Anglo-Israelites maintain. When to this is
added the unbiased and impeccably researched
conclusions of the venerable Oxford English
Dictionary and every other major English
work on etymology, there is absolutely no
connection between the Anglo-Saxon tongue and
the Hebrew language…” (p 309).
It is notable, in response to
Martin’s comments that English and Hebrew are
unrelated, that a work by the Jewish scholar and
linguist Isaac E. Mozeson, author of The
Word: The Dictionary That Reveals The Hebrew
Source Of English, proposes there may be
connections between English via Greek and Latin
to Hebrew. (Whether there are or not can
probably be vigorously debated, and the editor
is currently not convinced of the “validity” of
his research). Mozeson states, “Greek and Latin
are merely grandfathers, while Hebrew is the
patriarch” (p 5). However, it is important that
we point out that nowhere in Mozeson’s
book does he make a connection between “British”
and the words b’rit and ish. The
modern Hebrew term for “British” is Britee
(yjyrb),
which is hardly what one would expect if
“British” were indeed a Hebrew word.
There is no legitimate linguistic
basis to say that the English word “British” is
of Hebrew origins. This is a claim that is often
made by those who advocate British-Israel
theology, many of whom are notably untrained in
the Hebrew language and are making conclusions
based on what they “see” or “hear,” not on
Hebrew linguistics.
updated 16 February, 2007 |
