|
Calvinist-Arminian Controversy:
Does your ministry have a position on Calvinism
or Arminianism?
Hebrews 6:4-6 tells us, “For in
the case of those who have once been enlightened
and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have
been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have
tasted the good word of God and the powers of
the age to come, and then have fallen
away, it is impossible to renew them again to
repentance, since they again crucify to
themselves the Son of God and put Him to open
shame.”
These verses have probably had
the most overall impact on theological
discussions and debates outside of the text of
Hebrews. What does it mean concerning “those who
have once been enlightened” who “have tasted the
good word of God”? As many of you are probably
aware, this is a strongly debated Scripture
among Calvinists and Arminians in Protestant
Christian theology pertaining to concepts such
as predestination, the free will of humans, and
God’s elect. Is it possible for the emerging
Messianic movement to have its “own” position on
the Calvinist-Arminian controversy?
The major issue of man’s
responsibility and God’s redemptive power in the
salvation experience actually goes back to the
Fifth Century with the Pelagian Controversy. The
British monk Pelagius (354-415) advocated that
human beings were embodied with a complete free
will, and he completely denied the sovereignty
of God in worldly affairs. Salvation in the
Pelagian schema is solely a human work, and
something that is not in any capacity
accomplished by God. Augustine (354-430), bishop
of Hippo, refuted Pelagius’ heresies, but in so
doing focused extensively on God’s sovereignty
and his work in salvation. Augustine was right
to emphasize that salvation was a work of God,
largely focusing on John 15:5, “apart from Me
you can do nothing.” As Alister E. McGrath
summarizes, “Augustine understood grace as the
real and redeeming presence of God in Christ
within us, transforming us; something that was
internal and active” (Christian
Theology: An Introduction,
p 447). Augustine rightly rejected Pelagius’
view that grace was something outside of us that
was passive.
Moving forward to the Protestant
Reformation, the French Reformer John Calvin
(1509-1564) was largely influenced by
Augustine’s view of Divine grace, with his
followers often emphasizing it as “irresistible
grace,” something that one could not refuse.
Calvin was certainly a brilliant scholar and
able exegete of the early Reformation, and much
is to be gained by examining his works. Calvin’s
theology is noted by his emphasis on the
sovereignty of God and His predestination of all
human events. Followers of Calvinistic theology
believe that salvation is entirely a work of
God. However, the Calvinistic theology of
election emphasizes that God has chosen only
some to be redeemed, and others He has selected
to be damned. In the schema of God having
predestined all events in human history is the
debate over whether God is the author of the
Fall and thus the author of sin (supralapsarianism),
or God’s predestined choices come after the Fall
(infralapsarianism). Calvin’s system of
theology is generally known as Reformed, and in
America is largely adhered to in the
Presbyterian Church and many sectors of the
Baptist Church.
A major issue arose in the
Reformation when challenges to Calvin’s theology
of specific foreknowledge arose in Holland.
Dutch pastor Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), who had
been trained as a strict Calvinist, was asked to
refute Dirck Koorenhert, who did not believe in
specific foreknowledge. Arminius examined his
beliefs and became convinced that Yeshua the
Messiah did not just die for the elect, but for
all the world. Justo González summarizes
Arminius’ principal view that “the final destiny
of each individual was based, not on the
sovereign will of God, but rather on divine
foreknowledge, by which God knew what each
person’s response would be to the offer of
salvation” (Justo L. González, The Story of
Christianity, Vol. 2, p 180). Arminius
argued for a general foreknowledge in that God
has certainly predestined particular events to
take place in human history, but has left
individuals to decide for themselves whether or
not they want to receive His salvation or reject
it. The Remonstrance movement in the Netherlands
issued what would become known as “the open
decree of predestination.” While often confused
with Pelagianism, the Remonstrance movement
emphasized “that humans can do nothing good on
their own account, and that the grace of God is
necessary in order to do good” (Ibid., 181). In
America today, forms of Arminian theology are
largely present in the Methodist Church, and
various Pentecostal denominations and sects such
as the Assemblies of God.
The major difference between
Calvinists and Arminians today pertains to the
issue of salvation. Did Yeshua die only for the
elect? Or, did He die for all the world? Both
views rightly emphasize that salvation is to be
a work of God via His Holy Spirit. But
Calvinists largely emphasize that salvation is
something that remains permanent and cannot be
lost, often referred to in the vernacular as
“once saved, always saved.” They frequently base
this on John 10:27-29: “My sheep hear My voice,
and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give
eternal life to them, and they will never
perish; and no one will snatch them out of My
hand. My Father, who has given them to
Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to
snatch them out of the Father's hand.”
Calvinists argue that God knows who His chosen
ones are, and no one is capable of removing them
from Him—even the people themselves.
Arminians, in stark contrast to
this, will argue on the basis of Hebrews 6:4-6
that an individual can be enlightened and
spiritually regenerated, having received
salvation, but can then reach a point where this
salvation is lost. Arminians argue that
salvation is a work of God, but that the free
will of humans can interrupt that salvation.
Case studies such as Ancient Israel in the
wilderness, Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus, and
perhaps even King Solomon can be offered as
examples of those who experienced God’s
salvation, but then at a later point rejected it
because of sin. Arminians are generally in
agreement with Calvinists over the fact that God
has certainly decreed particular events to occur
through the prophecies of His Word, but would
not make the argument that God has decreed that
every event of every single second has been
decreed from eternity.
We are infrequently asked if
there is a distinct Messianic view of the
Calvinist-Arminian debate. Based on our family’s
experience in the Messianic movement since 1995,
there is no distinct view at this
point in time. Almost anyone taking a position
as either a Calvinist or Arminian is taking that
position because he or she was raised or trained
in a denominational setting that adhered to a
Calvinist theology or Arminian theology.
Sometimes Calvinistic or Arminian theology is
moderated by Messianics as the “nature of God’s
universe” is something that cannot be fully
understood by us as humans. As a former United
Methodist and student of the teachings of John
Wesley (1703-1791), the editor is no
exception to being affected by this debate,
having been in an Arminian environment. He
believes in the general foreknowledge of God,
but also that people can lose their salvation.
Wesleyan-Arminianism, however, does emphasize
the personal holiness and sanctification of the
individual—concepts that should be emphasized in
today’s Messianic movement through Torah
observance—as well as experiencing the power of
the Holy Spirit. In stark contrast to most
Calvinists, Wesleyan-Arminians believe in the
contiunuance of the gifts of the Spirit, but may
not emphasize it to the same degree of many of
the new “charismatic” movements today.
While we should respect some of
the theological tenets of Calvinism and the
benefits that it has brought to Western
society—in particular its emphasis on hard
work—we have two principal problems with
Calvinism. Our first problem with Calvinism is
its doctrine of limited atonement. This is the
belief that Yeshua the Messiah only died
for the elect, and thus He did not die for all
mankind. Surprisingly, this teaching is actually
based on the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 9-11
on the olive tree of Israel, where he writes
that “those who were chosen obtained it, and the
rest were hardened” (Romans 11:7). Wesleyan-Arminianism
does differ from other forms of Arminianism in
that it does advocate that certain individuals
may be chosen by God for damnation, such as
Pharaoh, Judas Iscariot, the coming antimessiah/antichrist,
but this is few and far between. A question each
of us has to ask is whether or not Yeshua the
Messiah died for the whole world, or only a
small sector of chosen. Some in the Messianic
movement believe that Yeshua died only to
save Israel, and not the whole world, and in
their own way are actually supporting some form
of Calvinist dogma.
Our second major problem with
Calvinism is its emphasis on eternal security,
lived out in much of modern Christendom by
people “making decisions for Christ” and then
living ungodly lives inconsistent with that of
our Lord. Many believe that salvation is not
something that needs to be maintained by holy
living and the sanctification process, much like
one would maintain one’s own car, house, or
yard. Where is the evidence of our salvation?
John Wesley summarizes it well for us by
stating, “we know that we truly and savingly
know him—As he is the advocate, the righteous,
the propitiation. If we keep his
commandments—Particularly those of faith and
love.” Our faith is to be evidenced by our
works, and those works—most importantly love for
God and one’s neighbor, emphasized by Yeshua
(Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-31; Luke
10:25-28)—are to give us the assurance we need
that we are in the Lord.
Calvinists are right to a degree,
in that Yeshua died only for the elect, or we
might even say “only for Israel”—but in a
somewhat different sense. The Prophet Isaiah
attests that “You are My Servant, Israel, in
whom I will show My glory” (Isaiah 49:3). Yeshua
the Messiah is this “Israel.” We as Believers
become a part of Israel by becoming one with Him
who is the epitome of Israel. In other words, we
become the elect by becoming one with Him who is
the elect, Yeshua the Messiah.
The argument over whether or not
a person can lose his or her salvation, however,
may ultimately be solved by personal experience.
Many moderates on the issue believe that it is
pointless trying to figure out whether or not
someone falling away was once “saved,” or had a
false conversion, because the point of Hebrews
6:4-6 is to never be in the position of even
thinking of leaving the faith. We generally
agree with this statement, because most who deny
Yeshua the Messiah have never known Him as their
personal Lord and Savior or have experienced the
Holy Spirit. Still, does this mean that every
single person who denies Him never knew Him?
In the Messianic community today, we sadly
encounter an increasing number of people who
question and deny the Divinity of, and later the
Messiahship of, Yeshua. Are they all
“unconverted”? We must see to it that these
people never question the work of the Holy
Spirit in their lives.
It is notable that the debate
over God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will is
not given as much attention in Jewish theology
as it is in Protestant Christian theology. There
are certain examples of these two facets of
existence that are often given for discussion,
such as Abraham’s binding of Isaac (Genesis 22)
and the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 9).
The Jewish Philosophy Reader notes, “In
the volume of the Mishnah known as the Pirke
Avoth (‘Sayings of the Fathers’) Rabbi Akiba
proclaimed: ‘Everything is seen, yet freedom is
given’ (3.19). It is clear from this brief
statement that already in the 2nd century Jewish
theology had at least recognized, if not solved,
the apparent incompatibility between divine
omniscience and human freedom” (Seymour Feldman,
“The Binding of Isaac: A Test-Case for Divine
Foreknowledge,” in The Jewish Philosophy
Reader, p 122). When it comes to the issues
as presented by both Calvin and Arminius, the
Jewish position is much more
“let God be God.”
Messianics who are either
Calvinist or Arminian in their orientation are
often so because of their upbringing or
theological training. Certainly, we have the
responsibility to foster a Messianic environment
where those leaning toward Calvinism or
Arminisiam are both welcome, so a more distinct
Messianic viewpoint can be developed over time.
One’s ultimate decision regarding the loss of
salvation may have to be experiential, which was
a critical part of Wesley’s theology (Scripture,
tradition, reason, experience). This is an old
debate, and only time will determine if
developing a distinct Messianic position is
possible. In the meantime, we need to make sure
that people truly do have salvation in Messiah
Yeshua, have experienced the regenerative power
of the Holy Spirit, and are strong in their
faith so that they do not even consider
abandoning the Lord.
(This entry has been adapted by
the Excursus “Calvinism, Arminianism, and the
Emerging Messianic Movement” in the commentary
Hebrews for the Practical Messianic.)
posted 14 July, 2006
Chanukah,
Actions of Antiochus:
In what way did Antiochus Epiphanes commit the
“Abomination of Desolation”? I thought this was
a future event.
The event describing the
desecration of the Temple by Antiochus, even
though it actually was carried out by an
Athenian senator (2 Maccabees 6:1), was in
fulfillment of the Prophet Daniel’s words in
Daniel 11:31: “Forces from him will arise,
desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away
with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up
the abomination of desolation.” It may seem
confusing for us because the eschatological term
that often describes “the Abomination of
Desolation” in most pre-millennial prophecy
circles is used to refer to another event, that
of Daniel 9:27:
“And he will make a firm covenant
with the many for one week, but in the middle of
the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and
grain offering; and on the wing of abominations
will come one who makes desolate, even
until a complete destruction, one that is
decreed, is poured out on the one who makes
desolate.”
Without a doubt, what happened in
the period of the Maccabees was an abomination
before the God of Israel. But it was not the
final abomination spoken of by Daniel that
occurs at the end of the seventy-weeks prophecy.
A future leader, much like Antichous, eager to
unite the world as one people worshipping him,
will make all of the previous abominations that
have occurred on the Temple Mount seem like
nothing. The text uses the plural kenaf
shiqutzim (~ycQ
@nK),
indicating that there have been multiple
abominations committed, but this one will be
the extreme abomination, topping all the
others. The Apostle Paul describes this in
greater detail in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4:
“Let no one in any way deceive
you, for it will not come unless the
apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness
is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes
and exalts himself above every so-called god or
object of worship, so that he takes his seat in
the temple of God, displaying himself as being
God.”
From Paul’s
vantage point, the Abomination of Desolation has
yet to occur; and from our view today, it
likewise has yet to occur. Yeshua the Messiah
makes this clear in His Olivet Discourse of
Matthew 24:
“Therefore when
you see the
abomination of desolation which was
spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing
in the holy place (let the reader understand),
then those who are in Judea must flee to the
mountains. Whoever is on the housetop must not
go down to get the things out that are in his
house. Whoever is in the field must not turn
back to get his cloak. But woe to those who are
pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in
those days! But pray that your flight will not
be in the winter, or on a Sabbath” (Matthew
24:15-20).
Some have claimed
that the Abomination of Desolation occurred in
ancient times when Jerusalem and the Temple were
destroyed in 70 C.E. But that is contingent on
several things. While Yeshua has Daniel’s
description of the Abomination in mind, His
statement is preceded by the ever-critical,
“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
the whole world as a testimony to all the
nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew
24:14). Even today, almost 2,000 years later,
this word has yet to be fulfilled. Furthermore,
we see the statement “let the reader understand”
inserted into the text, presumably by Matthew
when he composed his Gospel. When Matthew wrote
his Gospel tells us quite a bit as to whether or
not this has occurred. If Matthew’s Gospel
post-dates the destruction of the Temple in 70
C.E., as most conservative and liberal scholars
believe, then it is indeed an indication that
this Abomination of Desolation is to occur in
the future.
There has been no
leader like Antiochus, or even an emissary of
his, who has entered into the Temple in
Jerusalem to be worshipped as God. In fact,
there is no Temple in Jerusalem today where this
prophecy could even be fulfilled in. The
seventy-weeks prophecy of Daniel has yet to be
completely fulfilled, as when it is all over we
are to see the restoration of God’s Kingdom on
Earth, stated clearly in Daniel 9:24:
“Seventy weeks have been decreed
for your people and your holy city, to finish
the transgression, to make an end of sin, to
make atonement for iniquity, to bring in
everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and
prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.”
We are still awaiting to see
everlasting righteousness established in the
Earth. That has not happened, and any claim by
theologians or teachers that it has is totally
misguided.
The example of Antiochus
Ephiphanes is very, very important to
understand. It lays the historical precedent as
being one of the many abominations that has
occurred on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This
abomination in 167 B.C.E. was followed by the
Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and
the subsequent erection of a temple to Jupiter.
Likewise, when Islam expanded throughout the
Middle East the Dome of the Rock was built on
the Temple Mount. Today, we await the
reconstruction of the Temple by many of the
Temple Mount faithful groups in Israel, and then
we can see the climax of all of these
abominations. Unlike those who committed
abominations in the past, though, the man of
lawlessness will be able to broadcast himself to
the world, so everyone, not just those in
Jerusalem, will be able to see him declare
himself as God. Do you think Antiochus
Ephiphanes would have liked to do this? Well,
the same spirit of antimessiah that was in him
will be in someone else in the future.
added 31 December, 2005
Virtual Chanukah
Chanukah,
Celebrated instead of Sukkot:
What can you tell me about the Feast of
Dedication being celebrated in place of
Sukkot by the Maccabees when they
rededicated the Temple?
When the
Seleucid-Greek invaders occupied the Land of
Israel, it was forbidden for any of the Biblical
holidays to be celebrated, possibly under the
threat of death. Obviously, this would have
included Sukkot, or the Feast of
Tabernacles. Many Jews continued to celebrate
the appointed times in secret, or in some
limited way without being caught.
Some in the
independent Messianic community, who largely
frown on observing Chanukah, say that
when the Maccabees rededicated the Second Temple
that the eight-day festival they celebrated was
Tabernacles, which they were unable to celebrate
prior to this time. They base it on statements
made in 2 Maccabees 10:5-6:
“It happened that
on the same day on which the sanctuary had been
profaned by the foreigners, the purification of
the sanctuary took place, that is, on the
twenty-fifth day of the same month, which was
Chislev. And they celebrated it for eight days
with rejoicing, in the manner of the feast of
booths, remembering how not long before, during
the feast of booths, they had been wandering in
the mountains and caves like wild animals.”
The REB actually
says “they recalled how, only a short time
before, they had kept that feast while living
like wild animals in the mountains and caves.”
Did the Maccabees actually try to “keep
Sukkot” while evading the Seleucid armies in
the wilderness? We might never have an answer to
this question. But what we do know is that while
there were some elements of Sukkot
brought in to the first Festival of Dedication,
it was celebrated and mandated as its own unique
holiday. The text continues, clarifying what the
Jews assembled in Jerusalem were actually doing:
“Therefore bearing
ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and
also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of
thanksgiving to him who had given success to the
purifying of his own holy place. They decreed by
public ordinance and vote that the whole nation
of the Jews should observe these days every
year” (2 Maccabees 10:7-8).
We are told that
this new holiday, commemorating the rededication
of the Temple, was “decreed by public edict,
ratified by vote, that the whole nation of the
Jews should observe these days every year” (NRSV).
This makes Chanukah something new and
unique that was not intended to be a substitute
for Sukkot.
added 29 December, 2005
Virtual Chanukah
Chanukah,
Eight Days of Oil:
Where can I find information about the
menorah being lit for eight days, on one
cruse of oil, following the Maccabees’
rededication of the Temple?
The Maccabees drove the Seleucids
out of the Land of Israel in the month of Kislev
165 B.C.E., which is in about the month of
December. They had the task of cleaning up the
mess that the Seleucids had left, notably in the
city of Jerusalem and in the Temple complex.
Antiochus’ forces had completely ransacked the
Temple and made it into a haven of idolatry. The
Temple needed to be cleansed of its defilement
and restored to its previous position so proper
sacrifices could once again be performed. Of all
of the items of Temple furniture that had to be
cleansed and rededicated, one of the most
important was the great lampstand or
menorah.
The
menorah
required special consecrated oil in order to be
lit. Some historical traditions actually
indicate that the Maccabees had to setup a
“makeshift
menorah”
out of iron bars covered with zinc (Scholium to
Megillat Ta’anit; cf. Moshe David Herr,
“Hanukkah,” in EJ), while a new gold
menorah (hrAnm)
was being crafted.
The Festival of Dedication or
Chanukah,
as attested in the historical record, was
mandated as a national celebration so that the
community could remember the sacrifice of the
Maccabees, and the rededication of the Temple in
Jerusalem:
“Then Judas and
his brothers and all the assembly of Israel
determined that every year at that season the
days of dedication of the altar should be
observed with gladness and joy for eight days,
beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month
of Chislev” (1 Maccabees 4:59).
The historian Josephus writes
about the establishment of
Chanukah
as a new, national celebration for the Jewish
people in his book
The
Antiquities of the Jews:
“Now Judas
celebrated the festival of the restoration of
the sacrifices of the temple for eight days; and
omitted no sort of pleasures thereon: but he
feasted them upon very rich and splendid
sacrifices; and he honored God, and delighted
them, by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so
very glad at the revival of their customs, when
after a long time of intermission, they
unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their
worship, for eight days. And from that time to
this we celebrate this festival, and call it
Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this
liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and
that thence was the name given to that festival”
(12.323-325).
The Greek name for this holiday
as recorded by Josephus was
phowta
(fwta),
meaning “Lights.” The connection of Chanukah
to the lighting of the menorah goes all
the way back to the First Century B.C.E., where
we see that Talmud tractates b.Shabbat
21b and 23a detail various halachic
rulings regarding the lighting of the
chanukia, and debates between the Rabbinical
Schools of Hillel and Shammai. These rulings
date anywhere from 50-100 years before Messiah
Yeshua.
The wonderful story that enlivens
our
Chanukah
celebration concerns the fact that when the
Maccabees were cleansing the Temple, only one
cruse of consecrated oil was found to light the
menorah.
The Torah says that the oil used in the
Tabernacle/Temple service was to be “clear oil
of beaten olives for the light, to make a lamp
burn continually” (Exodus 27:20; cf. Leviticus
24:2), and the prevailing halachah of the
day required eight days for this oil to be
produced. While there was plenty of olive oil
present to use in the Land of Israel, only
special consecrated oil could be used for
burning in the menorah. The miracle of
the eight days of oil is spoken of in the
Talmud, in the midst of the arguments about how
the chanukia was to be lit:
“What is [the
reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On
the twenty-fifth of Kislew [commence] the days
of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a
lamentation for the dead and fasting are
forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the
Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and
when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and
defeated them, they made search and found only
one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the
High Priest, but which contained sufficient for
one day’s lighting only; yet a miracle was
wrought therein and they lit [the lamp]
therewith for eight days. The following year
these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the
recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving” (b.Shabbat
21b).
This story can be
certainly deduced from the historical events
recorded for us in 1-4 Maccabees, the writings
of Josephus, and others. While some people today
brand the miracle of the oil remaining lit for
eight days only a “legend,” the fact of the
matter remains that Orthodox Jews, most
Conservative Jews, and the vast majority of the
Messianic Jewish community today, believe with
great faith that it actually happened. The
challenge for some in the independent Messianic
Two-House movement today is the fact that many
are unwilling to accept Jewish works like the
Mishnah or Talmud as having any valid history
(or for that same matter, the writings of the
Church Fathers). Many are disrespectful to
Jewish custom and tradition, and assert that it
has no place in their interpretation and
application of God’s Word.
The social Sitz
im Leben (Ger. situation in life) of the
Biblical text plays no part in the hermeneutics
of some in the independent Messianic community,
which is very sad because a critical part of
returning to the faith of the First Century
Disciples and Apostles of Yeshua is knowing the
history of the times. In order to do this we
have to piece together information from the
Biblical texts, Jewish history, Greco-Roman
history, early Christian writings, and
archaeology. We also have to take much on faith,
and make some value judgments. For some, custom
and tradition are not important in determining
how we should live our lives. But for many,
especially in the Jewish community, custom and
tradition are very important factors. As
Messianic Believers who live in the Twenty-First
Century, we have to ask ourselves what the
Apostles would do regarding Chanukah if
they lived in our time. We believe that they
would celebrate it. Others believe that they
would not. The debate is not going away until
Yeshua returns.
added 28 December, 2005
Virtual Chanukah
Chanukah,
Nine-Branched Menorah:
Why is there a nine-branched menorah used
for Chanukah, when there was a
seven-branched menorah used in the
Temple?
By and large in Judaism, there is
a prohibition on recreating objects used in
Tabernacle/Temple worship to be used in the
synagogue. This tradition evolved during the
time when the Temple was still in operation, and
the synagogue was largely a place of assembly
for teaching. As
Chanukah
evolved as a holiday, the
chanukia
was developed as a emblem that looked
substantially similar to the seven-branched
menorah,
but it was intended to be lit for eight days to
memorialize the miracle of the oil, mimicking
the
menorah,
but not be exactly like it. Today, of course,
there are many kinds of
chanukias,
which range from traditional ones looking
similar to the Temple
menorah,
to others that only allow eight candle spaces
for lighting that are anything but traditional.
added 30 December, 2005
Virtual Chanukah
Christianity,
Negativity Toward Two-House Teaching:
When I share the Two-House teaching with my
evangelical Christian friends, they do not seem
to “get it.” Why can I not get my Christian
friends to be reasonable and sit down and
examine the Scriptures?
As is frequently the case,
getting a Messianic Jew to sit down and examine
the prophecies of Israel’s restoration is often
difficult enough—so getting an evangelical
Christian to examine the same prophecies is
usually much more difficult. Why this is the
case has an entire host of varied reasons, most
often relating to how a Christian sees himself
related to—or not related to—Israel. Christians
who obviously believe that “the Church” has
replaced Israel in God’s economy will probably
not see the relevance of examining prophecies
that relate to Israel in the end-times, when
they can be conveniently interpreted as
something other than what they mean. Likewise,
Christians who believe in dispensationalism and
that God has two groups of elect think that
Israel is just the Jewish people, and that as
part of “the Church” Scriptures that apply to
Israel do not apply to them.
Perhaps the biggest stumbling
block as it relates to the Two-House teaching
and Christians examining it has nothing to do
with the prophecies of Israel’s restoration as
much as it has to do with the Messianic, Torah
observant lifestyle. This is where the bulk of
criticism against the teaching rests from
evangelical Christians that we have interacted
with as a ministry. Ultimately, the Two-House
teaching advocates that all Believers in Yeshua,
be they Jewish, or scattered Israel/Ephraim, or
the nations, are a part of Israel and are
obligated to live as Israel in obedience to the
Torah. The “Two-House” part relates to how God
will restore Israel in the end-times to be
culminated at Yeshua’s return.
In time, it would be our prayer
that more and more evangelical Christians will
awaken to their Hebraic Roots and be convicted
about the same things that we have been. This
will only occur, though, as we mature and are
able to testify to others how the Lord has
brought us into a more vibrant and active
relationship with Him by adopting a Messianic
style of faith. Our positive testimony of
becoming more like Him—more than anything
else—will cause our Christian brethren to ask us
questions of how they too can acquire these
blessings.
For a further discussion of these
issues, consult the editor’s article “Christian
Problems With the Two Houses of Israel.”
posted 18 December, 2006
Christian,
Title:
Is it true that the early Believers did not call
themselves “Christians”?
In Acts 26:28, the Apostle Paul
is called before King Agrippa who asks him, “Do
you think that in such a short time you can
persuade me to be a Christian?” (NIV). This
statement is made after Paul defends himself for
believing in the resurrection of the dead and
for the decisions that he made as a Jewish
Believer who preached in the name of Yeshua. But
was Paul going out and making “Christians” of
those to whom he preached? Many people believe
so, and would say that if you are not a
“Christian” then you cannot be a Believer in the
Anointed One or Christos (Cristoß).
Another place where the term
“Christian” is seen in the Bible is in 1 Peter
4:15-16: “Make sure that none of you suffers as
a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a
troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers
as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but
is to glorify God in this name.”
This is a very perplexing
statement made by this disciple of Yeshua’s, who
many consider the preeminent of the original
twelve. Peter says “let him glorify God in this
respect” (YLT), in reference to Believers being
called “Christians.”
The third location that this
title appears is in Acts 11:25-26: “And he left
for Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had
found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an
entire year they met with the [assembly] and
taught considerable numbers; and the disciples
were first called Christians in Antioch.”
There is considerable debate
among theologians regarding what context
“called” means in this passage from Acts. LS
defines the verb creimatidzow (crhmatizw),
as “to
take and bear a title
or name, to be called or
styled so and so” (p 894). Many today
readily assume that “Christian” is a title that
was given by God to identify those who have
placed their trust in His Son. However, this
title, Christianos (Cristianoß),
only appears three times in the Bible. AMG
indicates, “It does not occur in the NT as a
name commonly used by Christians [i.e.,
Believers] themselves...The believers first
became known as Christians as an appellation of
ridicule” (p 1483). Vine adds that “the
Christians do not seem to have adopted it for
themselves in the times of the Apostles…As
applied by Gentiles there was no doubt an
implication of scorn…” (p 643). The Greek seems
to indicate that the term “Christian” was used
by outsiders as a term of insult to the early
Believers.
By the beginning of the Second
Century, however, the assembly of Believers,
predominantly made up of non-Jewish people, had
taken this title as one of honor and it
subsequently remains to this day. It is possible
that the term “Christian” began to be used in
great numbers at the time following the
destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and when
anti-Semitism in the Roman Empire rose in great
numbers because of the Jewish revolt. It was
also at this time when many Believers in Yeshua
began being barred from the Jewish synagogue,
and Jewish animosity toward them was enflamed.
Many non-Jewish Greek and Roman Believers
probably wanted to separate themselves from the
Jewish Believers. But it is notable that the
term “Christian” was never applied or used by
the Apostles. You never see them calling
themselves “Christians.”
The inherent problem here with
the term “Christian” is that it was not given by
God to His people. It was given as an insult by
men to the early Believers in Yeshua and
consequently it stuck in certain communities.
Christian is not a title that God gave to His
people, but it is ultimately a manmade title.
What the Apostle Peter said in 1
Peter 4:15-16 concerning the title “Christian”
was that if you suffer for the Messiah being
called this, do not be ashamed. But “Christian,”
which was originally implied as a term of
insult, is compared to “a murderer, or thief, or
evildoer, or a troublesome meddler.” Peter does
not say that we are to readily call ourselves
“Christians.” When we as Messianic Believers are
asked whether or not we are a “Christian,” we
should change the focus of the discussion to the
Messiah and the work that He has done in our
lives—not whether we are “this” or “that.” This
is because a born again Believer is one who has
been spiritually regenerated by the power of God
via His Son Yeshua, and continually trusts and
believes in Him. This
is what each of us must be known by.
posted 17 July, 2006
Christian,
Website:
Is TNN Online a Christian website?
Many Christians we have
encountered would not consider TNN a “Christian”
website by the simple fact that we prefer to use
“Yeshua” rather than “Jesus,” and promote an
understanding of our faith’s Hebraic origins.
However, we do believe in the foundational
orthodox principles such as the final authority
of Holy Scripture, the Divinity of the Messiah,
and salvation by grace through faith, consistent
with what most evangelical Christians believe.
We do disagree with common
mainstream Christian beliefs as they relate to
things such as the Torah, the seventh-day
Sabbath, the appointed times of Leviticus 23,
and the dietary commandments of Scripture,
believing that these and other things still
apply today. We try to focus on what we have in
common with our Christian brethren and what
unites us, recognizing that we do have a shared
theological heritage with the Christian Church,
every bit as much as we do with the Jewish
Synagogue. But, we are fully a Messianic website
and are best considered as such.
We do our best to be fair and
respectful where we disagree with some of the
practices and teachings of today’s Church. We do
not unfairly criticize or condemn Christians
mercilessly as is the pattern of some
Messianics, and readily speak against it.
updated 14 September, 2006
Christianity,
Pagan?:
Do you believe everything in Christianity is
pagan?
We believe that
evangelical Christianity, as it stands today,
has some non-Biblical practices which stem from
Roman Catholicism which need to be eliminated.
But we are not prepared to say that every aspect
of Christianity is “pagan,” but certain
practices that are not found in Scripture no
doubt are of questionable origins (i.e.,
Christmas trees, Easter eggs, etc.). If
everything in Christianity is “pagan,” does that
suddenly make all things in Judaism “kosher”?
No.
Those who try to make pagan
connections with virtually “all” aspects of
Christian doctrine and practice are fooling
themselves. Satan is the Father of Lies and is
going to mimic God on all plains. We must
recognize that while there are non-Biblical
elements of Christianity, Satan is also a
masterful counterfeiter.
We have serious concerns for
those who try to equate “everything” that
Christianity has stood for as being “pagan”
because in the future such individuals may deny
that Yeshua is God, or perhaps even deny His
Messiahship because these beliefs are from “the
Church.” There is a plethora of pagan myths that
speak of gods (“mighty ones”) coming down from
the sky to help humans, and who is to say that
the early Believers in Messiah did not just
“copy off the pagans”? We cannot accept this and
neither should you.
We recognize that there are areas
of Christian doctrine that need serious
reevaluation in the light of the understandings
that the Holy Spirit is leading many of us into
as Messianic Believers. But to say that
“everything” that Christianity has stood for is
“pagan” is inaccurate and absurd, and is
certainly not something we advocate.
updated 28 July, 2006
Christian
Scholars:
Why does today’s Messianic movement generally
frown on the works of Christian Biblical
scholarship?
Today’s Messianic movement does
have a significant challenge when it comes to
considering the theological contributions made
by Christian Biblical scholarship. The reasons
for this are varied and complex, but they
largely have to relate to perceived Christian
animosity toward the Torah. It is very true that
many Christian theologians have a negative and
pessimistic attitude when it comes to the Torah
or Law of Moses and how it is talked about in
the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament). But
this is certainly not all Christian theologians,
and theological works and commentaries from the
past thirty to fifty years have become
increasingly more Jewish-sensitive and cognizant
of Jewish theological views of Scripture. The
problem with this is not that there are
theologians who are writing commentaries with
more Jewish opinions in mind; it is that your
average pastor and/or layperson is unaware or
uninformed of these resources.
Ignorance of knowing about
important trends such as the New Perspective in
Pauline studies—a renaissance of understanding
Paul as a First Century rabbi—even carries over
into the Messianic movement. While it is true
that New Perspective advocates are not going to
teach that today’s Christians should follow the
Torah as Messianics do, they will teach that
Paul had a much more moderate view on the Torah
than is perceived by much of today’s
Christianity. This is certainly a step in the
right direction. The rise of so-called “Karaite”
interpretations of the Torah in the independent
Messianic movement comes as a direct result of
not recognizing and interpreting Paul as a First
Century Pharisee—something that many Christian
theologians are beginning to recognize.
One of the things that Messianics
today are often not aware of is the fact that
Jewish Biblical scholarship—which often is
consulted by Messianic teachers—is largely
polarized between the extreme-Right and
extreme-Left. If one reads the Orthodox
Jewish ArtScroll Chumash, and then
compares it to the Jewish Study Bible, he
or she will see two largely different points of
view on an issue. One will advocate that Moses
wrote every single letter of the Torah, and then
the other will tell you that Moses may not have
existed. One will advocate that the Israelites’
conquest of Canaan included more than is
mentioned in the Biblical text, and the other
will say that it never took place. Consequently,
many Messianics today will only examine Orthodox
and/or Chassidic Jewish opinions on certain
subjects that often disregard ancient history
and criticism from skeptics.
Conservative, evangelical
Christian scholars often compose the middle
position between the Right and the Left on these
issues. While affirming the historicity of a key
event like the Exodus, evangelicals are willing
to place the Exodus in the context of Ancient
Egypt. Evangelicals are willing to engage with
liberal criticism, and place a much higher value
on historical and linguistic studies of the
Scriptures than most in the Orthodox Jewish
community. Interestingly enough, there are more
Christian commentaries on the books of the Torah
than there are Jewish commentaries. Casting
these aside as though they have no value is
ill-advised in a movement that will have to
increasingly deal with more criticism against
the Scriptures—particularly the Torah or
Pentateuch because of the "modern age" we live
in. Furthermore, these same commentaries
will point out Messianic symbolism that is
fulfilled in the life of Yeshua, whereas most
Jewish commentaries—if not ignoring them—will
discredit the life of Yeshua.
Our ongoing challenge as the
Messianic community and our own Biblical
scholarship relates to how we can incorporate
the best of Jewish and Christian scholarship and
make it our own. We have a shared theological
heritage with both the Synagogue and the
Church. We cannot disregard either one, but have
to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of
both. Doing this properly will admittedly take
time.
posted 08 January, 2007
Christmas:
Do you celebrate it?
Christmas is, without question, a
very sensitive subject for many Believers and we
would emphasize understanding between those who
do not celebrate it, and those who celebrate it
in ignorance. We cannot find in Scripture where
God mandates that we observe a holiday with
decorated trees, mistletoe, holly, Santa Claus,
and presents. On the contrary, the Prophet
Jeremiah tells us that we are to not be as the
heathen who adorn trees:
“Thus says the
Lord,
‘Do not learn the way of the nations, and do not
be terrified by the signs of the heavens
although the nations are terrified by them; for
the customs of the peoples are delusion; because
it is wood cut from the forest, the work of the
hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They
decorate it with silver and with gold;
they fasten it with nails and with hammers so
that it will not totter’” (Jeremiah 10:2-4).
This same concept is reemphasized
for us in Deuteronomy 16:21: “You shall not
plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind of
tree beside the altar of the
Lord
your God, which you shall make for yourself.”
We do not celebrate Christmas,
nor do we endorse a “substitute” for it, either.
Christmas today is highly commercialized and
more about self-indulgence than anything else.
Of course, we are not against “giving gifts,”
but the purpose of Christmas today for many
people, including Believers, is about self
rather than about seeing the Messiah lifted up.
We do not celebrate Christmas.
But, we are not against people remembering the
birth of Yeshua, either, although it no doubt
did not occur during the Winter. It is important
to note, however, that at “Christmas time,”
people are free to talk about Yeshua, so many
people are presented with Him who would normally
not be during the rest of the year. Obviously,
in spite of the questionable origins of December
25, God is going to work through those who
sincerely believe that they are honoring Him.
Without question, this issue will
continue to baffle many Messianic Believers in
years to come, as we learn to properly deal with
those who celebrate Christmas in ignorance, not
knowing where it comes from. Above all, we
emphasize understanding and fairness for others
in this area. Christmas as it is known today is
not a Biblically mandated holiday, and on this
basis we do not celebrate it. But there is also
the Biblical reality of the Child born at
Bethlehem who is our Savior, so with this issue,
let us truly not “throw out the Baby.”
Consult the editor's article “The
Christmas Challenge” for a
further discussion of this issue.
added 19 December, 2005
Chronicles,
Books of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Books of Chronicles?
The Hebrew title of the Books of
Chronicles is Divrei HaYamim (~ymyh
yrbd),
meaning “the Events/Annals of the Days/Years.”
Similar terminology appears in Kings (1 Kings
14:19, 29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27;
22:45). The Greek Septuagint actually titled
this text Paraleipomenown (PARALEIPOMENWN),
actually meaning “things omitted,” which some
consider “not a very suitable name” (NBCR,
369). Its translators likely considered the text
to be a supplement to Samuel-Kings, and they
were the first to divide the text into two
books. Jerome suggested that the Latin title
Chronicon totius divinae historiae, “a
chronicle of the whole of sacred history”
(Harrison, 1152; EXP, 4:304), be used. It
has since been adapted as “Chronicles.”
Chronicles is a very unique text
when compared to its predecessor, Samuel-Kings.
It does not focus on the Northern Kingdom of
Israel, except in passing (EDB, 243;
ECB, 282). This work attempts to summarize
events beginning with Adam all the way to Cyrus
the Great of Persia. Chronicles jumps over and
overlooks many people and events seen in
Samuel-Kings, which is undeniably the author’s
main source of information. Because of its
irregular style of composition “The Chronicles
have long been among the most neglected books in
the Hebrew Bible” (Dillard and Longman, 169)
Protestant Christian tradition,
following the order of the Septuagint and
Vulgate, places 1&2 Chronicles among the
Historical Books between 2 Kings and
Ezra-Nehemiah. 1&2 Chronicles is actually the
last book of the Tanach in the Jewish order,
placed among the Writings.
The questions that Chronicles
asks largely pertain to the Jewish people having
returned from Babylonian exile (Dillard and
Longman, 173). Is God still interested in His
people? Is He still faithful to His covenants?
What do the Jewish people do under foreign
(Persian) rule? Was God going to fulfill His
promises? As a result of these, and other
questions, the history presented in Chronicles
presents itself with a more definite “slant”
than Samuel-Kings, as it is designed to be
uplifting and a message of hope to those who
read it. Chronicles attempts to answer the
question of who the returned Jewish exiles are
as the people of God. The occasion for writing
Chronicles is probably to call the people back
to the Instruction of God (cf. Ezra 7:10) so
that they may fulfill His Divine purpose.
Jewish tradition in the Talmud
regards the priest Ezra as the author of
Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah (b.Baba Batra
15a). This cannot be established with certainty
as the text does not state an author directly (NIDB,
210; ECB, 282; Dillard and Longman, 170).
It may be that Ezra was the principal composer
of an early draft of the text. Harrison
indicates, “Ezra [presumably] carried the
narratives down to his own time” (Harrison,
1153). If Ezra were the principal composer, then
it is no surprise that the various priestly
genealogies seen in 1 Chronicles 1-9 carry their
way to him. Ezra-Nehemiah does pick up where
Chronicles leaves off, and many conservatives
believe that these two texts once made up a
single work (NBCR, 369; ISBE,
1:667; EXP, 4:305-307; Dillard and
Longman, 171).
There is a trend among
conservative scholars today to not consider
Chronicles a unified work with Ezra-Nehemiah
(Dillard and Longman, 172), as there have likely
been redactions made to the text. In the
original composition, the Chronicler indicates
that he considered many sources, notably
Samuel-Kings. Additional sources used by the
Chronicler probably included the Torah, Judges,
Ruth, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations,
and Zechariah (although probably not in their
final, current form). References are made
throughout Chronicles to other sources,
including: the Book of the Kings of Israel (1
Chronicles 9:1; 2 Chronicles 20:34), the Book of
the Annals of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24),
the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel/Israel
and Judah (2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26; 27:7;
28:26; 32:32; 35:27; 36:8), and the Annotations
on the Book of the Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27).
These sources are all admittedly vague and no
longer extant (IDB, 1:578-579; Harrison,
1159-1161; NIDB, 210; ISBE, 1:668;
EXP, 4:309-311; ABD, 1:996-997;
EDB, 242). A number of non-extant prophetic
writings are also mentioned throughout
Chronicles.
Conservative theologians often
date the composition of Chronicles in the late
Fifth Century B.C.E., although a date in the
late Fourth Century B.C.E. is probable if one
accepts a unified composition with Ezra-Nehemiah
(NBCR, 369; ISBE, 1:670). It is
asserted that the text had to have been written
during the Persian period as there are no
references to either Hellenism or the rise of
Alexander the Great (ECB, 282).
Liberal theologians largely deny
any kind of unified composition for Chronicles.
Earlier liberals considered Chronicles to be a
kind of sequel to P or the so-called Priestly
Code (IDB, 1:573-574) seen in their
documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch (see
Genesis
FAQ entry for a summarization of the JEDP
documentary hypothesis). It has been advocated
that Chronicles reflects a distinctly religious
history from a Levite (IDB, 1:575;
Harrison, 1161-1162; IDBSup, 157; ECB,
283), placing the Levites in a very positive
light and “glorifying Judaism and the Jews
through the centuries beyond all
possibilities…[rewriting] the history from David
to Cyrus: he freely omitted from his sources,
added to them, modified them, being blissfully
unaware of anachronisms and impossibilities” (IDB,
2:577).
Liberals have commonly argued
that Chronicles was composed over a broad period
of time from the Fourth-Third Centuries B.C.E.,
and was intended to be the “first apology for
Judaism” (IDB, 1:577; cf. ABD,
1:994-995). Some liberals even place the
composition of Chronicles as late as the Second
Century B.C.E. (ISBE, 1:670). Generally,
liberals agree that Chronicles itself is pieced
together from sources, such as the sections
dealing with David and Solomon, as well as other
individual kings, and over time were strung
together and unified.
Liberal criticism against
Chronicles has been immense. Most consider it to
have some severe theological inconsistencies (Jewish
Study Bible, 1712). Criticism against
Chronicles is nothing new, going back to the
time of the writing of the Talmud, with many
considering Chronicles to be “didactic or
homiletical in nature” (Harrison, 1163). Most
liberal problems with Chronicles concern its
historicity and reliability (Harrison,
1157-1158; Jewish Study Bible, 1712).
Conservative theologians have
largely responded to liberal criticism with our
need to consider Chronicles as first
theological, then historical. Harrison
indicates, “it should be noted at once that the
writings of the Chronicler did not lay claim to
be considered as history in the contemporary
occidental sense of that term” (Harrison, 1158).
Our interpretation of Chronicles is directly
connected to Samuel-Kings, and one must consider
their unique vantage points: one before or
during the Babylonian exile, and one after it.
The way the Chronicler records
Israel’s history is not inconsistent from what
we see among the documents at Qumran (ISBE,
1:667; ECB, 284). A modern reader cannot
subject Chronicles to his or her expectations of
historical accuracy, recognizing that among its
contemporary ancient histories Chronicles
demonstrates a strong level of affinity. “What
the reader of the Chronicler needs is
sensitivity to the method of writing history in
biblical times together with some knowledge of
the milieu in which the work came into
existence, the need which it was intended to
fill, and the audience to which it was
addressed” (ISBE, 1:669). Current trends
in liberal studies of Chronicles indicate an
“emphasis…more on the Chronicler’s use of
additional material, rather than upon that
material’s historical value” (ABD,
1:997).
Both Aramaic and Hebrew are
present in the Books of Chronicles. Its
Septuagint Greek translation is important, but
is often considered to be “paraphrastic…[and]
bears witness to an older and often shorter form
of the text” (ABD, 1:995). Others
consider its LXX version to be extremely literal
(EXP, 4:311). The Hebrew MT witness of
Chronicles is in a “fair state of preservation”
(Ibid.), but due to its young date among Tanach
books infrequent copying may have actually
caused more textual errors (Ibid.) that could
have been redacted—particularly with its
numbering system. “[S]maller numbers [are]
supplied by the LXX [and] seem to indicate that
the larger ones of the Hebrew have not been
transmitted in their original form, or that the
compiler was scaling them down in the interests
of factual reality” (Harrison, 1170).
The author of Chronicles affirms
a continuity to the past, with the Temple in
Jerusalem being rebuilt by the approval of the
Persian king (2 Chronicles 36:22-23), mirrored
by his earlier references regarding Kings David
and Solomon. The author focuses on the successes
and failures of Israel’s earlier kings, and
emphasizes how being faithful to the Torah and
Prophets is more important than whether the Jews
of his generation have a king. The author also
probably considers his Jewish people to
represent “all Israel,” as the Southern Kingdom
had absorbed a sufficient number of Northern
Kingdom Israelites (2 Chronicles 34:9;
35:17-18). This can present some problems to
those who overemphasize the Two-House teaching
and fail to recognize the Jews as being
“Israel,” not placing the prophesied restoration
of all Israel into a Jewish eschatological
framework.
The author of Chronicles wants to
sustain a hope for a Deliverer to come, i.e., a
Messianic son of David (2 Samuel 7). He
indicates that God has been faithful to His
people going back through the recorded
generations (1 Chronicles 1:1). God has chosen
Israel for special purposes, but Israel’s
relationship to God is contingent upon their
obedience. As a result, the Chronicler is also
concerned with God’s retribution upon His people
(ISBE, 1:671-672).
The dominant parts of Chronicles
are dedicated to David (1 Chronicles 11-29) and
Solomon (2 Chronicles 1-9), with negative
information regarding these two kings largely
omitted (ABD, 1:999-1000; Dillard and
Longman, 174-175). This has led to intense
speculation that this is intentional, with the
Chronicler portraying the “Messianic” qualities
of these two leaders (ISBE, 1:672;
Jewish Study Bible, pp 1715-1716). It may be
that the author intends to use the lives of
David and Solomon to address some serious
post-exilic questions (ISBE, 1:669-670;
EDB, 243).
Issues in interpretation largely
regard the relationship of Samuel-Kings to
Chronicles, and how to synthesize Samuel-Kings’
accounts of Ancient Israel’s history with how
they are often “explained” in Chronicles (EXP,
4:315). “It is clear that Chronicles read by
itself would give an unbalanced view of
Israelite history” (NBCR, 370) as the
author has a definite theological agenda (NIDB,
211). Genealogies in Chronicles (1 Chronicles
1:1-9:44) are segmented in places compared to
their listings in other Tanach Scriptures
(Dillard and Longman, 173-174), with the process
of telescoping purposefully omitting names to
make an important theological or ideological
point (cf. Matthew 1; Luke 3).
Furthermore, there are serious
issues in Chronicles regarding numbers and
census accounts that may be a result of textual
corruption. A notable one appears in 2
Chronicles 14:9 which refers to a million man
army accompanied by only 300 chariots (IDB,
1:574; Harrison, 1165; ISBE, 1:669;
NIDB, 211; EXP, 4:562). The Greek
Septuagint is sometimes helpful in providing a
more realistic number, but not always.
Difficulties such as the spelling of proper
names is a challenge to modern readers, but not
to the Ancient Near Eastern worldview.
The Apostolic Scriptures do
occasionally quote from Chronicles (EXP,
4:312), and undoubtedly formed an important part
of the worldview of Yeshua and His Disciples.
Messianic handling of Chronicles
is difficult to determine at the present time,
concurrent also with its handling of
Samuel-Kings, largely due to the overemphasis on
the Torah in our Biblical studies. Too
frequently, when interpreters do examine
Chronicles, the witness of Samuel-Kings is not
considered, or vice versa. Even more issues may
have to be considered with the possible unity
between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah that is
often proposed. Parallels are most certainly
seen between characters in the Torah (i.e.,
Moses and Joshua) and how they are compared to
some figures in Monarchist Israel (i.e., David
and Solomon). The Chronicler is undeniably
influenced by his position as a Southern Kingdom
Jew, and is one who is ultimately interested in
giving the returned exiles hope for the future
in the covenant faithfuless of their God.
Bibliography
Ackroyd, P.R. “Chronicles, I and II,” in
IDBSup, pp 156-158.
Coggins, Richard J. “1 and 2 Chronicles,” in
ECB, pp 282-312.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Chronicles,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 169-177.
Ellison, H.L. “1 and 2 Chronicles,” in NBCR,
pp 369-394.
Harrison, R.K. “The Books of Chronicles,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1152-1171.
Hasel, G.F. “Chronicles, Books of,” in ISBE,
1:666-673.
Klein, Ralph W. “Chronicles, Book of 1-2,” in
ABD, 1:992-1002.
Knoppers, Gary N. “Chronicles, Books of,” in
EDB, pp 242-244.
Payne, J. Barton. “Chronicles, 1 and 2,” in
NIDB, pp 210-211.
_____________. “1, 2 Chronicles,” in EXP,
4:303-562
Pfeiffer, R.H. “Chronicles, I and II,” in IDB,
1:572-580.
Rothstein, David. “First Chronicles,” in The
Jewish Study Bible, pp 1712-1764.
______________. “Second Chronicles,” in Ibid.,
pp 1765-1825.
Throntveit, Mark A. “1 Chronicles,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 571-608.
_________________. “2 Chronicles,” in Ibid., pp
609-651.
posted 22 March, 2007
Church,
missing after Revelation 4:1:
As post-tribulationists, how do you respond to
the fact that the word “church” does not appear
after Revelation 4:1? This means that the Church
is missing and has been raptured to Heaven.
In the opening chapters of
Revelation (chs. 1-3), the Apostle John is given
specific instruction by Yeshua the Messiah that
he is to deliver to the seven assemblies of Asia
Minor (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira,
Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea). After John
relays Yeshua’s messages to these congregations,
John is told by the Lord, “Come up here, and I
will show you what must take place after these
things” (Revelation 4:1b). Notice what John says
as this command is given to him: “After these
things I looked, and behold, a door standing
open in heaven, and the first voice which I
had heard, like the sound of a trumpet
speaking with me” (Revelation 4:1a). This is a
directive that is given only to the Apostle
John, as he is called to step into the Heavenly
realm, and be shown a vision of the future that,
as far as Yeshua and those assembled are
concerned, has already taken place. John is
asked to step forward in time and be shown
things that he does not know about.
This is not a command that is given to “the
Church.” As Messianics are keen to emphasize,
the Greek word ekklesia (ekklhsia)
should be properly translated as either
“assembly” or “congregation” in our English
Bibles, as opposed to the anachronistic term
“church.” Likewise, ekklesia was used in
the Greek Septuagint to render the Hebrew word
qahal (lhq),
referring to the congregation or assembly of
Israel, and the Apostolic writers most often use
ekklesia with this understanding in mind.
In Johannine literature (John,
1-3 John, Revelation) ekklesia is
never used to refer to the Body of Messiah at
large, but instead the localized assembly.
Douglas J. Moo poignantly remarks in Three
Views on the Rapture, “John, himself, never
uses
ekklhsia
other than as a designation of a local body of
believers. Moreover, it is important to note
that John never in chapters 4-19 calls any group
in heaven the church” (p 201). The reason
that ekklesia does not appear after
Revelation 4:1 is because the letters Yeshua has
John write to the seven, localized assemblies of
Asia Minor are complete. It is not because “the
Church” has been raptured to Heaven. In fact, at
the end of Revelation, we are told that the
apocalyptic revealing of Yeshua to John is for
the ekklesia, indeed implying that the
Body of Messiah will be on Earth when these
events take place:
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to
testify to you about these things for the
churches. I am the root and the descendant of
David, the bright morning star” (Revelation
22:16, ESV).
It is notable that
there is an urban myth that frequently
circulates among Messianic post-tribulationists
relating to Revelation 4:1. It often goes along
the lines of, “The Church is mentioned after
Revelation 4:1—and it is the whore of Babylon!”
Unfortunately for those who adhere to this line
of reasoning, it is not based in a sound
exegesis of the text, neither a sound
examination of what end-time Babylon actually
is. While there are religious elements of the
end-time Babylonian system, there are also
political and economic elements. To simply say
that that end-time Babylon is “the Church,” is
to misidentify end-time Babylon, which is the
multifaceted, anti-God world system.
added 12 January, 2006
Church, word
of pagan origin:
I have heard that the English word “church” is
of pagan origins. Is there any substantiation to
support this?
There is debate over the origins
of the English word church, but before we can
address this, we need to have a proper
understanding of the Greek word ekklesia
(ekklhsia),
which in our Bibles is commonly rendered as
“church.” Is “church” an appropriate translation
of this word?
LS
defines ekklesia as “an assembly of
the citizens regularly summoned, the legislative
assembly” and “in N.T. the Church, either
the body, or the place” (p 239). In
the Apostolic Scriptures, ekklesia is
used as a term to define the Body of Messiah,
and thus, by extension, is rendered as “church”
in most English translations of the New
Testament. TDNT remarks that “Since the
NT uses a single term, translations should also
try to do so, but this raises the question
whether ‘church’ or ‘congregation’ is always
suitable, especially in view of the OT use for
Israel and the underlying Hebrew and
Aramaic…‘Assembly,’ then, is perhaps the best
single term, particularly as it has both a
congregate and an abstract sense, i.e., for the
assembling as well as the assembly” (K.L.
Schmidt, “ekklesia,” p 397). This
Christian commentary says that “assembly” would
be the best, consistent translation for the word
ekklesia.
The ancient Greek translation of
the Hebrew Tanach, the Septuagint (LXX),
produced approximately 300 years before Yeshua
the Messiah, frequently translates the Hebrew
word qahal (lhq),
or assembly/congregation, as ekklesia.
TWOT tells us that “usually qahal is
translated as ekklesia in the LXX” (Jack
P. Lewis, “qahal,” 2:790). When the Apostolic
writers used the Greek word ekklesia,
often rendered as “church” in our English
Bibles, they did not see the ekklesia as
a separate assembly or group of people away from
Israel. Rather, they considered the ekklesia
to be Israel. It is not surprising by any means
that one of the definitions given for the word
ekklesia does in fact include “Israel.”
Thayer states that “in the Sept. often
equiv. to
lhq,
the assembly of the Israelites” (p 196).
It is unfortunate that ekklesia in most
Bibles has been translated as “church,” whereas
it would be best rendered as either “assembly”
or “congregation.” Two Christian translations
that render ekklesia as “assembly”
include Young’s Literal Translation and the
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by Jay P.
Green. The Power New Testament by William J.
Morford renders ekklesia as
“congregation,” and the Complete Jewish Bible by
David H. Stern mostly uses the phraseology
“Messianic community.”
As it relates to whether or not
the English word “church” is of pagan origins,
there are a number of differing opinions.
ISBE indicates that it comes from “Gk.
kuriakos—‘belonging to the Lord’; NT
ekklesia—‘gathering’; Lat. ecclesia”
(G.W. Bromiley, “Church,” 1:693). NIDB
confirms this opinion, stating, “The English
word derives from the Greek kuriakos
(belonging to the Lord), but it stands for
another Greek word ekklesia (whence
‘ecclesiastical’), denoting an assembly” (Bromiley,
“Church,” p 218). Smith’s Bible Dictionary
has a slightly different view of the origins of
the English word “church,” remarking, “The
derivation of the word is generally said to be
from the Greek kuriakon, ‘belonging to
the Lord’. But the derivation has been too
hastily assumed. It is probably connected with
kirk, the Latin circus, circulus, the
Greek kuklos, (kuklos), because the
congregations were gathered in circles.”
Regardless of if you believe that
the English word “church” comes from the Greek
kuriakos, meaning something that belongs
to the Lord, or the Latin circus via
circulus, because the early congregations
gathered in circles, there is no substantial
proof that it is from a word of pagan origins.
There are Messianics, in their
criticism of our Christian brothers and sisters
who are not Torah observant, who say that they
are part of “the kirk” or “the kirch” and that
the English word “church” is of pagan origins. (Die
Kirche, pronounced keer-kay, is
simply the German word for “the church.”) Their
problem, aside from this being a
non-substantiated belief, is that they are
trying to insult others and incite them, rather
than reason with them from the Word of God about
who the true assembly is. The true assembly or
qahal/ekklesia is the Commonwealth of
Israel. While we believe that ekklesia is
properly rendered as either “congregation” or
“assembly” in English, saying that the word
“church” is of pagan origins is a poor excuse in
light of a bigger problem. The bigger problem is
getting people to theologically see that there
is no separate assembly of elect called “the
Church,” and that there is only one ekklesia,
the assembly of Israel.
updated 06 July, 2006
Church
Fathers:
What is your opinion of the writings of the
“Church Fathers”?
The writings of
early Christianity from the late First to Fourth
Centuries C.E., commonly termed the writings of
the “Church Fathers,” is a body of religious
literature not unlike the Jewish writings of the
same period. These writings demonstrate the
various theological opinions and controversies
that existed in early Christianity, the
persecution that the Believers experienced at
the hands of the Roman Empire, and the overall
challenges that they faced.
There are some in the Messianic
community who readily criticize the writings of
the “Church Fathers,” as it was during this
period that the ekklesia largely divorced
itself from its Hebraic Roots. But in total
fairness, it is necessary to consult these
writings to understand the development of the
early Church, and to understand that not all of
the Church Fathers were “bad.” Many of the
“Church Fathers” had good Spirit-inspired things
to say and were sincere Believers. Many of them
have spiritual insight on Biblical matters just
as do many of the Rabbis of Judaism. With all
things, we are called to use wisdom and
discernment and remember the circumstances in
which these people lived.
updated 10 July, 2006
“Churchy,”
Why is your website:
Why is your Messianic website “churchy”?
(This is
a common question asked by critics of our
approach to Messianic ministry, particularly
from those who would prefer us to “beat” on
Christians and the Christian Church, rather than
show them grace and mercy.)
When objectively
reading the information and articles on the TNN
Online website, how could you come to the
conclusion that TNN Online is a “churchy”
website? We are actually quite Messianic,
meaning that we are very pro-Torah and
pro-Jewish. We encourage all Believers to live a
Torah obedient lifestyle like Yeshua and His
followers, we encourage study of the Torah, and
we believe that all Believers in Yeshua are a
part of the Commonwealth of Israel. These, and
other beliefs we hold to, run contrary to a
great deal of today’s evangelical Christian
theology.
It is true that some believe that
TNN Online is a “churchy” website because we try
to be fair to those in mainstream Christianity,
as opposed to many other “independent” Messianic
websites. We do not unfairly criticize
Christians, insulting and harassing them, as is
the pattern of others. We do our best to treat
Christians with love and respect, encouraging
reasoned dialogue and discussion from the
Scriptures so that we can all learn something
and bring glory to the Lord. We treat Christians
as fellow brothers and sisters in the faith,
unless they say
otherwise.
Our website is not “churchy,” but
we are fair to the Church, which is something
that sadly is not evident among enough
Messianics today.
updated 14 September, 2006
Circumcision:
Do you believe that males should be circumcised?
We are aware that the issue of
circumcision is extremely controversial in the
Messianic world, whereas Christianity has
decided to largely ignore circumcision as an
“Old Testament rite” unimportant for Believers
today.
Circumcision is the eternal sign
of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:11). The
Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all
circumcised. Yeshua the Messiah was circumcised
(Luke 2:21). The Apostle Paul was circumcised
(Philippians 3:5). If we intend to follow the
example of these men, then we should be
encouraged to have this sign of circumcision.
We do not consider circumcision a
salvation issue, but we do encourage
circumcision for the appropriate reasons. The
reason circumcision was such a controversial
issue in the Apostolic Scriptures (New
Testament) is that the non-Jews coming to faith
were not circumcised as infants as the
Scriptures prescribe. Had they |
