|
Galatians, Epistle of: What can you tell me about the composition of
the Epistle of Galatians?
Genuine Pauline authorship of Galatians has never been challenged
by the majority of conservative and liberal
Christian theologians. The message of Galatians,
the exact audience of the Galatians, and some of
the historical background surrounding Galatians,
however, has been vigorously debated by
theologians in the past century. This is being
compounded by what has been termed the New
Perspective of Paul, where Christian theologians
are seeing Paul’s view of the Law as being far
more moderate than is traditionally believed.
Without question, the major theme of the letter
to the Galatians is a warning about the
perversion of good news. Christian theologians
have often likened Galatians as the “Magna Carta
of Christian freedom,” further comparing Romans
to being the “Constitution.” Consequently, any
proper Messianic handling of Paul’s letter to
the Galatians has to keep all of these issues in
mind.
Up until the last century, it was generally agreed that the target
audience of Paul’s letter was a group of people
known as the Galatians. These Galatians migrated
from Gaul (modern-day France) into what is today
Northern Turkey. These were ethnic Celts, who
later integrated into the local population.
Called today the Northern Galatian Theory,
Paul’s audience primary consisted of ethnic
Galatians. Sir William Ramsay is often credited
with challenging this theory in the
mid-Nineteenth Century, advocating instead that
Paul’s target audience was not ethnic Galatians,
but rather Southern Galatians. Known as the
Southern Galatian Theory, any reference to
Galatia by Paul is to the Roman province in what
is today South-Central Turkey. In our opinion,
the Southern Galatian Theory is more likely, as
Paul is recorded as having visited cities in the
province of Galatia in Acts chs. 13-14. “[I]t is
more likely that ‘Galatia’ referred to the
province than to the territory, for it is not
certain that Paul preached the gospel in the
latter upon two different occasions” (ISBE,
2:379). This would account for Paul’s intimate
relationship with the congregations of Galatia,
as indicated throughout his letter (Ibid.).
It is notable that of all his letters, Galatians is the only letter
written to a group of assemblies, as opposed to
a specific congregation or individual.
Concurrent with Paul’s travel through Galatia, a
composition date of 50-52 C.E. is often
estimated. Some theologians believe that
Galatians was the first letter that Paul wrote.
Where Paul wrote Galatians from has been
debated, just as the exact audience has been
debated. Some favor a composition locus of
Macedonia or Ephesus, while others favor
Antioch. One thing we can be certain of is that
his audience was Greek speaking. While there are
Messianics who like to claim that Paul wrote
them in Hebrew or Aramaic, as an Eastern Roman
province Greek would have been the predominant
language in Galatia.
One of the recurring issues in Paul’s letter to the Galatians is
that of the group commonly called the “Judaizers.”
These are men who made circumcision and Torah
observance required prerequisites for salvation
(cf. Acts 15:1). They perverted the simplicity
of the gospel by adding requirements to it.
Translated as “to Judaize” (YLT), the verb
Ioudaizō (Ioudaizw)
means “live as bound by Moasic ordinances or
traditions, live in Judean or Jewish fashion”
(BDAG, 478). The challenge with
interpreting this properly is that today,
largely because of Jewish-Christian dialogue, a
renewed interest in Hebraic studies, and
examination of the First Century Judaisms that
existed in Paul’s day, is what “Judaize” meant
to Paul. When we consider available data today
that earlier Christian theologians did not have,
our perceptions of the Judaizers have been
changing. In Mark Nanos’ commentary The Irony
of Galatians (Minneapolis: Augsberg-Fortress,
2002), he actually refers to the Judaizers as
the “Influencers,” and some commentators just
call them “agitators” or even “teachers.”
Paul addresses his audience as being former pagans with an innate
knowledge of Judaism (ISBE, 2:378). They
were largely a group of non-Jewish people who
were still maturing in their Messianic faith,
having received the good news with great
enthusiasm. There is a growing minority opinion,
largely relating to the discussion of what Paul
meant by employing the term “elemental spirits”
(4:3, 9), that the Judaizers or Influencers were
not just Pharisees, but actually practitioners
of early Jewish mysticism (Gundry, 344; NBCR,
1100). “Schmithals…took the opponents to be
Jewish-Christian Gnostics who for magical
reasons were interested in Jewish rituals but
not in the Torah as a whole” (ABD,
2:874). The Judaizers, then, would be those who
held to mystical ideas surrounding the Torah,
thus Paul could rightfully accuse them, “For
those who are circumcised do not even keep the
Law themselves” (6:13).
It is not agreed among scholars whether or not Paul composed his
letter prior to, or immediately after the
Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, with many placing
its composition before the Council. Some view
Paul’s references to Jerusalem in Galatians
1:17-18 as being a reference to the events of
Acts 11, as opposed to Acts 15. Whether or not
Galatians was written before the Jerusalem
Council is really not important, as the decree
of the Jerusalem Council would be spread into
the Mediterranean basin, and all the early
congregations would have to abide by it. The
Council ruled that non-Jews were to go to the
Synagogue where Moses was preached (Acts 15:21).
Paul’s statements concerning the Torah in
Galatians, even if probably written before the
Council, must be interpreted in this light as he
readily submitted to its authority.
Over the centuries, Galatians has been used as a major support for
the doctrine of justification by faith. It was
used extensively by Martin Luther. Freedom or
liberty for Believers is also a major theme of
Galatians, but Christians often separate this
from its original Tanach basis of keeping the
Torah (Psalm 119:45). For Messianics today,
Galatians often proves to be a problem text, as
a surface reading of Galatians may appear to be
quite negative toward a lifestyle of Torah
obedience. As is summarized by most Christians,
“Certain Jewish teachers, who professed to be
Christians and acknowledged Jesus as Messiah,
were obscuring the simplicity of the gospel of
free grace with their propaganda. They insisted
that to faith in Christ must be added
circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law” (NIDB,
367). Similarly, much of the Messianic movement
has been accused of doing the same thing.
Paul’s letter to the Galatians cannot be divorced from its
immediate First Century Jewish context. It also
cannot be read separate from the words of Yeshua
that support the eternality of God’s Law
(Matthew 5:17-19), and the Jerusalem Council’s
ruling that enforced the Torah’s authority. It
must be read from the perspective that new
Believers, who were still maturing in their
faith, were being led astray by those who were
usurping the Torah to promote their own ends,
annulling the simplicity of the gospel message.
This perspective, which greatly moderates Paul’s
perceived words on the Torah, is growing in our
day through the advent of Jewish and Hebraic
studies. From this viewpoint, Paul’s words in
Galatians are not a treatise against the Torah,
but rather contain a warning against the Torah’s
improper usage for new Believers.
Bibliography
Betz, Hans Dieter. “Galatians, Epistle to the,”
in ABD, 2:872-875.
Boice, James Montgomery. “Galatians,” in EXP,
10:409-508.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Early Epistles of Paul,”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
341-358.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the Galatians,”
in New Testament Introduction, pp
465-487.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Galatians, Letter to the,”
in NIDB, pp 366-367.
Knox, J. “Galatians, Letter to the,” in IDB,
2:338-343.
Matera, Frank J. “Galatians,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 2079-2088.
Mikolaski, Samuel J. “Galatians,” in NBCR,
pp 1089-1104.
Nanos, Mark D. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s
Letter in First-Century Context.
Ridderbos, H.N. “Galatians, Epistle to the,” in
ISBE, 2:379-385.
updated 06 February, 2006
Galutyah: What do you think about Paul’s letter to the Galatians really
being written to lost Israelites in the galut?
We believe that the Apostles, as they went on missionary journeys
out into the Diaspora, knew that there were
scattered Northern Kingdom Israelites among the
nations. This is clear from James the Just’s
attestation in Acts 15, when he makes a direct
reference to Amos 9:11-12, connecting the
salvation of the nations and the restoration of
all Israel. This being said, however, the
primary emphasis of the missionary journeys of
the Apostle Paul and others was to preach the
good news of Messiah Yeshua to the world, and
see new converts properly trained up and
discipled. The salvation of Israel must first
take place with the individual, and then can
take place with the nation as a whole.
The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians, like his other epistles
to congregations or groups of congregations,
addresses the spiritual situation that the
Believers in Galatia faced. The Galatians were
being errantly taught that circumcision and
Torah observance were prerequisites for
salvation, and inclusion among God’s people.
Paul’s letter to the Galatians clarifies that
this is doctrinal error, and he places
circumcision and Torah observance in their
proper place for the new Believer.
It is possible that there were scattered Northern Kingdom
Israelites in the congregations of Galatia, as
it was a strong tenet of First Century Judaism
that those of the Lost Tribes were indeed
scattered abroad. The Jewish Synagogue had great
success converting many in the Mediterranean
basin. But to make the extreme jump and say that
Paul was writing to some group called “Galutyah”
is without any historical basis. All of Paul’s
epistles were either written to specific
congregations or groups of congregations in
geographical locations such as Rome, Corinth,
Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, or to
individuals such as Timothy or Titus. Saying
that Paul wrote to “Galutyah” does not fit the
pattern of his writings at all.
Galatia
was a province of the Roman Empire located in
what is today Central Turkey, that spoke Greek
as its primary language—not Hebrew or
Aramaic, and it is in Greek that Paul wrote his
Epistle to the Galatians. “Galutyah” is a
manufactured word and this mythical theory
has no scholarly merit. This is a fanciful
theory to its core, without any historical
support, and will only bring discredit to the
Two-House Messianic community if not quickly
discarded. It goes well beyond the message that
Paul writes to the Galatians, and will not help
Messianics’ ability to engage with contemporary
Galatians scholarship.
Consult the editor’s commentary
Galatians for the
Practical Messianic, for a
proper and academically informed handling of
Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
updated 14 October, 2006
Genesis, Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Genesis?
The Hebrew title of the first book of the Bible is Bereisheet
(tyvarB, pronounced Bereishis in the Ashkenazic
tradition), coming from the first sentence in
the text, “When
God began to create heaven and earth” (1:1, NJPS).
Our English term “Genesis” is derived from the
Greek Septuagint, which uses the term
geneseōs (genesewß)
in Genesis 2:4, describing “the book of the
generation of heaven and earth” (LXE). This
passed over into the Latin Vulgate as Liber
Genesis. In the Jewish tradition, the full
title of Genesis is Sefer haBereisheet,
and referred to by some as Sefer haYesharim
or “Book of the Upright” (Sarna, xi).
The theme of the Book of Genesis is undoubtedly beginnings.
“Genesis covers an immensely long period of
time, longer perhaps than the rest of the Bible
put together. It begins in the distant past of
creation, an event about whose absolute date we
cannot even speculate, through millennia to
reach Abraham at the end of chapter 11” (Dillard
and Longman, 37). If the lifespans of the early
genealogies in chs. 5 and 11 are added, then the
text itself covers almost 2,400 years (IDB,
2:368). Specifically, it would cover 1,948 years
from Adam to Abraham (Sarna, xii), and then 361
years to the death of Joseph (Ibid.), equaling
2,309 years (Ibid.). If one considers there to
be missing generations or individuals via a
telescoped genealogy, then the timespan between
Creation and the Patriarchs becomes considerably
longer (Harrison, 147-152), with human history
certainly going back 18,000-20,000 years. The
wide breadth of space and history that Genesis
covers cannot be ignored by any able
interpreter. Several, if not multiple millennia
of human history are covered in Genesis’ first
twelve chapters.
Geographically, Genesis can be divided into two principal segments.
This first segment, chs. 1-38, comprises a great
deal about what we know about humans living in
Mesopotamia. Many conservative scholars are
agreed that the Garden of Eden was likely
located in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia was the
original home of Abram, Isaac’s wife Rachel was
from Mesopotamia, and Jacob lived in Mesopotamia
for twenty years. The homeland of the original
Hebrews was, in no uncertain terms, found in
Mesopotamia. Various other parallels exist
between the customs and laws followed by the
Patriarchs (NIDB, 380), and what was
followed in Mesopotamia, in spite of them
transplanting themselves to Caanan. Of extreme
importance is the fact of distinct Mesopotamian
influence on the first parts of Genesis.
Harrison notes that “On the whole, English
translations of the first dozen or so chapters
of Genesis are so literal that they betray the
translators’ ignorance of the Mesopotamian
background that Genesis so faithfully reflects”
(ISBE, 2:438).
“There can be no real question as to the immense antiquity of the
source material that is to be found in Genesis”
(Harrison, 552). We cannot ignore some distinct
parallels between what we see in the Hebrew
Bible and what is recorded in Mesopotamian works
such as the Enuma elish creation story
and Epic of Gilgamesh disastrous flood
(Harrison, 555-558; ABD, 2:938-939).
However, it must be noted that there are severe
differences as well. “The Babylonian account
depicts the Creation as taking place as a result
of the sexual union of the gods…It is patently
mythical and pagan in its orientation” (NIDB,
381). This is contrary to a Divine Creator
making man in His own image, and being One who
cares for His creatures. The Mesopotamian
stories are nothing more than perverse
preservations of the true Biblical account.
“[I]t would not then be at all surprising if the
story concerning them should come to be
mythologized in pagan traditions, while being
preserved in authentically historical form
within the stream of tradition of which Gn. 1-11
is the inspired deposit” (NBCR, 79). It
is probable though, that the author of Genesis
knew of these myths when composing the text
(Harrison, 552).
This first segment of Genesis can largely be broken up into two
halves. The first half deals with what we might
call primeval or pre-history, the period from
Adam to the appearance of Abraham (1:1-11:26).
This largely covers the Creation and Fall of
humanity, the spread of sin in the early world,
Noah’s Flood, and the Tower of Babel. The second
half of this segment deals with the Patriarchal
history (11:27-37:1), covering the lives of
Abraham and Isaac (11:27-25:11), and then with
Isaac and Jacob (25:19-35:29; 37:1). These parts
record Abraham’s journey to Canaan, the judgment
of God upon Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham
offering up Isaac for a sacrifice. They are
interspersed by the genealogies of Ishmael
(25:12-28) and Esau (ch. 36).
The second major segment of Genesis, chs. 39-50, that covers far
less time, sees the scene shift from Canaan to
Egypt. From 37:2-50:26 we see the lives of Jacob
and Joseph, and the twelve sons of Israel having
to move into Egypt. We also get a feel for the
Ancient Hebrews’ lives in Egypt, and as a
result, we see that the author of Genesis is
quite familiar with the Egyptian civilization,
with careful attention given in this part to
specific agricultural advances made and
perfected by Egypt.
The authorship of Genesis is a lively debate in modern theology,
and has been since the mid-Eighteenth Century.
Most, regardless of their position, are agreed
that Genesis should not be read on its own
without some connection to the rest of the Torah
or Pentateuch (Exodus-Deuteronomy), as the story
continues on. It is important that we remember
Genesis “was not written as an independent and
complete volume” (New Interpreter’s Study
Bible, 1; cf. ISBE, 2:431-432;
Dillard and Longman, 37). But as one can
imagine, reading the Book of Genesis in light of
the rest of the Torah has caused a great deal of
controversy.
Historically, both Jews and Christians have held to the position of
some kind of Mosaic authorship, even though
Genesis is, in a strict sense, totally anonymous
(Harrison, 542; Dillard and Longman, 39). Varied
ancient traditions, both inside and outside of
the Bible, Jewish and Christian, almost all
attest to Moses being the author of Genesis (at
least before 1750). The principal witness that
we have attesting to genuine Mosaic
authorship—as Believers—is actually the
Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament. Acts
15:1, for example, treats the rite of
circumcision as being “according
to the custom of Moses,” a direct allusion to
Genesis 17. A consensus reading of the Apostolic
Scriptures assigns some level of the Torah’s
authorship to Moses (Mark 12:26; Luke 24:27;
Romans 10:5; 2 Corinthians 3:15), especially
John 1:45 and 5:46:
“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We
have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and
also the Prophets wrote—Yeshua of Nazareth,
the son of Joseph’” (John 1:45).
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe
Me, for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46).
All of the specific quotations in the Apostolic
Scriptures from Yeshua or the Apostles ascribe
Moses as being the author of the Torah. “[T]he
NT endorses the Jewish tradition of Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch, not excluding
Genesis” (NBCR, 79). Sailhamer further
repeats, “It appears relatively certain that
Jesus and the writers of the NT believed that
Moses was the author of the Pentateuch” (EXP,
2:5). So, for anyone to deny Moses’ hand in
composing the Torah, that person is going
against the authority of the Messiah and the
Apostles.
There are, however, conservative-moderates who believe in principal
Mosaic authorship of Genesis, but do not
disallow for post-Mosaic editing in some
distinct references. “The concept of Mosaic
authorship does not demand the belief that Moses
was the first to write every word of each
account in the Book of Genesis. It is generally
understood today to mean that much of his work
was compilation” (NIDB, 380). Verses that
clearly indicate post-Mosaic editing of Genesis
including the mentioning of “Dan” (14:14), a
list of kings that reigned in the land of Edom
(36:31), and a reference to the “land of Ramses”
(47:11). Many “conservative Christians have been
too quick to distance themselves from the
possibility of sources and too closed to any
evidence of significant post-Mosaic activity”
(Dillard and Longman, 39; cf. Harrison, 542),
and the idea of exclusive Mosaic authorship of
Genesis permeates the vast majority of the
Messianic community, with almost no room to
move.
In affirming Mosaic authorship of the Book of Genesis, none of us
can conclude that Moses is the author of every
single letter. First, we do not know if he used
scribes to compile the earliest edition of
Genesis, and secondly, it is quite probable that
Moses did incorporate outside materials in its
composition. Harrison speculates that the
material for chs. 1-36, including the story of
Creation and the Flood, originally existed on
cuneiform tablets, and that information was
adapted by Moses for our canonical Genesis
account:
“If it is correct to assume that the first thirty-six chapters of
Genesis had originally had an independent
existence as cuneiform tablets, it would have
been a comparatively easy matter for a talented
person such as Moses to compile the canonical
book by arranging the tablets in a rough
chronological order” (ISBE, 2:437).
Conservatives generally believe that “the writer of the Book of
Genesis appears to have composed his work from
‘archival’ records of God’s great deeds in the
past…the narratives within the Book of Genesis
appear to be largely made up of small,
self-contained stories worked together into
larger units by means of various geographical
and genealogical tables. If such is, in fact,
the case, one should not expect to find absolute
uniformity of style, etc., among all the
individual narratives any more than an absolute
uniformity can be expected in later historical
books” (EXP, 2:4). Some divide the
material for Genesis 1:1-37:2 into eleven
possible tablets (Harrison, 548-551), noting “to
what extent [Moses] wrote any of its contents,
with the possible exception of all or part of
the Joseph narratives, is unknown” (Ibid., 542).
Moses may better be described as the “principal compiler” of
Genesis, if indeed he took Patriarchal
traditions that had been passed down in the
community of Israel, and via God’s Spirit
integrated them into His authorized religious
Instruction. It is notable that having been
raised in Egypt, he would have seen that the
original Genesis was written on leather, a more
preferred and durable material than clay (ISBE,
2:437-438; cf. Harrison, 552). The author of
Genesis has a knowledge of Egypt (13:10) and the
Egyptian language (31:43-45), certainly pointing
to Moses. We must, however, consider the fact
that whatever was written in Moses’ time was
composed in the paleo-Hebrew or Phoenician
script, whereas what we have today is in
Assyrian or Babylonian block script, acquired by
the Jewish exiles who were taken to Babylon. The
Talmud tells us that Ezra the Priest was
responsible for the final composition of the
Tanach in the current block script (b.Sanhedrin
21b), and so the Torah, and thus Genesis as we
have it today, is a product of the
post-Babylonian exile.
Our ministry falls well within the
conservative-moderate position of Mosaic
authorship of the Book of Genesis, and are certainly not advocates of the liberal view (Dillard and
Longman, 38). We cannot ignore the broad array
of events and history that Genesis covers (EXP,
2:3-4), including the incorporation of outside
sources into Genesis, so it is best to say that
we believe in the “essential authorship” of
Moses (Dillard and Longman, 40), allowing for
possible later editing by individuals such as
Joshua or Ezra the Priest.
The liberal view of the composition of Genesis, and indeed the
entire Torah, is one that most Messianics are
not even aware of. Liberals all deny any Mosaic
authorship of Genesis, and instead adhere to
some kind of “documentary hypothesis.” The most
widely advocated of these theories is commonly
called JEDP, which is believed to string
together various religious traditions from a
distinct element of Ancient Israel. Forms of
this theory have existed since the mid-1700s,
and were popularized in Germany in the
mid-1800s, specifically by Julius Wellhausen. It
is often based on factors such as differing
literary styles, usage of the Divine name YHWH,
alleged contradictions in the text, and
perceived developments in Israel’s religion (IDB,
2:369-373; IDBSup, 358; ABD,
2:933-938; Dillard and Longman, 40-44)—and there
have been significant scholars who have
challenged it (ISBE, 2:433-437).
Liberals advocate that the Jews returning from Babylonian exile
compiled various traditions into what we now
call the Torah, ascribing authorship to Moses.
Extreme liberals believe that the story of
Creation and the Flood are largely myths,
coupled with other “local legends” such as the
judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah (IDB,
2:376-378). Perhaps Abraham existed as an
historical figure, but never as prominent as
Genesis portrays him. Furthermore, many have
tried to postulate that the religion of Ancient
Israel developed from polytheistic to
monotheistic, so any references in the Hebrew
text to “YHWH” (J) or “Elohim” (E) are actually
references to two different deities. This view
came to prominence in a time highly dominated by
social Darwinism, and is undeniably affected by
the theory of evolution (IDB, 3:379).
Liberal views that deny the historicity of the Book of Genesis are
mostly developed by people who deny anything
supernatural. Conservative views are commonly
criticized as being “shaken by modern natural
science, especially by biology and Darwinism” (IDBSup,
356). While JEDP is a very common theory to hear
in liberal Christian seminaries, many Jews
likewise believe in it (Jewish Study Bible,
11). Many in Jewish and Christian institutes
think that they “have to” believe it because
“everyone else does,” but as Sarna validly
points out, “it is beyond doubt that the Book of
Genesis came down to us, not as a composite of
disparate elements but as a unified document
with a life, coherence, and integrity of its
own. For this reason, a fragmentary approach to
it cannot provide an adequate understanding of
the whole” (Sarna, xvi). A good trend in
Biblical scholarship among liberals appearing
more and more is acknowledging some kind of
unity in Genesis on literary grounds (Dillard
and Longman, 46-47; cf. Harrison, 564), even
though some Mosaic involvement in Genesis’
composition will still be denied by these
people.
From a textual standpoint the major witnesses that we have of the
Book of Genesis are the Hebrew Masoretic Text
(MT), Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek Septuagint
(LXX), and Genesis fragments found among the
Dead Sea Scrolls (ABD, 2:933). On the
whole, the Hebrew textual witnesses of Genesis
are very good, but on occasion it can be
necessary to find a better reading evident in a
secondary version because of Genesis’ antiquity
(Harrison, 565). This is especially true of
translation into English where the Hebrew can be
unclear or vague, and the Greek LXX will often
give a translator clues as to what a clearer
rendering in English can be.
The theological message of Genesis is clear to anyone who reads it.
Genesis must be understood for a person to
understand the rest of the Bible (Dillard and
Longman, 37). Genesis lays the groundwork via
the promises given by God to Abraham for the
establishment of the nation of Israel, and most
important lays the groundwork for understanding
the Messiah to come. Genesis is highly
monotheistic as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and Joseph are all relating themselves to
a single deity. We see God relating to humanity
in both love and judgment in Genesis,
characteristics seen throughout the rest of
Scripture.
As Genesis lays the foundation for the rest of the Bible, and
specifically the Torah, we see that Israel is
not just created by random chance, but by God
directly intervening in the lives of people. We
see that God has a plan of blessing all the
peoples of Planet Earth through the line of
Abraham (12:1-3), and the beginning of the
people that will accomplish this blessing. Sarna
summarizes that “the entire Hebrew Bible is both
God-centered and Israel-centered” (Sarna, xii),
so any examination of Genesis by us as Messianic
Believers today must be done by us seeing what
God’s agenda is for the world: to see
humanity’s restoration. Not surprisingly,
some of the themes seen at the beginning of
Genesis are repeated at the end of Revelation (ISBE,
2:432).
When we consider the theology of today’s Messianic movement, some
challenges exist in our present approach to
Genesis. While many Messianic Believers engage
in a consistent study of the Torah, including
Genesis, some tend to make the reverse mistake
of liberals who deny that its miraculous events
took place. Some Messianics have an “overly
mythical” view of Genesis that largely comes
from consulting ultra Orthodox and Chassidic
Jewish sources, at the expense of understanding
Genesis in the context of the Ancient Near East.
We would do well in the future to adapt a more
conservative-moderate view of Genesis, where we
fully affirm the accuracy of the text, that God
did indeed create the world intentionally, that
these people and the events actually did take
place, and that these accounts give us a vivid
picture of God’s love, but also His judgment. We
need to engage with more commentaries and
references that do not skirt around the
controversies that exist with Genesis, so that
our faith can be strengthened, and we can truly
see the supernatural interacting with the
natural.
Bibliography
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Genesis,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 37-56.
Eissfeldt, O. “Genesis,” in IDB,
2:366-380.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Genesis,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
542-565.
____________. “Genesis,” in ISBE,
2:431-443.
Hiebert, Theodore. “Genesis,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 1-84.
Hendel, Ronald S. “Genesis, Book of,” in ABD,
2:933-941.
Kline, Meredith G. “Genesis,” in NBCR, pp
79-114.
Levenson, Jon D. “Genesis,” in Jewish Study
Bible, pp 8-101.
McComiskey, Thomas Edward. “Genesis,” in NIDB,
pp 380-382.
Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis,” in EXP,
2:3-284.
Sarna, Nahum M. “Introduction,” JPS Torah
Commentary: Genesis, pp xi-xvi.
Westermann, C., and R. Albertz. “Genesis,” in
IDBSup, pp 356-361.
posted 09 August, 2006
Genesis 5, 11 Genealogies:
I have heard that there is some kind of
controversy concerning the genealogical lists of
Genesis 5 and 11. Can you explain this?
Whether one realizes it or not, the genealogical lists of the anti-diluvians
of Genesis 5, and the post-diluvians of Genesis
11, are two of the most debated chapters in the
entire Bible. People engaged in Biblical Studies
cannot often agree on who these people were and
what the numbers of their ages represent. The
Rabbinic tradition is largely convinced that
each list simply represents a line of precisely
ten people who lived from Adam to Noah, and
precisely ten people who lived from Noah to
Abraham (m.Avot 5:2). Advocates of either
a 6,000 year chronology for human history, or
even 6,000 year old universe, go a step further
and add up the numbers provided in Genesis 5 and
11, believing that these lists strongly support
their case. But those wishing to examine the
genealogical lists from an Ancient Near Eastern
perspective have often opposed this.
First to be considered is the strong likelihood
of Genesis 5 and 11 having employed a process
known as telescoping.
While we would expect a precise correlation
between fathers, sons, grandsons,
great-grandsons, etc., today in the Twenty-First
Century, genealogies seen throughout Scripture
are often given to make an important point with
the people that are listed, and may not be as
exact as the modern person would want them to
be. Our modern expectations regarding
genealogy are much different from what is seen
in the Tanach. It is common in the Tanach to see
telescoped genealogies that purposefully skip
generations in order for a Biblical author
to make an important theological point, or to
draw one’s attention to the people actually
listed (i.e., the genealogy of Ezra the Priest:
1 Chronicles 6:3-15 compared to Ezra 7:1-15, the
latter excludes six people).
Both the genealogies of Genesis 5 from Adam to Noah, and of Genesis
11 from Noah to Abraham, list “ten” generations.
K.A. Kitchen
describes, “there is…symmetry of ten generations
before the Flood and ten generations after the
Flood. With this, one may compare the three
series of fourteen generations in Matthew’s
genealogy of Christ…which is known to be
selective, and not wholly continuous” (Ancient
Orient and Old Testament, p 37). The common
formula A begot B need not always imply direct
parenthood, as it could indicate the
genealogical link between a great-great-great
grandfather and a great-great-great grandson, or
even some more separated link. Yeshua the
Messiah as the Son of David is the Son of David
because He is David’s distant descendant,
not his immediate descendant, and there is
definite telescoping in His genealogies seen in
Matthew 1 and Luke 3.
Jewish scholar Nahum M. Sarna concurs, “There is
reason to believe that the ten-generation
pattern for genealogies was favored by Western
Semites in general and that the convention left
its mark on the historiography of Israel” (JPS
Torah Commentary: Genesis,
p 40).
Thus, the number “ten” in the Ancient Near East
brought with it an aura of distinction (perhaps
royal distinction), designed in Genesis 5 and 11
to give some “high points” of individuals who
lived between Adam and Noah, and then Noah and
Abraham—but by no means are all of the
generations of people between Adam and Noah, and
then Noah and Abraham, recorded on these lists.
It is not uncommon at all in certain circles, largely uninformed
from ANE data, to see people actually add up the
numbers of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.
This includes a great deal of today’s Messianic
community. Walter C. Kasier, though, issues an
important warning:
“[D]o not add up the years of these patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11
and expect to come up with the Bible’s date for
the birth of the human race. The reason for this
warning is clear: the Bible never adds up these
numbers…[I]n Genesis 5 and 11 the writer does
not employ his numbers for this purpose; neither
should we” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, p
103).
Kitchen likewise says, “one cannot use these genealogies to fix the
date of the Flood or of earliest Man” (Ancient
Orient and Old Testament, p 39).
Even if one decides to add up the numbers of Genesis 5 and 11,
trying to determine a chronology for human
history, what numbers are to be added up? When
examining the witnesses of the Hebrew Masoretic
Text (MT), Greek Septuagint (LXX), and Samaritan
Pentateuch—there is variance among the numbers
that appear. R.K. Harrison summarizes the
differences in three distinct charts, from his
Introduction to the Old Testament (p
150):
It is obvious that there are differences between the Genesis 5 and
11 numbers as seen in the MT, LXX, and the Sam.
P. Adding up the numbers is by no means
something easy when these variants are
considered.
Many continue to appeal to the work of Seventeenth Century
Archbishop James Ussher, who determined that the
Earth was actually created in 4004 B.C.E. Yet as
Harrison aptly notes, “The system devised by
Usher depended inferentially upon the
supposition that the Old Testament genealogies
did not omit any names, and that the periods of
time mentioned in the text were consecutive,
assumptions that have been proved to be entirely
gratuitous” (Introduction to the Old
Testament, p 148). The Rabbinic tradition
has often made the similar mistake. Now armed
with the proper ANE background (cf. the Sumerian
Kings list in Harrison, pp 150-151;
Archaeological Study Bible, 12), we should
not assume that the genealogical lists of
Genesis 5 & 11 intend to give us a chronology of
early man.
What the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies do give us is a snapshot of
some of the people who lived before, and then
after, the Flood. It indicates that these people
lived a very long time, and they were so
important that their names appear in the
Biblical text. They were real people and
not figments of someone’s imagination—but their
ages are not given to us to try to determine
when Adam was created or to fix the date of the
Flood. The lists of Genesis 5 and 11 are also
not given to us to try to calculate the day of
Yeshua’s Second Coming. The Genesis 5 and 11
genealogies simply give a testament to the
consistency of God’s command “Be fruitful and
multiply” (Genesis 1:28). And we are reminded
once again, the Biblical text itself makes no
attempt to calculate the sum of their ages,
whatever those ages may actually be.
(For a further discussion of some related issues, consult the FAQ
entries “6,000
Year Teaching” and “Creationism.”)
posted 16 April, 2008
Gentiles, Nations: I have heard that you do not like using the term “Gentile[s],” and
instead prefer “Nation[s].” Why is this the
case? I thought the term “Gentile” only referred
to a non-Jew.
In Christian theology, the term “Gentile” normally refers to those
who are not Jewish. However, the Greek word
ethnos (eqnoß),
which literally means “nation,” is often
rendered as both “nation[s]”
and/or “Gentile[s]” in our English Bibles. Some
versions render ethnos as “heathen” or “pagan[s]”
in some cases. You need to keep this in mind
when reading the Apostolic Scriptures, because
the word “Gentile[s]” can easily be replaced
with “nation[s].” The term “nation[s]” is
neutral, and does not carry with it the same
amount of theological baggage as does the term “Gentile[s].”
In Jewish theology being a “Gentile” or one of the goyim (~yAG) is not the equivalent to simply not being
Jewish. It is equivalent to being one of the
unsaved heathen who worships foreign gods. It is
with this in mind that we prefer to use
alternative terms for “Gentile[s]” when
referring to non-Jewish Believers, and prefer to
use the more correct and neutral “nation[s]”
when a Biblical text is referencing the word
ethnos.
updated 20 March, 2006
Gentiles, Place of Among Two Houses of Israel: The Two-House teaching of Judah and Ephraim advocates that God has
only one group of elect, the people of Israel,
composed of the House of Judah and the House of
Israel/Ephraim. It seems that you may be
excluding true Gentiles. What about “Gentiles”
who have faith in Yeshua? Are they a part of
Israel?
According to the
Apostle Paul, anyone who has faith in Yeshua the
Messiah is a part of the “Commonwealth of
Israel” (Ephesians 2:11-12) or the “Israel of
God” (Galatians 6:16). Does this mean that an
individual must be a physical descendant of the
Patriarchs to be considered a part of Israel?
No. The Torah itself allows for outsiders to
come into the fold, and with the coming of
Yeshua membership in Israel requires one to have
faith in Him. There is most certainly room in
the Commonwealth of Israel for those who are not
physical Israelites. The Torah always provided
non-stringent citizen requirements for the
foreigners who wanted to join into the people of
Israel. As our ministry has taught, anyone who
has faith in the Messiah of Israel gets to
participate in the end-time restoration of
Israel, an often overlooked part of which is the
reunion of the Two Houses of Israel. Ezekiel
37:16 clearly tells us that “companions” are
involved in this reunion:
“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.’”
The Hebrew term
translated “companion” or “comrade” (ATS) is, in
its singular form, chaver (rbx),
meaning “united, associate, companion” (BDB,
288). When all Israel is reunited, Judah and
scattered Israel/Ephraim are not the only ones
restored to one another. There will be those
from the nations—the Gentiles—who are involved
in this reunion. There is no—nor has their ever
been—exclusion of true “Gentiles,” those who are
not physical Israelites, from the Commonwealth
of Israel, nor exclusion of true “Gentiles” from
the Two-House restoration as the Scriptures
define it. One way or another, these companions,
comrades, or associates will be a part of the
restoration of all Israel. Problems ensue when
we try to figure out who-is-who, as opposed to
leaving the finer details to the Lord.
posted 20 March, 2006
Globalization: What is your opinion of globalization? Do you believe that there
will be a one-world government?
We do believe that in fulfillment of end-time prophecy that there
will be a one-world government one day. How soon
that will be is hard to tell. The logistics of
including third-world and lesser developed
countries into a global union are immense,
especially considering all the infrastructure
such a world government demands. In the
meantime, however, globalization does offer us
as Believers the excellent opportunity to
communicate and travel easily, and new
technologies that can spread the gospel and
train others in God’s Word should be utilized as
long as they can.
updated 24 April, 2006
God, Depicted as Male:
Why is God depicted as male in the Scriptures?
Has this not been a cause of abusive behavior of
men toward women?
The inclusive language debate over the past few years is a direct
result of feminist theology, almost to the point
where God is referred to as a he/she in some
theological works and liberal seminaries.
Certainly, none of us can deny the fact that
over the centuries of both Judaism and
Christianity women have not always been
appreciated, and sometimes even denigrated under
the strict authority of men. This is
unfortunate, because both the Gospels and the
Book of Acts portray men and women as having
equal importance in the eyes of God. Yeshua
treated women with kindness and respect, as
should any man today. Women, just as men, have a
role to play in the home and in the community of
faith. In Eden, Adam and Eve were equals.
Ultimately, God as a spiritual being has no gender, but God’s
depiction as male throughout the Scriptures must
be kept in the context of the Ancient Near East
and the competing Creation accounts to the one
we see in Genesis 1-3. In Genesis 1-3, God makes
the world as a paradise and forms human beings
as not only the groundskeepers of that
paradise—but they are made for communion with
the Divine. This is contrary to the Sumerian
Enuma elish epic, where humans are made
entirely to be slaves of the gods—and certainly
not to commune with them.
What is perhaps more important to consider is the fact that most
Ancient Near Eastern myths regarding Creation
have the universe being formed out of the union
of a male god and female goddess out of
pre-existent matter. Planet Earth is the
“child,” if you will, of a sexual act between a
god and goddess—having been birthed by a mother.
The Hebrew depiction of God as a male stands
profoundly against such beliefs, as males cannot
give birth. The Genesis 1-3 Creation account
depicts God as male because He created the world
out of nothing, creatio ex nihilo—not as
the result of some super-human (possibly even
“highly evolved”) beings manipulating matter to
make the Earth. This is affirmed by the author
of Hebrews:
“By
faith we understand that the worlds were
prepared by the word of God, so that what is
seen was not made out of things which are
visible” (Hebrews 11:3).
We would do well to understand the origins of
why the authors of Scripture depict God as
masculine. Is this because God despises the
feminine gender and wants women to be in total
servitude to men? No. God does want women in
today’s Body of Messiah to fulfill their unique
callings, just as God wants men to fulfill their
unique callings. This is undoubtedly difficult
with the rise of feminism, and what can
frequently be a backlash of some men asserting a
strong domination over women. Consequently,
today’s Messianic community has much to discuss
and consider when we read the Torah in its
Ancient Near Eastern context, as well as other
issues concerning the sexes that will come from
examining other parts of the Bible and returning
to the egalitarian ideal as seen in Genesis 1-3.
posted 04 January, 2007
Greater-Lesser YHWH: Does TNN Online advocate a belief in the “Greater and Lesser YHWH”
teaching?
TNN Online does not advocate a belief in the Greater-Lesser YHWH
teaching and we consider it to be heresy.
However, we do believe that there are some
people who use the terminology “Greater-Lesser
YHWH” who do not believe what they are
communicating by using it. The terminology
“Greater-Lesser YHWH” implies that there are
more than two gods in Heaven. Some use this
terminology to define the co-existence of the
Father and the Son, but do not realize that the
“Greater-Lesser” teaching is derived from
extra-Biblical sources and the occult,
particularly Jewish Kabbalah. While we believe
in the Biblical co-existence of the Father and
the Son, and believe that the Son literally sits
down at the right hand of the Father, we do not
believe in this “Greater-Lesser” teaching.
Consult the editor’s article “The
Effect of Mysticism and Gnosticism on the
Messianic Movement,” and
“The Greater and Lesser YHVH Heresy” by Tim Hegg
at
www.torahresource.org for some
analyses of this teaching.
updated 14 October, 2006 |
