|
Idioms,
Hebraic:
I have not seen any teachings on your website
about Hebraic expressions in the New Testament
and how mistranslations occurred in the Greek.
Do you have any information on this?
Many in today’s Messianic
community conclude that the Greek of the Gospels
does not accurately reflect the “true sayings”
of Yeshua. But before making hasty judgments,
there are several factors that are not often
considered. First of all, the Gospels were not
composed during the Earthly life of Yeshua. The
events were not “written down” as they occurred.
Secondly, the target audiences of the Gospels
were in the Greek-speaking Diaspora. And third,
we have to remember that a thoroughly Jewish
style of Greek existed with the production of
the Septuagint. The same kind of grammar and
sentence construction that we see in the Gospels
mirrors much of that of the LXX. Furthermore, to
assume that Yeshua exclusively spoke Hebrew
or Aramaic in His recorded interactions
simply is not true. Yeshua certainly did not
speak to Pontius Pilate in Hebrew.
One of the major claims that
Hebrew New Testament advocates make is that the
Apostolic Scriptures, particularly the Gospels,
are full of First Century Hebrew idioms. It is
claimed that these idioms cannot be accurately
translated, and thus they reflect that the
Gospels were originally written in Hebrew.
Many Christian scholars agree that there are
colloquial expressions or Hebraisms unique to
the First Century present in the Gospels.
These include terms like “good eye” or “bad eye”
and what they meant to their Jewish audience.
However, many Hebrew New Testament advocates
will say that these terms and expressions are
unknown to the world of Christian scholasticism,
and that God has perhaps only revealed these
things—the so-called “truth”—to “them.” This is
likewise false. One almost universally
recognized Hebraism among theologians appears in
Matthew 16:19, where Yeshua speaks about
“binding” and “loosing”:
“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.”
This expression actually has its
own entry under “Binding and Loosing” in the
Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD).
Raymond F. Collins states the following,
reflecting a strong grasp on the unique Jewish
character of this phrase:
“Matthew introduces ‘binding’ and
‘loosing’ in his gospel without further
explanation, thereby suggesting that the
practice to which these expressions refer was
known to his community. Since Josephus writes of
the Pharisees’ power to loose and bind (luein
kai desmein; JW 1 § 111), it is
likely that the primary interpretive analogue is
to be sought within contemporary rabbinic
practice. Within Matthew’s community the
Scriptures were midrashically interpreted (e.g.,
Matt 1:22) and appropriate halakah was
established (e.g., Matt 5:21-48). Thus it is
probable that the practice to which the Matthean
‘binding and loosing’ refers is the
interpretation of the Scriptures and the
determination of an appropriate Christian way of
life” (Raymond F. Collins, “Binding and
Loosing,” in ABD, 1:744).
Of course, in order to properly
understand what is written in Matthew’s Gospel
as “bind” (Grk. deō,
dew)
and “loose” (Grk.
luō,
luw),
one must be familiar with First Century Jewish
history. Josephus, specifically referenced here,
writes about the reign of Alexandra, a queen who
ruled over the Jewish people several generations
before Yeshua, and her involvement with the
Pharisees:
“Now, Alexandra hearkened to them
to an extraordinary degree, as being herself a
woman of great piety towards God. But these
Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into
her favor little by little, and became
themselves the real administrators of the public
affairs; they banished and reduced whom they
pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their
pleasure” (Wars
of the Jews
1.111).
Interestingly enough, William
Whiston, translator of this edition of Jospehus’
works, indicates in a footnote that “Here we
have the oldest and most authentic Jewish
exposition of binding and loosing, for punishing
or absolving men; not for declaring actions
lawful or unlawful, as some more modern Jews and
Christians vainly pretend” (p 551-552),
referencing Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. Whether you
agree with his interpretation or not here is
unimportant. What is important is that he
identifies it as an Hebraism that is used in
later works, namely the Gospel of Matthew.
In the Greek text of Matthew,
this phrase was obviously written literally as
“binding and loosing,” and would have been
understood by Matthew’s target audience as
relating to determining the halachah or
religious orthopraxy of a community. The only
way that this phrase can be possibly
understood—that is if one is unfamiliar with the
terminology “binding and loosing”—is knowing the
history behind it. Translation into any
language alone will simply not help.
There are many more widely
recognized Hebraisms in the Gospels by Christian
scholars today, and are discussed in many
technical commentaries of Biblical books.
However, simply because there are Hebraisms in
the Gospels or the Apostolic Scriptures does not
prove that they were originally written in
Hebrew. It proves that they have an Hebraic
background, and that one must be familiar with
the history of Biblical times in examining the
text. Likewise, some things that appear to
be Hebraisms may not be. R. Timothy McLay
explains, “what might be explained as a
Semitism in the NT, whether an Aramaism
or a Hebraism, might just as easily be
due to the prior influence of the Greek Jewish
Scriptures on the style and language of the
writer (Septuagintism)” (The Use of
the Septuagint in New Testament Research, p
32). He further states, “An appreciation for the
ways in which the LXX translators rendered the
Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language is
also necessary for our exegesis of the NT
because of the NT writers’ use of the
Scriptures” (Ibid., p 44). This only further
exemplifies the need for Messianic Bible
teachers and students to be familiar with the
Septuagint.
David Allan Black adds to this,
“it is possible that the New Testament writers
incorporated oral or written sources that were
translations of Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek
that contained Semitisms in proportion to the
literalness of the translation. Thus, it would
be surprising if speakers whose linguistic
background was Semitic did not betray some
Semitic influence in their use of Greek” (It’s
Still Greek to Me, p 151). Of course, the
principal Hebrew and Aramaic resources employed
by the Apostolic writers were the Tanach
Scriptures.
In determining whether or not
something is truly an Hebraism in the Gospels,
we must consider a broad base of information,
including similar expressions used in the Hebrew
Bible, First Century Rabbinic literature, as
well as credible scholastic support. In the
vast majority of cases, advocates of a Hebrew
New Testament do not consider these things.
And, in many cases, we could legitimately accuse
some Hebrew New Testament advocates of
manufacturing idioms that have no
substantial basis either in the text, history,
respected academic opinion, and possibly even
fact. Such is the case we discovered with
the text of Luke 22:60-62, and Yeshua’s words to
Peter about a “rooster crowing”:
“But Peter said, ‘Man, I do not
know what you are talking about.’ Immediately,
while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed.
The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter
remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told
him, ‘Before a rooster crows today, you will
deny Me three times.’ And he went out and
wept bitterly.”
The claim that this is an
Hebraism is presented on the following basis.
One Hebrew New Testament advocate states, “The
‘rooster’ or ‘cock’ that Peter and Yeshua
heard was not a bird at all, but a man. That man
was a priest at the Temple. He was the one who
had the responsibility of unlocking the Temple
doors each and every morning before dawn….The
priest in question was known as the Temple
Crier, and he was called the Gever in
Hebrew, which means ‘cock’ or ‘rooster’” (The
Quiet Revival, p 15). The problem is not
suggesting the possibility that this could be
an Hebraism, and the Gospel writers are relying
on their audience to know that a “rooster” or
“cock” could be the Temple Crier; the problem is
with the assumption that this is “is [a]
mistranslation of the original text,” being an
example of “A common problem that exists in our
English bibles” (Ibid., 14), thus this one
expression requires the Gospels to have been
written in Hebrew. Furthermore, consider the
poor external evidence that is provided for this
being an Hebraism:
“[C]hickens were not allowed in
Jerusalem during Temple times. The reason for
this prohibition was because chickens are very
dirty birds and they have the obnoxious habit of
finding their way into places where they do not
belong. Therefore, to assure that chickens could
not gain access to the Temple and desecrate the
Holy Place or, worse yet, the Holy of Holies,
the Priests simply forbid [sic] everyone in
Jerusalem from having chickens” (Ibid., pp
14-15).
The problem with making the
assumption that “a rooster crowing” is really a
priest in the Temple—and not “a rooster
crowing”—thus the Greek Scriptures are in gross
error, should be obvious. First, if the
“rooster” or “cock” is a valid reference to the
Temple crier, we cannot assume that a Jewish
person reading alektōr (alektwr)
instead of “gever” (note that this term
is not used in modern Hebrew translations of the
New Testament) would not have known this.
Secondly, to assume that this is a priest, and
not a chicken—as chickens were supposedly
not allowed in Jerusalem—is to assume that
chickens outside the city of Jerusalem cannot be
heard audibly when they crow. And third, and
perhaps most important, no academic opinions
surrounding the validity of this being an
“Hebraism” are offered. We are led to
believe—based on only scant evidence—that the
Greek Apostolic Scriptures are saturated with
errors such as these.
In our opinion, these are all the
classic cases of a manufactured Hebraism—one
that is no Hebraism at all and has been
totally made up. If this be the case
about one seemingly insignificant reference
about a “rooster” or “chicken” in the Gospels,
then what will some of these Hebrew New
Testament advocates do to other, more important
Scriptures? Can we suddenly not trust the
Gospels for the basic facts contained therein?
Will we suddenly start hearing that when Yeshua
is eating a meal in a person’s house it really
means something else? What about Yeshua healing
someone or delivering a person from demons? This
may sound extreme, but this is how far it could
go when we dismantle the validity of the Greek
source text behind the Apostolic Scriptures.
What other basic facts are on the chopping
block? The Messianic movement cannot afford to
be accused of “radically reinterpreting” the
Bible. We have to be very conservative and
careful when it comes to determining whether or
not a saying of Yeshua is a legitimate Hebraism,
or is an expression that we need to examine the
Scriptures and history for more understanding.
In the end, whether or not something is an
Hebraism can only be determined in a
chapter-by-chapter and verse-by-verse study of
the Gospel narratives.
(This entry has adapted
information from
Scripture Under Scrutiny:
Was the New Testament Really Written in Hebrew?,
a part of TNN Press’ Messianic Helper Series.)
posted 19 June, 2006
Image of God,
Human Beings:
I heard a Messianic teaching that advocated
human beings were not made in the image of God?
Can you explain this?
There has been some confusion in
a few sectors of the Messianic community as to
whether or not man has been made in God’s image.
Genesis 1:26-27 tells us, “Then God said, ‘Let
Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the
sea and over the birds of the sky and over the
cattle and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God
created man in His own image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created
them.” Man was created in the tzelem Elohim
(~yhla
~lc)
and was given abilities that all other creatures
were not. The modern Hebrew word matzlemah
(hmlcm)
or “camera” is derived from this Biblical word.
TWOT remarks, “Man was made in God’s
image…and likeness (demût)
which is then explained as his having dominion
over God’s creation as vice-regent…God’s image
obviously does not consist in man’s body which
was formed from earthly matter, but in his
spiritual, intellectual, moral likeness to God
from whom is animating breath came” (2:768).
Rabbis, theologians, and ministers over the
centuries have all struggled with what it means
to be created in the image of God.
There are some who believe that
only Adam, the first human being, was created in
God’s image. Because of Adam and Eve’s fall from
grace, it is said, human beings are no longer
made in God’s image. This is based on Genesis
5:3, “When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty
years, he became the father of a son in
his own likeness, according to his image, and
named him Seth.” This Hebrew text says
v’yoled b’demuto k’tzalemo
(AmlcK
AtWmdB dlAYw),
“and begetteth a son in his likeness,
according to his image” (YLT). According to
this, Seth was made after the image and likeness
of Adam, as opposed to the image and likeness of
God. Those who advocate that human beings are
not made in God’s image stop there.
But the Book of Genesis itself
does not stop there. Genesis 9:6 further says, “Whoever
sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be
shed, for in the image of God He made man.” Men
who are killed by sinful men are still
considered by God to be made in His image. The
difference is, of course, unlike Adam who was
originally created without a sin nature, every
human born since Adam has inherited that sin
nature. In that context alone are we made “in
Adam’s image.”
James’ message in James 3:9 is
that the tongue can curse other people, all of
whom “have been made in the likeness of God.” He
uses the Greek word homoiōsis (omoiwsiß),
“a making like” (Vine, 372). This is the
same word used in the LXX to translate tzelem
in Genesis 1:26, and UBSHNT renders
homoiōsin Theou
(omoiwsin
qeou)
as tzelem Elohim, indeed indicating that
man, even after the Fall in the Garden of Eden,
has been made in “the image of God.” James
expects his audience to show due respect for
other human beings through what they say,
regardless of whether or not they are saved and
of the community of faith. John Wesley comments,
“Indeed we have now lost this likeness; yet
there remains from thence an indelible
nobleness, which we ought to reverence both in
ourselves and others.” While we are not as
perfect as Adam was prior to the Fall, we still
have enough of God’s image within us as fallen
humans to show others proper respect and
character. We have enough of God’s image within
us that we should be drawn to things of God
rather than things of Satan.
Claiming that human beings are no
longer made in God’s image, when the Book of
Genesis and James’ epistle say otherwise, is
damaging to every single one of us and is
insulting to our Creator. While we do have a
fallen sin nature inherited from Adam, we are
not worthless creatures and we have the
responsibility to respect one another. We do
have to receive salvation to have God’s image
fully restored in us. God sent us His only Son,
Yeshua, because He loves us and wants mankind to
succeed and wants that relationship to be
completely restored. In the words of Nahum Sarna,
“A human being is
the pinnacle of Creation. This unique status is
communicated in a variety of ways, not least by
the simple fact that humankind is last in a
manifestly ascending, gradual order. The
creation of human life is an exception to the
rule of creation by divine fiat…Human beings are
to enjoy a unique relationship to God, who
communicates with them alone and who shares with
them the custody and administration of the
world” (JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis,
11).
posted 22 October,
2005
Inclusive Language:
What can you tell me about the inclusive
language debate? Does your ministry, or does the
Messianic movement as a whole, have a position
about it?
The debate over
using so-called “inclusive language” started in
liberal branches of Christianity and Judaism,
and was largely designed to eliminate masculine
terminology and replace it with gender neutral
terminology. It has led to the production of
Bible versions such as the Revised English Bible
(REB) and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV),
which use terms such as humanity, humankind,
human being, person, and brothers and sisters,
as opposed to the more common man, mankind, men,
and brothers. On the one hand, using terms such
as “humanity” for “man” can sometimes make a
text clearer and easier to understand, but on
the other, inserting “and sisters” adds words to
a text that were not included by the original
author. A balance needs to be struck between
representing the historical setting of the
Scriptures, as well as maintaining their
universal application for both genders.
In the past decade
the inclusive language issue has begun to appear
in evangelical Christian circles. In 2005, the
Today’s NIV translation was published, a
revision of the original New International
Version (1984), which uses more neutral terms
such as humanity and human beings, but not to
the extent of the NRSV. Zondervan’s intention to
produce the TNIV caused its long-standing
relationship with Holman Bible Publishers, a
major Baptist publishing house, to be strained.
In 2004, the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
was published, designed to be a replacement to
use in their educational materials for the NIV.
The inclusive
language issue does present some valid concerns
for pastors and Bible teachers alike. Is it
right, for example, to only use terms such as
man, men, mankind, and brothers from the pulpit?
If these are the only terms used by someone,
then it is probably valid that more broad
sweeping terms such as humanity and brothers and
sisters should be employed. Likewise, inclusive
language advocates probably go too far in
insisting that no masculine references be made
in theological works, as this would cloud the
legitimate history behind the composition of the
Bible.
A fair solution
for the Messianic movement, which largely is
unfamiliar with this issue, is to seek for a
balance in the terms that we use. We should not
exclusively use man or mankind, nor should we
exclusively use human being or humanity. We need
to be sensitive to those around us, making sure
they are not marginalized, but also recognize
that most secular people use man and mankind to
refer to the human race. We need not be
overbearing or too concerned as inclusive
language advocates often are.
posted 28
September, 2006
Isaac, Sacrificed:
I once heard a Messianic teacher say that Isaac
was actually sacrificed by Abraham, and then
resurrected. Do you have any opinion about this?
Hebrews 11:17-19
details the faith of Abraham, who believed in
God so strongly that he was prepared to
sacrifice his son Isaac without hesitation:
“By faith Abraham,
when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who
had received the promises was offering up his
only begotten son; it was he to
whom it was said, ‘In
Isaac your descendants shall be called’
He considered that God is able to raise
people even from the dead, from which he
also received him back as a type.”
All should be in
agreement that Abraham’s willingness to
sacrifice his son (Genesis 22:1-19) does
represent and foreshadow the much greater
sacrifice that Yeshua the Messiah would endure
for us. But is it necessary for Isaac himself to
have actually died and then resurrected to
fulfill a valid typeology?
There are some in
the Messianic community who have gone too far,
interpreting v. 19 as though Abraham actually
did sacrifice Isaac. In The Scriptures
translation, commonly used among “Sacred Name”
advocates in the independent Messianic movement,
Hebrews 11:17, 19 reads, “By belief, Abraham,
when he was tried, offered up Yitshaq,
and he who had received the promises offered
up his only brought-forth son…reckoning that
Elohim was able to raise, even from the dead,
from which he received him back, as a type.” One
teaching based on this rendering can be quoted
as saying, “The text is clear. He was offered,
and then raised back to life by Elohim [God].”
There are several problems
with this view, two of which are only solved by
an examination of Greek verbs. V. 17 includes
two usages of the verb prospherō (prosferw),
“to
present, offer, give”
(LS, 699). Its first usage, pertaining to
Abraham having “offered up Isaac,” is
prosenēnochen (prosenhnocen),
appearing in the perfect active indicative
tense, describing an action that has already
taken place: “had offered.” Those who are
totally unacquainted with the Isaac narrative in
Genesis could conclude that Abraham actually
offered him up as a sacrifice. However, the
second rendering of “offered,” appearing in ISR,
KJV, and NKJV is unjustified. The Greek verb
form prosepheren (proseferen)
in v. 17b appears in the imperfect active
indicative tense. While describing a past
action, that past action is not “offered,” but
is more accurately “was offering” (LITV, HCSB),
being imperfect. This is extrapolated as “was
ready to offer up” (RSV, NRSV), “was about to
sacrifice” (NIV), and “was in the act of
offering” (ESV).
Abraham “offered”
up Isaac; but this was an action that took place
in his mind—not in the physical world—as Abraham
was resolved to sacrifice his son. But v. 17b
tells us that he was only in the process of
killing him. The command from God was, “Do not
lay a hand on the boy…Do not do anything to him.
Now I know that you fear God, because you have
not withheld from me your son, your only son”
(Genesis 22:12, NIV). While Isaac’s
participation in this event prefigures Yeshua’s
death and resurrection for us, the connection is
typeological; Isaac did not die as
a part of this “rehearsal.” Only “a ram caught
in the thicket by his horns” (Genesis 22:13) was
killed at this event.
(This entry
includes excerpts from the editor’s commentary
Hebrews for the Practical
Messianic.)
posted 05
September, 2007
Isaiah, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Isaiah?
One of the most important and
frequently discussed books of the Bible is
undoubtedly the Book of Isaiah. In the Jewish
theological tradition Isaiah (Heb. Yeshayahu,
Why[vy)
is the first of the Latter Prophets (considering
that Joshua-Kings compose the Former Prophets).
Many songs, important theological concepts,
wisdom ideas, and even some Western social
concepts are derived from Isaiah—sometimes
without people even realizing it (EXP,
3:4). Isaiah is a text that speaks in very broad
terms to individuals, communities, and entire
nations about their relationship with God.
Isaiah is not something that is read easily like
one of the histories of the Tanach, and requires
a person to read it very observantly. It has
been a widely considered and debated text
throughout Jewish and Christian history, and
this will probably continue as the Messianic
movement grows (Dillard and Longman, 268).
The prophet depicted in this book
is identified by name as Isaiah the son of Amoz
(1:1), something that is upheld by the Apostolic
Scriptures (Matthew 12:17-21; John 12:28-41;
Romans 10:16, 20-21). This Isaiah was a
contemporary of Amos, Hosea, and Micah,
beginning his service in 740 B.C.E., and some
Jewish tradition considers him to be a relative
of the royal court (b.Megillah 10b;
EXP, 3:4) and even sawn in two (cf. Hebrews
11:37).
Isaiah prophesied during the
period of the Northern Kingdom of Israel’s
decline and Assyria’s expansion. Assyria
conquered the Northern Kingdom in 722-721 B.C.E.,
and the supplementary history behind Isaiah is
largely found in 2 Kings 15-21 and 2 Chronicles
26-33. King Uzziah dies in 740 B.C.E. (6:1),
ending a fifty-year period of stability and
co-existence with the Northern Kingdom (ISBE,
2:886-887). Isaiah enters the scene and warns
the Southern Kingdom of Judah that its sin for
siding with Assyria will bring judgment by
Babylon. Against this backdrop, much of Isaiah’s
prophecy deals with the judgment and restoration
of the Southern Kingdom, with the Northern
Kingdom having already been judged (NBCR,
472).
Many conservative scholars accept
the premise that all of the prophecies in Isaiah
are attributed to a single Isaiah. This is
largely because of the commonality throughout
the book, with themes seen such as punishment,
Jerusalem as God’s holy mountain, and a highway
being made by Him to Jerusalem. One of the
strongest arguments made in favor of Isaianic
unity is its usage of the term “Holy One of
Israel” twelve times, and other various common
words and phrases (ISBE, 2:896-897;
Dillard and Longman, 271-273).
Until modern times, the unity of
the Book of Isaiah was something that was
assumed by most scholars (ISBE, 2:893;
EXP, 3:6-8; ECB, 489). Divisions that
occur in Isaiah cause some to think that there
are several different “Isaiahs” responsible for
various parts of the text—perhaps as many as
three. It is sometimes though that chs. 1-35
begin with a series of prophecies about the
Southern Kingdom in relation to Assyria, chs.
36-39 form an historical interlude, then
introducing chs. 40-66 (Harrison, 775). Chs.
36-66 are sometimes referred to as Second Isaiah
or Deutero-Isaiah in various theological works.
Propositions for Deutero-Isaiah
actually began in the Middle Ages with the
Jewish scholar Abraham Ibn-Ezra suggesting that
a second prophet spoke to those in Babylonian
Exile (ISBE, 2:893; EDB, 648;
Dillard and Longman, 268; Jewish Study Bible,
781). It was believed that the later prophecies
seen in Isaiah were given during the Babylonian
Exile with the expectation that Cyrus of Persia
would be used to deliver Israel. These
prophecies, for lack of a better description,
were given by a Pseudo or Second Isaiah. Some
conservative theologians believe in Deutero-Isaiah
(Dillard and Longman, 275), but most believe
that these later prophecies are predictive and
were give by Isaiah son of Amoz. “Conservative
opinion is anchored in its theological
conviction…about the reality of prophetic
revelation—that the Spirit of God did give to
ancient writers insight into the future” (Ibid.,
274)
Liberal scholars are often the
ones found to be advocating the existence of a
Deutero-Isaiah for the compilation of chs. 40-55
during the Babylonian Exile, and even a Tritio-Isaiah
for chs. 56-66 (IDB, 2:735-742; Dillard
and Longman, 269-271). These trends largely
began among Nineteenth Century German scholars
who adapted Ibn-Ezra’s view and were influenced
by some of the views espoused by Pentateuchal
source criticism (Harrison, 765-771; ABD,
3:473). Third Isaiah was added as another
prophet who spoke apocalyptic visions of God’s
judgment on the world. A good summation of these
views is found in the Anchor Bible Dictionary
entry for the Book of Isaiah, which is actually
divided into three sections for: First Isaiah,
Second Isaiah, and Third Isaiah (ABD,
3:472-502).
Liberals often tend to see the
composition of Isaiah as having taken place over
a very long, drawn out period of compilation and
redaction. Some do not even believe that Isaiah
was finished until the Third Century B.C.E. (ECB,
489). Conservatives often respond to these views
by pointing out that Isaiah’s prophecies were
made under the assumption that the Southern
Kingdom was doomed, and these words were
predictive in nature (EXP, 3:9-11). Even
some liberals urge caution, warning that “It is
not clear to us when, or why, the prophecies of
Deutero-Isaiah were combined with those of
Isaiah son of Amoz” (Jewish Study Bible,
784). Canonical criticism of the Bible
recognizes that Isaiah is to be taken as a
single work (Dillard and Longman, 273).
There is certainly discussion as
to whether or not Isaiah simply prophesied these
words, or whether he wrote them down as a
prophetic work (NBCR, 588). It is likely
that Isaiah wrote down many of these prophecies,
or that those associated with him did this. If
one holds to some kind of unity for the Book of
Isaiah, it is not improbable that Isaiah’s
prophecies are interspersed with historical data
because they were redacted by the School of the
Prophets or Isaiah’s immediate disciples (NBCR,
589; cf. IDBSup, 457). Talmudic tradition
indicates that Isaiah was actually written by
the men of Hezekiah (b.Bava Batra 14b),
which probably was “in the sense of ‘edited’ or
‘compiled’” (Harrison, 765). Some theologians
today propose that the composition of Isaiah was
intended to be read in two paralleling volumes
with concurrent themes (Dillard and Longman,
281).
The textual integrity of the Book
of Isaiah actually remains very strong. A single
scroll of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.
Although Isaiah is currently placed as the first
of the Prophets, this may not have always been
the case in antiquity (IDB, 2:734). The
Hebrew Masoretic Text of Isaiah is relatively
intact, with only minor variants. Among ancient
witnesses, those seen among the Dead Sea Scrolls
are very important. Some minor variants likewise
exist between the MT and Greek Septuagint, and
the LXX can be useful in examining various
difficulties in the Hebrew as they present
themselves (Harrison, 798).
The events of Isaiah chs. 1-39
are contemporary to the Eighth-Seventh Centuries
B.C.E. Significant sections of Isaiah deal with
ancient prophecies intended to call Israel to
repentance and restoration before God.
Concurring with these major themes are sections
in Isaiah of various additional prophetic
oracles, poetry, hymns of praise to God, and
apocalyptic revelations. Isaiah also makes
distinct usage of personification, where worldly
elements such as mountains and trees are often
used to represent people, or represent how the
world is under the control of God. Isaiah also
makes mention of previous events in Israel’s
history such as the Exodus or other judgments He
has enacted.
Common ideas seen throughout
Isaiah include the judgment of God upon His
rebellious people (1:2), followed by a later
time of His redeeming them (41:14, 16). God will
also judge the nations who try to thwart the
restoration of His people (2:11, 17, 20, et.
al.). Isaiah is used to call the people back to
holiness, to repent from their sins, urging them
to remain faithful to the Lord, and to eagerly
await His Messiah. The future Messianic Age will
bring the ultimate redemption as Israel is used
as the conduit by which the entire world can be
saved.
In the Jewish theological
tradition, Isaiah is one of the most favorite of
the prophetic books, being cited in more
Rabbinical works than any other of the Prophets,
and being used for more Haftarah selections than
any of the others (Jewish Study Bible,
780). It is notable that there does exist some
difference between the Jewish interpretations of
various Messianic passages when compared to the
traditional Christian interpretations. This is
particularly true in identifying the Servant of
Isaiah 53 (ISBE, 2:893-894). Targumic
material of Isaiah often shows how various
passages were interpreted messianically, and
these are considered to be quite valuable among
Christian exegetes today (ECB, 490).
The Book of Isaiah plays a major
role in the Messianic expectations of the
Apostolic Scriptures, particularly in the
theology of Yeshua and His immediate followers.
Isaiah is quoted more times in the New Testament
than any other Tanach book besides Psalms.
Isaiah relates not only to the entry of Yeshua
into the world as God’s Messiah, but also helps
to establish the mission for God’s people going
out into the world. “The day of the
Lord” is a time associated with the Second Coming of Yeshua
to judge the Earth and establish His Kingdom.
In certain early Christian
traditions, Isaiah was sometimes considered to
actually be the “Fifth Gospel.” While certain
parts of Isaiah remain very familiar to today’s
Christian, most of the book remains decidedly
elusive, and many Christian theologians note
that this is something that needs to change (EXP,
3:3). Redemption is undoubtedly the overarching
theme of Isaiah.
Today’s emerging Messianic
movement undoubtedly has a great appreciation
for Isaiah. There have been some limited
Messianic studies of Isaiah conducted, but it is
probable that very few of them are engaged with
contemporary composition issues and debates over
authorship and date. It can be easily said that
too many of today’s Messianics who examine
Isaiah probably give too much attention to
ancient, post-Yeshua Jewish views of Isaiah that
often subtract from Isaiah’s legitimate
Messianic significance. Truly, much improvement
can be made for our engagement with the Book of
Isaiah.
Bibliography
Ackerman, Susan. “Isaiah,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 955-1049.
Allis, Oswald T. “Isaiah,” in NIDB, pp
471-474.
Barker, Margaret. “Isaiah,” in ECB, pp
489-542.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Isaiah,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 267-283.
Everson, A. Joseph. “Isaiah, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 648-652.
Grogan, G.W. “Isaiah,” in EXP, 6:3-354.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Isaiah,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
764-800.
Kidner, Derek. “Isaiah,” in NBCR, pp
588-625.
North, C.R. “Isaiah,” in IDB, 2:731-744.
Robinson, G.L., and R.K. Harrison. “Isaiah,” in
ISBE, 2:885-904.
Seitz, Christopher R. “Isaiah, Book of,” in
ABD, 3:472-507.
Sommer, Benjamin D. “Isaiah,” in Jewish Study
Bible, pp 780-916.
Ward, J.M. “Isaiah,” in IDBSup, pp
456-461.
posted 31 May, 2007
Israelite, Salvation:
Do you believe that everyone has to be a
physical Israelite, and/or a physical descendant
of Abraham, to be saved?
While Abraham was certainly
promised multitudes of physical descendants
(Genesis 22:17-18), and this was extended to
Jacob/Israel (Genesis 28:4-5), to assume that
salvation was only intended for physical
descendants of the Patriarchs is to ignore the
very mandate that God gave to both Abraham and
Ancient Israel. God intended Ancient Israel to
be a testimony to the nations of His goodness
(Deuteronomy 4:5-6), and among other things the
Temple was to attract outsiders to Him (2
Chronicles 6:32-33). The Apostle Paul,
appropriating the promise given by the Lord to
Abraham, can confidently assert,
“The Scripture, foreseeing that
God would justify the Gentiles by faith,
preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham,
saying, ‘All the nations will be blessed in you’ [Genesis 12:3]”
(Galatians 3:8).
If anything, the promise of
physical multiplication given by God to the
Patriarchs was to increase the likelihood of
exposure to the nations of Him—far from
any kind of “salvation by ethnicity.” Certainly
by the time Yeshua the Messiah arrived, He
ministered to the remnant of Israel—the Jewish
people—and the restoration of all Israel was an
undercurrent of His message (cf. Acts 1:6). Yet,
the mission of the Apostles was far more
concerned with the redemption of individuals,
regardless of their ethnic status. Titus
2:11 makes it abundantly clear, “For the grace
of God has appeared, bringing salvation to
all men [Grk. pasin anthrōpois,
pasin anqrwpoiß
or ‘all humans’].”
Individual salvation is available
to all freely through Messiah Yeshua.
Any claim to the contrary is theological heresy.
Salvation is available to those who are the
physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob—and to those who are a part of the greater
human family. Yet, as a consequence of an
individual’s salvation, a born again Believer
does get to be a part of the Commonwealth of
Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12) or the Israel of God
(Galatians 6:16). Whatever is applicable to
Israel or whatever affects Israel—good or
bad—now is applicable and affects a born again
Believer.
Today, we see sectors of the
Messianic community promoting a Two-House
teaching that largely fails to clarify the
position of the nations in the schema of
Israel’s restoration. There can be such an
over-emphasis on “Judah and Ephraim,” and even
on the promises of physical multiplication, that
not enough (if any) attention is given to the
Divine mandate of Israel being a blessing to the
entire world. Many can get the impression that
the Two-House teaching is one of “salvation via
ethnicity,” rather than the simple affirmation
that the eschatological promises to restore
Israel involve more than today’s Jewish
people. And of course, there are those who
attempt to add to what the Prophets and Apostles
have told us about Israel’s Kingdom.
Time and further refinement
will be the only answers to counter some of
these dilemmas. When people begin to realize
that claiming to be a part of Israel—or even a
part of Israel following the Torah—is not
enough, then the missional aspects of being
Israel can be considered. When this finally
happens in the Messianic community, then we can
all fulfill the Divine mandate of being a
blessing to the world at large. Then the
Two-House teaching can be recognized for what it
is from the Scriptures—and not for what is
largely floating around today.
posted 13 March, 2008 |
