|
Easter:
Do you celebrate Easter?
Easter is a
non-Biblical holiday that is not listed among
the appointed times that God gave to His people
in Leviticus 23. Because Easter is not listed as
a holiday that has been ordained by the Lord, we
do not celebrate it. The majority in the
Messianic movement do not celebrate Easter
because it is something that He has not
commanded us to do.
Many sincere Christians today observe Easter because in their minds
they believe they are commemorating the
resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah. We believe
that the resurrection of our Lord and Savior is
something that is certainly worthy of
commemoration, but is “Easter” the proper time
to do it? The name “Easter,” for example, has
absolutely no connection to the resurrection,
and the customs and traditions that have become
commonly associated with it, namely the Easter
Bunny and egg hunts, have nothing to do with
commemorating what the Lord has done for us by
His atoning work at Golgotha (Calvary), and
instead stem from Babylonian fertility rites. If
we are to truly commemorate Yeshua’s sacrifice
and resurrection for us, then we believe that it
should be done as part of our celebrating the
Spring festivals of Passover and Unleavened
Bread.
There are Messianics who unfairly criticize and condemn our
Christian brethren who celebrate Easter in
ignorance, who sincerely believe that they are
honoring the Lord. We believe that this is
inappropriate, and that it is our responsibility
to show them the right way to do things from the
Scriptures, yet while remembering that while
many of us were still in mainstream Christianity
we celebrated Easter with similar intentions.
Believing in ignorance that we were celebrating
Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection, the
Lord in His mercy honored us for what we did. We
have to extend that same mercy to our brothers
and sisters who do not celebrate His appointed
times, so that the Holy Spirit might convict
them about what they should truly be doing from
the Word.
Consult the editor’s article “What
is the Problem With Easter?” for
a further discussion of this issue.
updated 23 October, 2006
Ecclesiastes, Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Ecclesiastes?
The Book of Ecclesiastes is one of several important wisdom texts
in the Hebrew Tanach. Its Hebrew title,
Qohelet (tlhq), is derived from the term qahal
(lhq)
or assembly, with its author understood as some
kind of officer of an assembly. Its Greek
Septuagint title is Ekklēsiastēs (EKKLHSIASTHS),
derived from the equivalent ekklēsia (ekklhsia)
for qahal. The designated speaker in
Ecclesiastes is Qohelet, which some prefer to
render as “Teacher” (NIV, NRSV) or “Preacher” (NASU),
because they are unsure what else to render it
as (ABD, 2:271-272). Jerome interpreted
it in his Latin Vulgate as concionator, a
speaker before the assembly (Harrison, 1072).
Ecclesiastes is placed among the Wisdom books in
Christian tradition, but in Jewish tradition is
part of the five Megillot of the
Writings.
Ecclesiastes is generally a text that is consulted when considering
the frailties of human existence, and also the
reality of death. There are mixed
interpretations and views of Ecclesiastes from
both Jewish and Christian readers. Some believe
that it is an important text with an important
message, and others consider it to be
pessimistic and full of inconsistencies.
The text of Ecclesiastes is strictly anonymous from internal first
person references, although there are several
important propositions concerning its
authorship—which notably conservatives are not
agreed upon.
Jewish tradition widely espouses Solomonic authorship to
Ecclesiastes (Jewish Study Bible, 1605),
although some Talmudic tradition indicates that
Ecclesiastes was preserved by the men of
Hezekiah (b.Bava Batra 14b-15a). Many
presume that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes based on
some internal remarks (1:1, 12, 16; 2:4-9;
7:26-29; 12:9), notably making light of the
author’s wisdom, interest in proverbs, and
building projects (NIDB, 290; EXP,
5:1140). It is believed that Solomon is
reflecting on the negative actions of his life
in his twilight years. Those who accept
Solomonic authorship date the text to sometime
in the 900s B.C.E., perhaps 940 B.C.E.
A significant number of conservatives (including the editor)
seriously doubt Solomonic authorship. The writer
is strictly known as Qohelet in Ecclesiastes
(Harrison, 1074-1075; Dillard and Longman, 249)
and Solomon is not at all mentioned by name. The
same verses that are often used to point to
Solomonic authorship are also used as being
against it: “The
words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in
Jerusalem…I, the Preacher, have been king over
Israel in Jerusalem” (1:1, 12). Must we assume
that “son of David” means that Qohelet is the
immediate son of David, or could he also be his
descendant? Note that Qohelet later says, “I
have magnified and increased wisdom more than
all who were over Jerusalem before me” (1:16).
If Qohelet is Solomon, then the “all” who were
ruling Jerusalem before him were just David, and
not a plural line of kings from the Davidic line
as is implied.
Conservatives who doubt Solomonic authorship often do so because
“so much profound and godly wisdom originates
with a man who eventually apostasized” (Dillard
and Longman, 248), as Solomon is not often an
example of great piety to consider in Scripture.
Many conservatives instead advocate that a later
monarch of the Southern Kingdom—yet of the
Davidic line—was responsible for Ecclesiastes (NIDB,
290). Note that the time represented throughout
Ecclesiastes does not conform well to Solomon’s
reign as it is replete with hardship and
difficulty for Israel (Harrison, 1074). But this
does not mean that much of Ecclesiastes’ valid
wisdom is not Solomonic in origin, having been
passed down in the royal court of Judah (ISBE,
2:13). Some would suggest that the second wise
man seen in Ecclesiastes is the actual author
(Dillard and Longman, 250).
Those who doubt Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes also point to
a later and more refined style of Hebrew that is
used in its composition (Harrison, 1074-1075;
ISBE, 2:13; EXP, 5:1141), one that is
replete with Aramaisms (ABD, 2:274-275)
and borrowed Persian words (EDB, 367).
There is, however, renewed debate over whether
or not the Hebrew style is really that late,
with some proposing that Solomon employed a
scribe with a unique style to write his treatise
(EXP, 5:1142). Even though there are many
conservatives who doubt Solomonic authorship of
Ecclesiastes, they do not doubt the importance
of the text.
Liberal theologians deny any Solomonic involvement whatsoever with
Ecclesiastes. They propose that Ecclesiastes was
written sometime around the Maccabean era of the
200s B.C.E., considering its author to be a
Jewish sage “schooled in the wisdom tradition
and affected by the spirit…of Greek philosophy”
(IDB, 2:7; cf. Harrison, 1075-1076).
Liberals assume that the author speaks as a
pseudonym for Solomon, but nothing more. Some
Jewish liberals are a little more reserved,
preferring to date Ecclesiastes to the Sixth to
Fourth Centuries B.C.E. (Jewish Study Bible,
1605), with a few conservatives concurring with
this assessment (Harrison, 1077). Liberals are
unsure as to whether Ecclesiastes is a single
work, or is a product of several authors (ABD,
2:272). Some go as far as suggesting that
Ecclesiastes was originally an Aramaic secular
work religiously adopted and updated with a form
of late Hebrew.
Comparison with Ancient Near Eastern literature supports an earlier
dating of Ecclesiastes (EXP,
5:11476-11447; Dillard and Longman, 251-252),
likewise realized by the fact that the author of
Ecclesiastes demonstrates no familiarity with
Greek literature or composition. The default
position of either conservatives or liberals is
to refer to Ecclesiastes’ author as simply
Qohelet.
The Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes is in generally good condition,
with its Greek Septuagint translation being
quite formal (EXP, 5:1149).
The theological focus of Ecclesiastes is the usage of human wisdom.
Some postulate that Solomon is reflecting on his
wanton life and cannot see beyond the visible
world. Others see a more general attitude in
mind with the people of Israel being addressed
by a court servant. The common themes seen in
Ecclesiastes are that human life is
“meaningless” (1:2, NIV) and that one must “fear
God and keep His commandments” (12:13). However,
many have considered Ecclesiastes to be
hedonistic because of Qohelet’s remark, “There
is nothing better for a man than to eat
and drink and tell himself that his labor is
good” (2:24). “[T]he
majority of interpreters judge him to be a
consummate pessimist who despairs finding any
good in life” (New Interpreter’s Study Bible,
929; cf. IDBSup, 249), but some actually
consider him to be an optimist because of his
pessimism.
In Ecclesiastes we see that human wisdom has its limits (1:13,
16-18; 7:24; 8:16), and that human beings cannot
achieve anything of endless endurance. One’s
experience often comes with disappointment. Much
of Ecclesiastes has a negative tone, forcing the
reader to turn to God and not his or her own
strength for support (IDBSup, 250).
It should be noted that Ecclesiastes was a controversial text in
the Jewish canon (NBCR, 570; Jewish
Study Bible, 1605) and that its status was
seriously questioned (EXP, 5:1137). The
Pharisaical School of Hillel considered
Ecclesiastes to be a text that soils the hands (IDB,
2:7). Likewise, “The book’s relative skepticism
made it an offense to some of the conservative
school (Shammai) within Judaism” (ISBE,
3:14; cf. EXP, 5:1148-1149). The more
progressive School of Hillel ultimately accepted
it, but Jewish unhappiness toward Ecclesiastes
continued well into the Fourth Century C.E. The
controversy surrounding Ecclesiastes primarily
concerned the Pharisees’ thought that
Ecclesiastes did not uphold the doctrine of
resurrection. Any Messianic interpretation of
Ecclesiastes needs to be tempered by this same
skepticism.
The Christian theological tradition has likewise been suspect of
Ecclesiastes, mostly because of its negative and
soulish tone. But this has been changing in
recent years, with some interpreters leaning
toward the position that “Qoheleth is addressing
the general public whose view is bounded by the
horizons of this world; he meets them on their
own ground, and proceeds to convict them of its
inherent vanity” (NBCR, 570). This would
require the author to speak in more secular
terms, and for us to understand his Earth-bound
perspective. “[A]lthough there is little
developed sense of the hereafter, Qoheleth has
no doubt that God, who rules over all, will some
day or in some manner bring every act to
judgment, whether good or evil (12:14)” (ISBE,
2:12). The inclusion of Ecclesiastes in the
Christian canon also found some skepticism, but
was assured given Paul’s reference to the book
in Romans 8:20.
Ecclesiastes is a common text from the Tanach read in today’s
Messianic community. It is commonly read during
the season of Sukkot or the Feast of
Tabernacles, a tradition going back to the
Eleventh Century C.E. (IDB, 3:8). Most
Messianic readers, however, are unfamiliar with
the controversies surrounding it in both Jewish
and Christian history. Few are aware that
Solomon was probably not the author of
Ecclesiastes. Likewise, a significant
theological weakness among some Messianics is
that Ecclesiastes is often given more weight
than the Gospels or Apostolic letters in
examining some issues. We have the strong
responsibility to not treat Ecclesiastes in
isolation from the rest of the Bible (EXP,
5:1137), while respecting its unique message and
the presentation style of Qohelet.
Bibliography
Beecher, W.J., and C.E. Amerding.
“Ecclesiastes,” in ISBE, 2:11-14.
Blank, S.H. “Ecclesiastes,” in IDB,
2:7-13.
Crenshaw, James L. “Ecclesiastes, Book of,” in
ABD, 2:271-280.
Dilllard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Ecclesiastes,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament,” pp 247-255.
Farmer, Kathleen, “Ecclesiastes, Book of,” in
EDB, pp 367-368.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1072-1084.
Hendry, G.S. “Ecclesiastes,” in NBCR, pp
570-578.
Jarick, John. “Ecclesiastes,” in ECB, pp
467-473.
Lee, Eunny P. “Ecclesiastes,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 929-942.
Machinist, Peter, “Ecclesiastes,” in Jewish
Study Bible, pp 1603-1622.
McComiskey, Thomas Edward. “Ecclesiastes,” in
NIDB, pp 290-291.
Priest, J.F. “Ecclesiastes,” in IDBSup,
pp 249-250.
Wright, J. Stafford. “Ecclesiastes,” in EXP,
5:1137-1197.
posted 10 May, 2007
Elect, Two
Groups of:
Do you believe God has two groups of elect:
Israel and the Church?
No, we do not believe that God
has two groups of elect, Israel and the Church.
We believe that God has only one group of elect,
the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12;
cf. Galatians 6:16). This Israel is composed of
all Believers, be they Jewish or non-Jewish.
This Israel is being fully restored in our day
through the prophesied reunification of the Two
Houses of Israel, Judah (the Jewish people),
scattered Israel/Ephraim, and those of the
nations who enjoin themselves to the God of
Israel. This Israel is called to follow the
Torah, and be a light to the nations.
updated 23 October, 2006
Elements of the World (Galatians 4:3, 9;
Colossians 2:8, 20):
I have heard that the Torah actually composes
the “elemental things of the world”? Is there
any truth to this claim?
The specific clause ta stoicheia tou kosmou (ta
stoiceia tou kosmou)—“the elemental things/spirits of the world”—appears in full in
Galatians 4:3 and Colossians 2:8, followed by
the shorter stoicheia in Galatians 4:3,
and tōn stoicheiōn (twn
stoiceiwn)
in Colossians 2:20. There is no single
interpretation as to what this encompasses,
agreed upon by all interpreters, as such
“principles” could involve: (1) the ABCs of
one’s religious observance, (2) what many of the
ancients believed were the basic elements of the
universe (i.e., earth, water, air, fire), or (3)
cosmic spiritual powers like angels or demons.
With these three major options alone to be
considered, it should not be surprising as to
why there is no full consensus when ta
stoicheia tou kosmou is read within the
Pauline letters.
The second usage of “elemental principles of the world” in
Colossians 2:8, 20 is much easier to consider,
as more information is given to us within the
cotext of Paul’s writing. A fair number of
Colossians interpreters are agreed that the
issue confronted by Paul to his audience relates
to a proto-Gnostic, mysticized Judaism,
involving appeals (or even worship of!) made to
angels (Colossians 2:18) and/or various spirit
powers rather than Yeshua the Messiah (cf. F.F.
Bruce, NICNT: Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians,
pp 97-98; Peter T. O’Brien, WBC: Colossians,
Philemon, 44:110; Douglas J. Moo, Pillar
New Testament Commentary: Colossians, Philemon,
pp 187-193). The local Judaism infecting the
Believers at Colossae, which in turn had been
infected by the local mishmash of Hellenistic,
foreign, and mystical religious and
philosophical beliefs in Phrygia, was leading
many of the Believers astray. Some have
concluded that the errors present among the
Colossian Believers may be appropriated as a
warning for people today errantly influenced by
horoscopes or fortune-telling, yet in the
Colossians’ case there may be more of a
connection to mystery religions and cults.
(Consult the FAQ entry on
Colossians
for more information.)
While it is not at all difficult to see what ta stoicheia tou
kosmou can mean in regard to Colossians 2:9,
20—as there are concrete examples of religious
asceticism stated in the text (Colossians 2:18,
20-23)—what ta stoicheia tou kosmou might
mean in regard to Galatians 4:3, 9 is much more
complicated.
Being subject to ta stoicheia tou kosmou is a problem that
Paul specifies can be Jewish (Galatians 4:3),
while at the same time it can equally be pagan.
Paul writes the non-Jewish Galatians, “now
that you have come to know God, or rather to be
known by God, how is it that you turn back again
to the weak and worthless elemental things, to
which you desire to be enslaved all over again?”
(Galatians 4:9). Various Galatians interpreters
conclude that here Paul has just associated
God’s commandments and paganism as basically
being the same thing (cf. Richard N. Longenecker,
WBC: Galatians, 41:180-181; Ben
Witherington III, Grace in Galatia, pp
298-299). The foolish Galatians, being led
astray by the Influencers/Judaizers, are
returning to a style of life that they should
have left behind in paganism, following rules
and regulations that are nothing more than
worldly principles. While it is likely that Paul
used
ta stoicheia tou kosmou in Colossians to refute errant,
Gnostic/mystical practices, the first usage of
ta stoicheia tou kosmou is said to be
employed in a much different way.
Is God’s Torah nothing more than “elementary principles of the
world” to Paul? While it is not difficult to see
how human beings approaching God’s Torah can
turn it into something via their own observance
(i.e., sectarian “works of law”) into just
fleshly rudiments—this is not the Torah’s
fault! Paul is the same apostle who would
say “we know that the Law is spiritual” (Romans
7:14) and “We
know that the law is good if one uses it
properly” (1 Timothy 1:8, NIV). In fact, he says
“the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not
submit to God's law, nor can it do so” (Romans
8:7, NIV).
Is it at all possible that there is another
explanation for what Paul means in Galatians
4:3, 9? While it may not be a popular one among
today’s Galatians expositors, there is indeed
another way we can look at this. Paul asks the
Galatians, “how can you turn back again…?” (RSV)
or return (Grk. epistrephō,
epistrefw)
to the elementary principles of the world.
All should be agreed that the Galatians were
going back to things they should have left
behind in paganism. But is Paul associating
First Century Judaism and paganism as being
quantitatively indifferent? God’s commandments
in the Torah are no different than a pagan
philosophy or superstition? Or, if some sects of
First Century Judaism had been errantly affected
by aspects of paganism (such as the Hellenistic
concept of Fate; cf. Josephus Antiquities of
the Jews 13.172)—could those errantly
influencing the Galatians similarly be part of a
sectarian Judaism that advocated rituals similar
to those in paganism?
Consider how Paul previously has asked the
Galatians “who has bewitched you…?” (Galatians
3:1). While it is easy for people in today’s
West to consider such a question to only be a
rhetorical device, the fact remains that in
ancient times various religious sects really did
use witchcraft to cast spells and hexes on
people, and parts of Judaism were not immune to
this. Likewise, Paul says of the Influencers/Judaizers
that they “do not even keep the Law themselves”
(Galatians 6:13). How could he say this if these
people were just misguided legalists, only
forcing ritual circumcision and proselyte
conversion onto the non-Jews in Galatia? Given
how
ta stoicheia tou kosmou
is later used in Colossians to depict errant,
syncretistic Jewish practices—is it so
impossible that the Influencers in Galatia could
have also brought in errant, syncretistic
practices? These could be things able to
“bewitch” them.
The idea that the Influencers/Judaizers in Galatia could have
advocated some kind of proto-Gnostic or mystical
Jewish errors is not one often seen in
contemporary Galatians interpretation, but it
cannot be totally taken off the table. In
worrying about the Galatians observing “days and
months and seasons and years” (Galatians 4:10),
is Paul really up in arms about the Galatians
remembering things like the Passover—which he
actually instructed the Corinthians to observe
(1 Corinthians 5:7-8)? Or would he be more
concerned about the rituals and customs
associated with the appointed times, brought in
and practiced by the Influencers/Judaizers,
effecting the Galatians? Samuel J. Mikolaski’s
comments are well taken:
“Are these Jewish or pagan observances? In writing to the
Galatians, Paul clearly has Judaizers in mind.
Did these worship elemental spirits?
Astrological elements were at times infused into
Jewish as well as pagan practices” (NBCR,
1100).
An alternative to be considered to Paul associating God’s
commandments with paganism—and that the
Galatians should not be following God’s Torah—is
that in being effected by the Influencers,
the Galatians were following errant religious
rituals that saturated the Influencers’ style of
Torah observance. The problem would not be
the Galatians remembering the Sabbath
(especially since Paul met many of them at
Shabbat services, per his visit to Galatia
in Acts 13:13-14:28) or the appointed times, but
rather how the Influencers observed them,
infused with ungodly pagan rituals that the
Galatians should have easily recognized as
originating from “those who by nature are not
gods” (Galatians 4:8, NIV).
If this is to be considered, then it does not seem difficult as to
why Paul would say that the Galatians break the
very Torah they claim to uphold (Galatians
6:13). They have already merited the Torah’s
curse upon them for failing to be a blessing to
others per God’s promise to Abraham (Galatians
3:8, 10), but they deserve it further by
encouraging the Galatians to follow ungodly
rituals actually opposed by the Torah
(i.e., Deuteronomy 18:10-14) that negatively
affected their sectarian branch of Judaism, and
considered by Paul to be works of the flesh
(Galatians 5:19). (Consult the FAQ entry on
Galatians,
and the editor’s commentary
Galatians for the
Practical Messianic, for a
further discussion.)
Realizing that there are First Century Judaisms, plural,
that are depicted within the Apostolic
Scriptures is a difficult step for many readers
to make, as many prefer to over-simplify the
circumstances within the New Testament. Some
branches of Ancient Judaism were affected by
paganism. Not only are we supposed to realize
this, but we are also required to make closer
observations in reading the text, and ask
ourselves some critical questions like whether
Paul does associate God’s commandments and
paganism as being the same thing. Messianics
today do not believe that the good rabbi from
Tarsus associates God’s commandments as being
synonymous with paganism. Yet, some
Messianics today do not heed the warning given
by Paul against ta stoicheia tou kosmou,
sometimes failing to realize that they may have
been affected by various Jewish errors, which in
turn have been affected by paganism.
For a further evaluation of the options available, consult D.G.
Reid, “Elements/Elemental Spirits of the World,”
in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, pp
229-233.
posted 18 March, 2009
End-Times Revival: Do you believe that there will be a massive end-times revival
before the return of the Lord?
All that Yeshua tells us concerning the end-times is that “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). Knowing that the gospel will
be preached to all the world does not
necessarily equate to there being a massive
end-times revival. All it means is that all will
somehow hear the message of salvation. On the
contrary to there being some kind of an
end-times revival, one of the prerequisites that
Paul says must happen before the return of the
Messiah is that there will be a massive
apostasy, or departure from the faith:
“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”
(2 Thessalonians 2:3).
It is likely that in the end-times, many people will truly come to
faith in the Lord and/or get themselves right
with Him. At the same time, this will also be
coupled with a massive apostasy of many people
away from the Lord.
updated 23 October, 2006
Ephesians, Epistle of: What can you tell me about the composition
of the Epistle of Ephesians?
The authorship of this letter is not challenged by many
conservative theologians, in spite of the fact
that there is a lack of personal greeting in it.
The author plainly identifies himself as Paul
(1:1; 3:1), and is of a series that has often
been called the “Prison Epistles,” written by
Paul from prison (3:1; 4:1; 6:20). While a sound
case can be made for genuine Pauline authorship
(Guthrie, pp 496-499, 509-528), there are many
liberal theologians who deny that Paul wrote
this letter, or that the audience of this letter
was a group other than the Ephesians. But as it
should be noted, “The structure of Ephesians is
in line with the rest of Paul’s correspondence.
We can trace the same sequence of salutation,
thanksgiving, doctrinal exposition, moral
appeal, final courtesies, and benediction…The
language of Ephesians, while suited to its theme
and drawing on resources of vocabulary not
represented in other Epistles, is nevertheless
sufficiently similar to that of the other
Epistles to substantiate the traditional view of
its authorship” (EXP, 11:4).
Historically, the city of Ephesus became the third most important
city for the early Messianic community, after
Jerusalem and Antioch. Ephesus was a major
emporium and urban center in the Eastern Roman
Empire, standing on the most direct sea and land
route to the eastern provinces. It was a major
center of Artemis (Diana) worship, boasting a
huge temple. The early Messianic community
established a major presence in Ephesus, so
significant that it is one of the assemblies
that Yeshua directs a word to in the Book of
Revelation. Conservative theologians believe
that a sound case can be made for genuine
Ephesian readership (Guthrie, 503), but do not
deny the possibility that Paul’s letter was
written to the surrounding areas as well. “It is
widely held that Ephesians, designated as a
circular, was written at the same time as
Colossians and Philemon and was probably taken
to various churches in the province of Asia by
Tychicus” (Ibid., 530).
Liberals who deny that the Ephesians were the primary target
audience of Paul’s letter believe so on the
basis of the fact that “in Ephesus” (1:1) does
not appear in all the oldest manuscripts of the
letter. The RSV follows this point of view,
rendering the verse as “Paul,
an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
to the saints who are also faithful in Christ
Jesus.”
This leads some to believe that Laodicea was
actually the intended audience, as Paul mentions
in Colossians 4:16 that he wrote an epistle to
the Laodiceans. It is notable that both Laodicea
and Ephesus are located in the same general
area, and if this theory has any merit, it does
not subtract from the theology of the letter at
all. It would mean that the Ephesians were only
one in a group of cities that Paul wrote to
(Gundry, 398). This letter was one in a series
carried by Tychicus along with Colossians and
Philemon (Colossians 4:7-8; Philemon 9, 13, 17;
cf. NIDB, 314). Some theologians actually
believe that the omission of “in Ephesus” from
some manuscripts is because there were multiple
copies of the letter written by Paul to the
assemblies of the region, and then Tychicus had
the authority to write in the name of the city.
Later on as Ephesus gained prominence among
those cities, the Ephesian copies became
preeminent. Conservative theologians agree that
while the Ephesians were the primary audience,
the letter is general enough to include an
intended audience of the surrounding cities.
The traditional place of Ephesians’ composition is regarded as
being Rome, likely between 60-61 C.E. A few
believe that a fair case can be made for Paul
actually being imprisoned in Ephesus itself
(Guthrie, pp 498-490), but this would require an
earlier dating. There are some similarities
between the content of Ephesians and Colossians
that indicate they were likely written at about
the same time (Gundry, 397), even though
Ephesians was likely written after Colossians.
“Colossians has in it the intensity, rush, and
roar of the battlefield, while Ephesians has a
calm atmosphere suggestive of a survey of the
field after the victory” (NIDB, 315).
No case for a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of this letter has ever been
made by either conservative or liberal
theologians. It is only a sentiment voiced by a
few fundamentalists in the Messianic movement.
Given the likely Roman origin of the letter, and
a Greek-speaking audience encompassing the
Ephesians and others in Asia Minor, a Greek
composition of the letter is definite. However,
simply because the letter was written in Greek
does not mean that it should be separated from
its Jewish-Pauline context.
Gundry describes Ephesians as having a “meditative quality” (p
397); Ephesians emphasizes the wholeness of the
Messiah and His authority over the community of
Believers. The letter has no specific heresy or
false teaching in mind to address. Ephesians
focuses on important themes such as the
fulfilled life that Believers have in Yeshua
(1:1), the mystery of God’s people fully
understood in Yeshua (3:1-6), and the different
spiritual gifts that God has given to each one
of us (4:1-16). Paul also discusses the proper
balance of our personal lives and our
relationships with others, specifically in the
context of marriage (4:17-6:9). The overarching
theme of Ephesians is our Savior Yeshua being
the head of the assembly.
For Messianic Believers, Paul expresses the unity that Jewish and
non-Jewish people have in Messiah Yeshua as part
of the Commonwealth of Israel. Anything that
separated these two distinct groups of human
beings has been rendered inoperative in the
Messiah. There is some usage from Ephesians by
Christian theologians who wrongly believe that
the Torah has been abolished, so this requires
any Messianic person who reads it to place the
letter in historical context, and consult the
source text for what appears to be any
inconsistency, as with any Scripture. Ephesians
uplifts Yeshua as the one and only Redeemer, and
should be a very encouraging letter for any one
of us to learn from.
Bibliography
Blaicklock, Edward M. “Ephesus,” in NIDB,
pp 315-316.
Danker, F.W. “Ephesians, Epistle to the,” in
ISBE, 2:109-114.
Furnish, Victor Paul. “Ephesians, Epistle to
the,” in ABD, 2:535-542.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
390-420.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the Ephesians,”
in New Testament Introduction, pp
496-540.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Ephesians, Letter to the,”
in NIDB, pp 314-315.
Johnston, G. “Ephesians, Letter to the,” in
IDB, 2:108-114.
Martin, Ralph P. “Ephesians,” in NBCR, pp
1105-1124.
Wood, A. Skevington. “Ephesians,” in EXP,
11:3-92.
updated 06 February, 2006
Ephesians 2:14-15:
If you say that the Law of Moses is still to be
followed today, then what do you do about
Ephesians 2:14-15, which says that the “Law of
commandments contained in ordinances” has been
abolished?
“For He Himself is our peace, who made both
groups into one and broke down the barrier
of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh
the enmity, which is the Law of
commandments contained in ordinances, so
that in Himself He might make the two into one
new man, thus establishing peace”
(Ephesians 2:14-15, NASU).
Ephesians 2:14-15 are challenging verses for many Messianics. The
NIV translation says that the Messiah “destroyed
the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its
commandments and regulations.” Many have taken
Ephesians 2:14-15 as meaning that Yeshua
abolished the Torah or the Law of Moses. It is
asserted that the “enmity” or “hostility” is
actually the Torah. But is this entirely
accurate? Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:14-15 are
prefaced by his comments to the non-Jewish
Believers here that they have been made a part
of the Commonwealth of Israel:
“Therefore remember that formerly you, the
Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called
‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the
flesh by human hands—remember that you
were at that time separate from Messiah,
excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers to the covenants of promise, having no
hope and without God in the world. But now in
Messiah Yeshua you who formerly were far off
have been brought near by the blood of Messiah”
(Ephesians 2:11-13).
Speaking of the non-Jewish Believers in the
assembly, Paul says that prior to faith in the
Messiah, they had once been “excluded” (NASU) or
“alienated” (RSV) from the Commonwealth of
Israel. They had been strangers to the
covenants, and they were without any hope of
salvation. What could have separated these people from membership in Israel?
Was it the Torah that separated them? If Paul is
claiming in Ephesians 2:14-15 that the entire
Torah or Law of Moses is what separated these
non-Jewish Believers, it is would be pretty
embarrassing for Paul to then make an actual
appeal in the same letter to the Torah,
later instructing his audience “Children,
obey your parents in the Lord, for this is
right.
honor your father and mother (which is
the first commandment with a promise),
so that it
may be well with you, and that you may live long
on the earth” (Ephesians 6:1-3; cf.
Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16).
It is an
impossibility that it was the Torah which stood
in the way of the non-Jews coming to faith in
the First Century from becoming a part of the
assembly of Israel. Deuteronomy 4:5-7 attests to
the fact that it was Ancient Israel’s obedience
to the commandments that would enable them to be
a testimony to the other nations surrounding
them, and the awesomeness and power of Israel’s
God:
“See,
I have taught you statutes and judgments just as
the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land
where you are entering to possess it. So keep
and do them, for that is your wisdom and
your understanding in the sight of the peoples
who will hear all these statutes and say,
‘Surely this great nation is a wise and
understanding people.’ For what great nation is
there that has a god so near to it as is the
Lord
our God whenever we call on Him?”
The Keil & Delitzch Commentary
on the Old Testament remarks, “the
laws which Moses taught were commandments of the
Lord. Keeping and doing them were to be the
wisdom and understanding of Israel in the eyes
of the nations… History has confirmed this. Not
only did the wisdom of a Solomon astonish the
queen of Sheba (1Ki 10:4), but the divine truth
which Israel possessed in the law of Moses
attracted all the more earnest minds of the
heathen world to seek the satisfaction of the
inmost necessities of their heart and the
salvation of their souls in Israel's knowledge
of God.” The Divine
nature of the Torah was to attract outsiders to
the God of Israel.
It was never the Torah that
separated those coming to faith in the Messiah
from membership in Israel. The Torah itself
provided very non-stringent citizenship
requirements for the stranger or sojourner
wanting to enter in. Exodus 12:48 says, “if
a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the
Passover to the
Lord,
let all his males be circumcised, and then let
him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be
like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised
person may eat of it.” A sojourner wanting to
join into Israel had to be physically
circumcised and proclaim faith in the God of
Israel. If the
stranger or ger (rG)
were circumcised and celebrated Passover, he
would then be considered to be an ezrach
ha’eretz (#rah
xrza)
or “a native of the land.” Concerning this, the
ArtScroll Chumash commentary says “Even
though their ancestors did not emerge from
Egypt, they have become full-fledged
[Israelites]…provided they circumcise themselves
and their children.” The Lord said that this
ordinance was to be a chuqat olam (~l[
tQx)
or a “never-ending statute” (Numbers 15:15-16,
LITV).
Citizenship in Israel for the
outsider was considered to be so important that
God says that the foreigner who has joined
himself to Him should not be considered outcast:
“Let
not the foreigner who has joined himself to the
Lord say, ‘The Lord
will surely separate me from His people.’ Nor
let the eunuch say, ‘Behold, I am a dry tree’”
(Isaiah 56:3). God
expected those who joined themselves to the
people of Israel to live as native Israelites
and not to be considered “excluded” by any
means. How was citizenship in the community of
Israel to be accomplished for those non-Jews
coming to faith in the First Century? Were they
to be circumcised and keep the Passover?
Note what Yeshua told the
Disciples in Matthew 16:19: “I
will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
and whatever you bind on earth shall have been
bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Binding and loosing is an Hebraic idiom meaning
“to prohibit” and “to permit” (CJB). The Messiah
gave the Disciples the ability to determine
halachah or Torah application for the
ekklēsia. We know that this happened at the
Jerusalem Council when it was determined that
circumcision and ritual conversion were
unnecessary for the salvation of the non-Jews
coming to faith. But that did not all of a
sudden make circumcision important. According to
the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, Torah
observance for the non-Jewish Believers was to
come gradually as they grew in their walk of
faith. Part of Torah observance is circumcision.
Concerning circumcision, the
Apostle Paul writes, “Was
any man called when he was already
circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised.
Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is
not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing,
and uncircumcision is nothing, but what
matters is the keeping of the commandments
of God. Each man must remain in that condition
in which he was called” (1 Corinthians 7:18-20).
These verses speak of the condition in which one
was called into covenant with the Lord. If we
use Abraham as an example, he was called into
covenant with God while uncircumcised (Genesis
12:2-3; 13:14-17; Romans 4:9-12). But as he
progressed in the covenant that God promised
him, he was circumcised at the appropriate time
further on (Genesis 17:10-14).
I believe Paul is using the same
analogy for new Believers, employing the verb
menō
(menw)
in v. 20, which can mean “to continue,” relating
to one’s spiritual maturity. These same new
Believers were expected to keep the Passover, as
Paul admonished the assembly in Corinth to
“Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a
new lump, just as you are in fact
unleavened. For Messiah our Passover also has
been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the
feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven
of malice and wickedness, but with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1
Corinthians 5:7-8).
It should be clear to us that the
Torah itself never stood in the way of those
separate from Israel to join with Israel. But if
the enmity or hostility was not the Torah,
though, then what was it? What was “the
barrier, the dividing wall of hostility” (NIV)
that was torn down by the Messiah?
The Greek for “dividing wall” in
Ephesians 2:14 is mesotoichon (mesotoicon),
which AMG tells us “is probably an
allusion to the wall between the inner and outer
courts of the temple.” This wall would have
divided the inner areas of the Temple complex in
Jerusalem, where animal sacrifices were
performed, from the outer areas. The predominant
outer area that kept non-Jews from entering into
the inner areas was called the Court of the
Gentiles. F.F. Bruce notes in his book The
New Testament Documents, “That none might
plead ignorance of the rules, notices in Greek
and Latin were fastened to the barricade
separating the outer from the inner courts,
warning Gentiles that death was the penalty for
trespass” (p 94). The First Century historian
Josephus describes the dividing wall in his
books The Antiquities of the Jews and
The Wars of the Jews:
“Thus was the
first enclosure. In the midst of which, and not
far from it, was the second, to be gone up to by
a few steps; this was encompassed by a stone
wall for a partition, with an inscription, which
forbade any foreigner to go in, under pain of
death” (Antiquities 15.417).
“[T]here was a partition made of
stone all round, whose height was three cubits:
its construction was very elegant; upon it stood
pillars at equal distances from one another,
declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and
some in Roman letters, that ‘no foreigner should
go within that sanctuary’” (Jewish
War
5.194).
The NIV Study
Bible, describing “the dividing wall,” says
that this is “Possibly an allusion to the
barricade in the Jerusalem temple area that
marked the limit to which a Gentile might go. It
is used here to describe the total religious
isolation Jews and Gentiles experienced from
each other” (p 1833). We have just discussed the
fact that it was never the Torah that separated
inclusion of outsiders from membership in
Israel. In fact, the Torah does not prescribe
the erecting of a wall outside the Tabernacle or
Temple to keep people out. On the contrary, King
Solomon declares in 2 Chronicles 6:32-33 that
people from all over the world would hear of the
majesty of God’s Temple and come to Him as a
result:
“Also
concerning the foreigner who is not from Your
people Israel, when he comes from a far country
for Your great name's sake and Your mighty hand
and Your outstretched arm, when they come and
pray toward this house, then hear from heaven,
from Your dwelling place, and do according to
all for which the foreigner calls to You, in
order that all the peoples of the earth may know
Your name, and fear You as do Your people
Israel, and that they may know that this house
which I have built is called by Your name.”
The mesotoichon
or dividing wall was built to keep non-Jews from
the Inner Court of the Temple, where animal
sacrifices were performed, on the threat of
death. Why was this wall erected, and who was
responsible for its construction? Why does Paul
use the allusion to this wall as being hostile
to non-Jewish Believers? Consider the fact that
Isaiah tells us that the Lord welcomes the
outsider into His House, and wants the outsider
to honor His Sabbath and serve in His Temple:
“Also
the foreigners who join themselves to the
Lord,
to minister to Him, and to love the name of the
Lord,
to be His servants, every one who keeps from
profaning the sabbath and holds fast My
covenant; even those I will bring to My holy
mountain and make them joyful in My house of
prayer. Their burnt offerings and their
sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for
My house will be called a house of prayer for
all the peoples” (Isaiah 56:6-7).
The “dividing wall” is called the
ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin (ton
nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin)
in the Greek of Ephesians 2:14. This is what the
New American Standard Bible renders as “the Law
of commandments contained in ordinances.”
Most Christians conclude that this is a
reference to the Torah or Law of Moses, which
Yeshua the Messiah supposedly abolished. (Do
note how some theologians, holding to a higher
view of the Old Testament, consider this to be a
reference to the so-called “ceremonial law” of
the Torah, and not the Torah as a whole or its
moral commands.) But we have already seen that
it was never the Torah that excluded citizenship
for the outsider in Israel. And certainly, if
this is a Biblical attestation that Yeshua
abolished the Law, then what was Yeshua telling
us when He said in Matthew 5:17-19 that He came
to fulfill the Law, and not abolish it?
Is Yeshua being inconsistent? Or have we missed
something? Furthermore, why would Paul make a
direct appeal to the Torah later in Ephesians
6:1-3?
In my previous
commentary in this analysis, I have already
stated how the Greek word nomos, most
often translated as “law,” does not always refer
to the Torah or Law of Moses in the Apostolic
Scriptures. Nomos can refer to man-made
laws, or more specifically the ordinances of the
Jewish Rabbis. In Orthodox Judaism today, when
one refers to “the Torah,” he is not just
referring to Genesis—Deuteronomy, but is also
referring to the Mishnah, Talmud, and rulings of
the Rabbis. You are referring to extra-Biblical
ordinances that have been added since Mount
Sinai that often far exceed the 613 commandments
of the Torah.
The Greek word most often
rendered as either “ordinances” (NASU) or
“regulations” (NIV) is dogma (dogma).
BDAG notes that it is “something that
is taught as an established tenent or statement
of belief, doctrine, dogma.” LS
indicates that in Ancient Greek Plato uses it to
refer to “that
which seems to one, an opinion, dogma.”
AMG adds, “Used concerning Christianity,
it means views, doctrinal statements,
principles.” Dogma can be representative
of man-made opinions and judgments, and so the
“the law of the commands in ordinances” (YLT)
does not necessarily have to be the Torah of
Moses, but rather the extra-Biblical “religious
Law” of the Rabbis of Judaism that was
responsible for the wall of division. In this
case, what Paul specifically refers to in
Ephesians 2:14-15 is not the Torah of Moses, or
even edifying traditions of Judaism,
but those things that caused the
wall of division to be erected and Israel forget
its mandate to be a light to the nations.
Yeshua the Messiah never came and eliminated the Torah, as per His
crucial admonition in Matthew 5:17-19. Rather,
the wall that He broke down was that of
Rabbinical addition and/or manipulation to the
commandments that had separated the non-Jews
coming to faith from inclusion in Israel. It was
never the Torah that caused a wall of division
to be erected not permitting the outsider from
becoming a part of the Commonwealth of Israel.
Certain Rabbinical ordinances or dogmas not
found in the Torah ultimately led to a barrier
wall being constructed on the Temple Mount, and
caused this separation to take place.
(This entry includes adapted excerpts from the editor’s book
The New Testament
Validates Torah. Also consult his
commentary
Ephesians for the
Practical Messianic.)
updated 04 January, 2009
Ephesians 6:11-17:
I heard a Messianic teacher say that the armor
of God is not the armor of a Roman soldier, but
really the garments of a Levitical priest
serving in the Temple. Do you have an opinion
about this? Is this a valid understanding?
When some allusion to priestly service is used in the Pauline
Epistles, we often see the usage of the Greek
term (latreia),
“cultic
usage service/worship (of God)” (BDAG,
587): Romans 9:4; 12:1; and the verb latreuō
(latreuw),
“be in servitude, render cultic service”
(Ibid.): Romans 1:25; Philippians 3:3; 2 Timothy
1:3. These terms are used similarly in the
Septuagint to describe the service of the
priests, now applied by Paul to describe the
service of the ministry of the gospel as we are
to serve as intermediaries between God and
fallen humanity in a priestly kind of service.
Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:11-17 do not
describe this kind of service, but rather our
reality as Believers in a war against the
adversary:
“Put on the full armor of God, so that you will
be able to stand firm against the schemes of the
devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and
blood, but against the rulers, against the
powers, against the world forces of this
darkness, against the spiritual forces of
wickedness in the heavenly places.
Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so
that you will be able to resist in the evil day,
and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand
firm therefore,
having girded your loins with truth, and
having put
on the breastplate of righteousness, and
having shod
your feet
with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
in addition to all, taking up the shield of
faith with which you will be able to extinguish
all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
And take
the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God” (cf.
Isaiah 11:5; 59:17; 52:7; 59:17; 49:2; Hosea
6:5).
Most interpreters have taken Paul’s references to be “the ‘whole
armor’ of the Roman soldier…used by Paul as a
figure for the defensive armor of the Christian
in the world (Eph. 6)” (J.W. Wevers, “Weapons,”
in IDB, 4:825). Conservatives are widely
agreed that Ephesians was likely written from
Paul’s first incarceration in Rome, and thus
Paul making reference to Roman armor during his
imprisonment as a metaphor for spiritual
steadfastness would only make logical sense. A
few teachers in the Messianic community
today—capitalizing on some negative rhetoric
against “Rome”—have doubted that this is the
case. They have instead advocated that Paul was
making reference to “priestly elements” or
“priestly garments” of service. However, there
is no sound basis for these conclusions.
Advocates of this view, clouded by negative ideas against the
classical civilizations of Greece and Rome, make
the unfortunate conclusion that the armor
elements of a breastplate, shield, helmet, and
sword were things that were only Greco-Roman.
Historical observations of ancient weapons of
warfare are undoubtedly lacking as these basic
elements of warfare were common not only
among the classical civilizations but also
Ancient Near Eastern civilizations contemporary
to and pre-existent of Ancient Israel. “ANE
civilizations developed [these] weapons long
before the nation of Israel was formed; these
were utilized in battles with enemies, never in
isolation from other people” (Mark J. Fretz,
“Weapons and Implements of Warfare,” in ABD,
6:893). While there was variance between the
warfare elements of the Egyptians, Assyrians,
Babylonians, Persians—and likewise the Ancient
Israelites—there was also a great degree of
commonality:
“Little is known of Hebrew armor. Saul and Jonathan both had armor,
which must at least have consisted of a
Helmet;
a breastplate or coat of mail;
Greaves;
and a shield. Probably a girdle belt…was used
for tying down the breastplate” (Wevers, in
IDB, 4:825).
The commonality among both ANE and classical weapons of war would
have remained true up until the First Century.
Paul’s references to a breastplate, shield,
helmet, and sword could just as well have
referred to a soldier in the army of King David
than a soldier in Caesar’s legions. While it
might tickle some ears that Paul is really
talking about the garments of a priest in
Ephesians 6:11-17, neither the vocabulary of the
passage nor an examination of history confirms
this view. It trivializes the reality that we
are presently engaged in a warfare against Satan
for human souls and their redemption.
posted 23 April, 2007
Ephraimite Erorr:
What is your response to “The Ephraimite Error”
white paper produced by Messianic Jews about
your movement?
“The
Ephraimite Error” white paper was produced
in 1999 by the MJAA and UMJC, under the auspices
of the International Messianic Jewish Alliance.
Surveying a then-growing sector of the
independent Messianic community labeling itself
as “Two-House,” the white paper refutes the
teachings of the early proponents of the
message. The white paper does have some valid
criticisms of the Two-House teaching as it was
first promoted and continues to be promoted by
many people, including the emphasis on scattered
“identity” and some of the sensationalism that
has been commonly attached to the message. Yet,
most people who read the IMJA “Ephraimite Error”
paper will not seek another side to the story,
much less a moderate form of the Two-House
teaching that is guided by interpreting the
prophecies of Israel’s restoration and not by
hype. Most who read the white paper, or more
likely its short summary, are content to not
examine what is actually said about Judah,
scattered Israel/Ephraim, and the nations from
the Bible.
While our ministry has produced a response in “The
Ephraimite Error: Critical Errors”
(2002), and this has helped to demonstrate that
not all advocates are the extremists as painted
by the IMJA, only time is the
ultimate answer to the dilemma we face. Since
2001, going a step farther, the major Messianic
Jewish organizations have denounced any ministry
which claims that non-Jewish Believers
(Two-House advocates or not) should keep God’s
Torah. And, this has not been helped by some of
the things that have occurred in the independent
Messianic community from 2002 to the present,
which often serve to reinforce Messianic Jewish
criticism. Those of us who will remain faithful
to what the Bible says about all of this, will
just have to wait out the polarization until
reasonable people are willing to come together
and honestly and constructively discuss the
issues.
In the long term, God’s promises to restore Israel are going to
come to pass. No matter how many white papers or
theological analyses are produced, the
prophecies of His Word stand true. In all
honesty, none of us know for certain if we are
Judah, scattered Israel/Ephraim, or truly of the
nations. But if we are a part of God’s
people—the Commonwealth of Israel—we will all
surely be involved in the restoration of Israel.
And, important questions no doubt need to be
asked. It is from this perspective that our
ministry chooses to promote a belief in the “Two
Houses,” as opposed to what “The Ephraimite
Error” refutes. (The white paper makes no
attempt to address or analyze the actual
prophecies of Israel’s restoration.)
For a further discussion, we recommend you consult our articles “The
Two-House Teaching in Proper Perspective”
and “Revisiting
the Two-House Teaching.”
posted 06 March, 2008
Ephraim, House of: What is this “House of Ephraim,” or just “Ephraim,” that you
comment about in some of your teachings?
“Ephraim” or the
“House of Ephraim” is a reference to the
Northern Kingdom of Israel that split off from
the Southern Kingdom of Judah following the
death of King Solomon. It was taken into
Assyrian Exile in 722-721 B.C.E. and corporately
assimilated into the nations. Per the end-time
prophecies of the restoration of Israel in the
days prior to the Messiah’s return (i.e., Isaiah
11:14; Jeremiah 3:18, 30:3; and Zechariah 10:7,
10), those of the scattered Northern Kingdom
will return to their Israelite heritage and many
will be gathered back into the Land of Israel.
updated 22 October, 2006
Ephraim, references to: The Two-House teaching seems to rely very heavily on the
significance of the Northern Kingdom. On what
grounds do you call the Northern House of Israel
“Ephraim”? This is just one of the twelve
tribes.
In the two sticks prophecy of Ezekiel 37, the
Prophet Ezekiel is clearly admonished, “And you,
son of man, take for yourself one stick and
write on it, ‘For Judah and for the sons of
Israel, his companions’; then take another stick
and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of
Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his
companions’” (v. 16). The Hebrew text says
l’Yosef etz Ephraim v’kol-beit Yisrael chaveru (Arbx
larfy tyB-lkw ~yrpa #[ @sAyl).
This clearly relates the name “Ephraim” to the
Northern Kingdom or House of Israel.
However, it is
very true that there are those in the Two-House
Messianic community who emphasize “Ephraim” to
such an extent that they make you think that
there is no Judah, meaning no Jewish people, at
all involved in the Two-House reunion. What is
ironic in this is that such people cannot allow
the prophecies to just exist for themselves, and
they assume that if you are non-Jewish that you
are of “scattered Ephraim.” Ephraim is simply
another term to refer to the Northern Kingdom of
Israel, which can be less confusing than using
“Israel.” “Joseph” is obviously also used to
refer to the Northern Kingdom in the prophecies
of Israel’s restoration. To clarify, remember
who composes “Judah,” and who composes
“Ephraim”:
• Judah
primarily consisted of the Israelite tribes
of Judah, Benjamin, and some Levites.
• Ephraim
summarily entailed the remaining ten tribes:
Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Zebulun, Issachar,
Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Mannaseh, and
Ephraim (the last two represent “Joseph”).
It is likely that
the term “Ephraim” (and certainly also the
designation “Ephraimite”) has become a bit
anachronistic today, and should be used more
cautiously than it is. It should be employed
more to refer to Ancient Israel—especially
because only God knows a person’s bloodline—and
entry into the Commonwealth of Israel is
ultimately by faith in Yeshua. This is true if a
person is Jewish, non-Jewish, or truly of the
nations.
In the long-term,
we must recognize everyone as part of Israel. We
cannot make a major distinction between Judah
and Ephraim because the Lord wants both Houses
of Israel to “be one in My hand” (Ezekiel
37:19), one that also includes “companions” from
the nations. The Lord wants one people of
Israel. He ultimately wants an Israel of
no divisions, but one where all are fellow
citizens and who serve Him as their King. He
wants this Israel to make a dynamic impact on
the world so all can come to a saving knowledge
of His Son.
updated 23 October, 2006
Ephraimite
Onlyism: I have heard you talk about “Ephraimite Onlyism”? What is this?
In relationship to
the Two Houses of Israel, we believe that in the
end-times the Lord is going to unite the House
of Judah, or Jewish people, with those of the
scattered House of Israel/Ephraim that was
dispersed into the nations in 722-721 B.C.E.
with the defeat of the Northern Kingdom of
Israel at the hands of the Assyrians. We believe
that as a part of the restoration of all Israel
that is to take place, Jewish people are now
coming to faith in Messiah Yeshua, and
non-Jewish Believers, perhaps many of them being
of scattered Israel/Ephraim, are coming into a
realization of the Hebraic Roots of their faith.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim established its own
religious system independent of the Torah (1
Kings 12). As 1 Kings 12:27 attests, Jeroboam
was concerned that if something were not done,
that the people would go to Jerusalem to offer
sacrifices according to the Torah and later
advocate reunion with the South: “If this people
go up to offer sacrifices in the house of the
Lord
at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will
return to their lord, even to Rehoboam
king of Judah; and they will kill me and return
to Rehoboam king of Judah.” He “consulted, and
made two golden calves, and he said to them, ‘It
is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem;
behold your gods, O Israel, that brought you up
from the land of Egypt’” (1 Kings 12:28),
permanently severing the bond between the
Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel. By
establishing a separate religious system, Israel
remained divided.
In a similar vein, what we might describe as “Ephraimite Onlyism”
is evident in Messianic groups that (1) advocate
a belief in the Two Houses of Israel, and (2)
like Jeroboam try to instill practices that lack
any regard whatsoever for the theology and
traditions of Judaism. These Two-House groups
primarily are dominated by non-Jews who deride
extra-Biblical Jewish custom and tradition, and
do more to keep Israel divided than united. They
fail to recognize that the Jewish people have
been given the oracles of God (Romans 3:2),
which includes the traditions of how the Torah
commandments are to be kept. Ephraimite Onlyists,
while attempting to keep the Torah, often do not
have any respect for Judaism. Sometimes this is
in response to some Jewish Believers’ disrespect
for Christianity, but if unity is ever to occur
in the Body of Messiah over this issue, we have
to have mutual respect for one another, and
recognize the humanity of both of us.
For a further examination of this issue, consult the editor’s
article “Anti-Semitism
in the Two-House Movement.”
updated 23 October, 2006
Esther, Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Esther?
The Book of Esther is one of the most unique texts in the Tanach,
with those who read it demonstrating a wide
variety of opinions: from Maimonides who placed
it second only to the Torah, Luther who thought
it was gaudy and sensual, and the feminist
theologian who places it at the center of her
theology. In the Christian theological
tradition, Esther is placed among the Historical
books, whereas Jewish tradition places them
among the Five Scrolls or Megillot to be
read during holiday times. Esther tells the
story of a Jewish girl who becomes the new queen
of Persia, and is placed in a position to save
the Jewish people from extinction.
The purpose of Esther’s composition was primarily to justify the
celebration of Purim (IDB, 2:150)
as a holiday for the Jewish people during and
immediately following the reign of the Persian
King Ahasuerus, known in Greek historical works
as Xerxes (3:7; 9:26-32; cf. Harrison, pp
1087-1088). The young Jewess Esther becomes the
queen of Persia, and her cousin Mordecai learns
about the genocidal plans of the evil Haman
toward the Jews. The location of these events is
in the Persian city of Susa. The text may easily
be described as a Jewish novella, with the term
Purim derived from the lot or pur
(rWP)
Haman cast to determine the date of execution
for the Jews (3:7; 9:24).
Conservative theologians regard the author of Esther as being
anonymous (ISBE, 2:158; EXP,
4:776; Dillard and Longman, 191), but most
certainly a Jew. Jewish tradition in the Talmud
(b.Bava Batra 15a) attributes authorship
of the book to the men of the Great Synagogue.
The author of Esther was most probably a Persian
Jew who was quite familiar with the inner
workings and social structure of the Persian
Empire, as he demonstrates no knowledge of
events or circumstances going on in the Land of
Israel. The text of Esther was likely composed
before Ezra’s return to Jerusalem, and with that
was probably written shortly after the events it
depicts, sometime in the late Fifth Century
B.C.E. Esther 9:22 suggests that the festival of
Purim was celebrated for some time before
Esther’s composition:
“[I]t
was a
month which was turned for them from sorrow into
gladness and from mourning into a holiday; that
they should make them days of feasting and
rejoicing and sending portions of food to
one another and gifts to the poor.”
Liberal scholars often advocate a later composition for Esther, as
early as the late Fourth Century B.C.E. Various
Greek “loan words” present in the text make some
suggest that Esther is a composition of the
early Hellenistic period (IDBSup, 280).
Liberals will often consider the events
portrayed in Esther to be pseudohistorical, and
perhaps even to be read as a comedy (Jewish
Study Bible, 1623). Many doubt that the
events ever took place (IDB, 2:151), and
conclude that they are only a “festal legend” (IDBSup,
279). The people in the Book of Esther are often
viewed as only being caricatures of other
figures that antagonized the Jewish people.
Doubting the historicity of Esther is not only a feature of modern
higher criticism, but even some Jews of ancient
times doubted its validity (b.Megillah
7a; cf. Harrison, 1090). Many try to connect the
feast of Purim to the Maccabean period
and their victory over the Greeks (IDB,
2:151; Harrison, 1088-1090; NBCR, 412),
including Haman being modeled after Antiochus
Epiphanes (ISBE, 2:158). Many liberals,
however, do consider the story of Esther to have
great value, particularly concerning Esther as a
female protagonist in a male-dominated Persian
society.
Conservatives and liberals all recognize that the Book of Esther is
not to be taken as “sober history” (NBCR,
413; cf. Harrison, 1090-1092), as there are
certainly elements in the story that are meant
to guide the reader. But how far we take this
has led to a diverse array of conclusions. Many
liberals will claim that the Persian Empire was
tolerant of minorities, thus casting doubt on
Esther’s claim of genocide against the Persian
Jews. Others will argue, “The writer displays a
most intimate and accurate knowledge of the
Persian court and customs, so much so that
Esther is used to fill gaps in the accounts of
classical historians” (EDB, 428; cf.
ISBE, 2:159; Dillard and Longman, 191-192).
Conservatives will commonly note that the Greek
historian Herodotus writes that King Xerxes was
ruthless and despotic (NBCR, 413), and
that we cannot make broad generalizations of
Persian culture.
Perhaps the most significant support for the historicity of Esther
among external data is a reference to a certain
Marduka (Mordecai) among Persian records
(NIDB, 326; ISBE, 2:159), proving
that the Biblical Mordecai could certainly have
existed. Today there appears to be a trend in
liberal scholarship toward accepting some
historicity of the text, as some note that
“nothing in the story seems improbable, let
along unbelievable” (ABD, 2:638), with
some even dating the text (or at least a
proto-text) in the late Persian period (Ibid.,
2:641).
The textual witness for Esther is immense. “[T]here are more MS
copies of Esther than of any other book of the
OT” (NBCR, 412), and there is extensive
Rabbinic commentary on Esther in the Talmud.
This high regard for Esther actually sees it
placed second to the Torah among some
manuscripts (EXP, 4:776). There exist
three major editions of the text of Esther
(Harrison, 1101-1102; EXP, 4:781-782;
ABD, 2:641-642), notably the Hebrew
Masoretic Text, Greek Septuagint, and a second
Greek edition. There are additions to the Book
of Esther found in the LXX that have a major
religious character. These chapters are a part
of the Apocrypha in Additions to the Book of
Esther (ISBE, 2:158), and are considered
canonical in the Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox, and some Anglican traditions.
A theme seen throughout Esther is an ongoing conflict between
Israel and the Amalekites (2:5; 3:1-6; 9:5-10),
something that originally occurred during the
Exodus (Exodus 17:8-16; Deuteronomy 25:17-19)
and continued throughout Israel’s history (1
Samuel 15; 1 Chronicles 4:43). The author of
Esther views the Amalekites as the epitome
and/or sum of Israel’s enemies, with Haman
depicted as a descendant of King Agag (Harrison,
1085).
The Book of Esther also relies heavily upon the Jewish people being
portrayed as God’s faithful remnant. Evangelical
Christian theologians are very keen to note that
the continued existence of the Jewish people
demonstrated in Esther is imperative due to the
promises of the coming Messiah (Dillard and
Longman, 197). Some also suggest a reliance upon
the themes seen in the story of Joseph regarding
God’s preservation of the Jews in Susa (2:3-4;
9, 21-23; 3:4; 4:14; 6:1, 8, 14: 8:6).
It is undeniable that Esther confronts us with a major Tanach
example of Israel interacting with other
cultures. Our principal protagonist is actually
named Hadassah (hSdh) meaning “myrtle,” but is given the Persian
name Ester (rTsa) meaning “star” (2:7; cf. Harrison, 1085;
EDB, 427). Understanding Persian history and
society is imperative to properly grasp the
concepts in Esther, as great banquets are the
focal points of much of the story. We also do
see drunkenness and lewd sexuality in Esther (ABD,
2:633; Jewish Study Bible, 1623). A
common misconception about the evil Haman
“hanging” is that he was hanged on a gallows
similar to today, when in the Persian context it
was probably impalement followed by the public
display or “hanging” of the corpse for the
public to see. The writing style of Esther is
undoubtedly affected by Persian techniques
(Harrison, 1096; EDB, 428).
The major discussion of the validity of the Book of Esther often
concerns the absence of any direct reference to
“God” (EXP, 4:784-785). Many have
considered the text to be entirely secular, and
not religious at all. Esther had difficulty
gaining canonical status in both the Jewish and
Christian theological traditions (IDB,
2:151; ISBE, 2:158; EXP, 4:779;
ABD, 2:635-638; EDB, 427-428; Dillard
and Longman, 189), and the Qumran community did
not consider it canonical at all. Some Jewish
and Christian scholars have considered the book
grossly immoral (ABD, 2:635). Neither
Esther nor Mordecai make a reference to the
Torah or Tanach, or demonstrate that they follow
the “commandments,” per se.
In response to these claims against Esther, it is proposed that God
not being mentioned directly is so that this
book could circulate more freely among Jews in
Persia (NIDB, 326). Many conclude that
the anonymity of God is a literary device used
to heighten the reader’s sensitivity to Him
working through the life circumstances of human
beings (IDB, 2:150). It is only by God’s
faithfulness to His people that they are saved,
as He moves on the hearts of the protagonists.
The Book of Esther has offered Jews throughout
history a great deal of hope during times of
distress (NBCR, 412).
The Book of Esther is often very important for Messianics during
the season of Purim. It causes all of us
to consider the role of anti-Semitism in today’s
world, and the role that we can play to combat
it. It most certainly causes us to consider how
God works through the human condition without us
often seeing. Esther gives us a critical lesson
of how God can use us to save and/or help His
people during times of terrible distress. Esther
is a great text that teaches us about the
salvation history of God (Dillard and Longman,
197), and at the same time asks us questions
about how He can use both men and women
to accomplish it.
Bibliography
Baldwin, J.G. “Esther,” in
NBCR, pp 412-420.
Berlin, Adele. “Esther,” in Jewish Study
Bible, pp 1623-1639.
Crawford, Sidnie White. “Esther,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 689-701.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Esther,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 189-197.
Harrington, Clyde E. “Esther, Book of,” in
NIDB, pp 326-327.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Esther,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1085-1102.
Harvey, D. “Esther, Book of,” in IDB,
2:149-151.
Huey, Jr., F.B. “Esther,” in EXP,
4:775-839.
Humphreys, W.L. “Esther, Book of,” in IDBSup,
pp 279-281.
Moore, Carey A. “Esther, Book of,” in ABD,
2:633-643.
Payne, D.F. “Esther, Book of,” in ISBE,
2:157-159.
Rashkow, Ilona N. “Esther, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 427-429.
posted 22 February, 2007
|
