James, Epistle of: What can you tell me about the composition of the Epistle of James?

Approximate date: 45-50 C.E.
Author: James the Just, brother of Yeshua
Location of author: Jerusalem or Judea
Target audience and their location: Jewish Believers in the immediate Diaspora: Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch

The Epistle of James is widely considered by theologians to have the most “Jewish character” of all of the other writings of the Apostolic Scriptures, perhaps save the Gospel of Matthew. This is largely due to its emphasis on works and the moral conduct of the individual, deeply rooted in the Torah or Law of Moses. Some have even suggested that aside from the few references to Yeshua the Messiah, that James would more appropriately fit in the canon of the Tanach (Old Testament) rather than the Apostolic Writings (New Testament). James’ writing style is most authoritative, and there are many parallels in his writing to the teaching style of the Messiah during His Sermon on the Mount and the Wisdom literature of both the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha. Some of James’ writing even parallels that of Greek and Roman moralists of his time, attesting to a rather broad audience who received his letter.

The authorship of the Epistle of James is agreed upon by most conservative scholars to be James, the half-brother of Yeshua, also known as James the Just. (This is not the Apostle James, the brother of the Apostle John and one of the two sons of Zebedee, who was killed by Herod in Acts 12:2.) As early as Acts 12:17 where Peter commanded, “Report these things to James and the brethren,” James the brother of the Lord was an instrumental player in the assembly of Jerusalem. Scholars are not sure as to when James wrote his letter, but are generally agreed that it was written between 45-50 C.E., concurrent with James’ position at the head of the Jerusalem assembly. It is also possible it was written in the early 40’s, as no direct reference to the events or controversies surrounding the Jerusalem Council are mentioned. The Apostle Paul attests in Galatians 1:18-19 that on his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion he sought no one out but Peter and James, and then in Galatians 2:9 is given the right hand of fellowship by James. He describes that “James and Cephas and John…were acknowledged pillars” (NRSV), as these three men, beginning with the half-brother of the Lord, were the leaders of the First Century ekklesia.

There are some important things written about James in the writings of the early Church. Following the ascension of Yeshua into Heaven, the Fourth Century historian Eusebius writes that James was chosen to be one of the deacons for the public service of the Jerusalem assembly: “Then also James, called the brother of our Lord, because he is also called the son of Joseph…This James, therefore, whom the ancients, on account of the excellence of his virtue, surnamed the Just, was the first that received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastical History 2.2.2). Eusebius also writes that “Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, represented it thus: ‘Peter, and James, and John after the ascension of our Savior, though they had been preferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honor, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem’” (Ecclesiastical History 2.2.3). These historical attestations tell us the position that James held in the Jerusalem assembly, and the regard that others had for him as the brother of Yeshua. We have to interpret this as meaning that James’ writings themselves must likewise be held in high regard.

James directs his epistle “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1, RSV). Most have interpreted this as meaning that he wrote only to his Jewish brethren, but with an understanding of various prophecies, this is obviously a reference to all Israel. In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council meeting, James is the one who delivers the final ruling concerning the non-Jews coming to faith in the Messiah and what is to be done. He quotes from Amos 9:11-12 (cf. Acts 15:16-18) and equates the non-Jews coming to faith with the salvation of all of Israel. In Acts 15:21 he ruled that the non-Jews were to go to the synagogue to be instructed in the Torah or Law of Moses. James was the appropriate figure to deliver this ruling, as the brother of the Lord Himself.

Eusebius tells us “James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name, was surnamed Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the government of the church with the apostles. This apostle was consecrated from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woolen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the temple alone and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camel’s, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God” (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4-5). This is the kind of devotion that James had regarding his faith.

The First Century historian Josephus writes that Ananus, the high priest, had James stoned to death. “Ananus was of this disposition [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” (Antiquities 20.2). What is interesting, of course, is that even though James was brought forward on the charge of breaking the Torah, the historical record attests that James was quite faithful to it, and was very much permitted to enter into the Temple complex.

Perhaps the most quintessential statement in James’ epistle is “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (2:17). James highly emphasizes the lifestyle character of a Believer, and it is because of this emphasis on works that many Christian theologians have had difficulty understanding James over the centuries. Many have viewed James’ writings and his emphasis on works as being contradictory to the writings of Paul, which are viewed to favor grace. However, James’ clear position as the half-brother of the Lord has assured his letter a place in the canon.

James’ primary audience was likely composed of Jewish Believers who had fled the Land of Israel following the martyrdom of Stephen. This is due to his numerous references made about persecution and how we are to endure through it. Because Stephen was a Hellenistic, Greek-speaking Jew (Acts 6:5-9), it is logical to assume that James’ audience was likely Hellenistic Jews living in the Diaspora, with a substantial part of them living in “Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch” (Acts 11:19). Some have tried to suggest that as a Jew writing to fellow Jews James would have composed his letter in Hebrew or Aramaic, but this is improbable if his audience was a sizeable number of Greek-speaking Jews, and new non-Jewish converts to the faith.

R.B. Ward remarks in IDBSup that “There is no doubt that James was written in Greek, especially in view of the fact that the author employs frequent wordplays (2:22; 4:13), catch-word connections (1:4, 5, 12, 13), alliteration (1:2), and other linguistic devices which can only be explained if Greek were the original language. But James is also characterized by many instances of Semitisms, including direct, spontaneous Semitisms to the LXX…With reference to sentence syntax James displays more Semitisms—in distinction from septuagintisms—per page of the text than any other NT letter except I-III John. The author knew ordinary Koine Greek as it was written by people of some education, but he also had recourse to a Semitic style” (p 44).

Even though the letter of James was written in a very high quality of Greek, it includes many Hebraisms. For a person of James’ caliber, it is not improbable at all for him to have learned Greek as a secondary language, especially with many of the early Jewish Believers coming from Greek-speaking lands. This would account for James’ usage of Hebraisms in the Greek text, while still retaining a high Greek linguistic style.

As Messianic Believers today, we know the place that works should play in our lives. We follow the Torah and keep its commandments because the Messiah Yeshua did. We desire to be part of that holy and set-apart people that our Heavenly Father wants us to be. We cannot just have “faith in our faith”; our faith in the God of the Universe must be evidenced by our good conduct in the world, and the standard that the Lord has set forth in the Torah. James, the half-brother of Yeshua, continued to live by this standard, and instructed others to live by it as well. He emphasizes the ethics and morality that we should have. This is not contradictory to the words of Paul that emphasize grace and faith. Faith, grace, and works are not contradictory to one another, as they all play a role in the life of a Believer, but faith and grace by no means invalidate the need for us to be living properly in obedience to God.

We recommend that you consult the editor’s commentary James for the Practical Messianic for a more detailed examination of James.

Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “James, Letter of,” in NIDB, pp 494-495.
Barnett, A.E. “James, Letter of,” in IDB, 2:794-799.
Burdick, Donald W. “James,” in EXP, 12:161-205.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General, Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle of James,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 722-759.
Martin, Ralph P. Word Biblical Commentary: James, Vol 48.
Moo, Douglas J. Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letter of James.
Perkins, Pheme. “James,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 2171-2179.
Ward, R.B. “James, Letter of,” in IDBSup, pp 471-472.
Wessel, W.W. “James, Epistle of,” in ISBE, 2:959-966.

updated 06 February, 2006

James, Name of: Why do you call the brother of Yeshua, “James,” when his name was clearly Ya'akov or “Jacob”?

The given name of the half-brother of Yeshua, most commonly referred to as James the Just, was actually Ya’akov (bq[y) or “Jacob.” The name Ya’akov, which appears in the Tanach or Old Testament for the Patriarch who was renamed Yisrael or “Israel” by God, was transliterated in the Greek Septuagint as Iakob (Iakwb). Things get somewhat complicated in the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament where a derivative form, Iakobos (Iakwboß), is also used. Modern Hebrew New Testaments such as the Salkinson-Ginsburg and UBS 1991 versions render Iakobos as Ya’akov or “Jacob.” It is likely that Iakobos was used by the New Testament writers to distinguish those who had this name from the Patriarch Ya’akov or Jacob. However, most English Bibles, rather than rendering Iakobos as Jacob, render it as James. Some believe that this was done to appease King James I of England who commissioned the translation of the King James Bible, but this is an opinion and not a fact. It is notable that James is an English derivation of Jacob, and it was used to render Iakobos, to differentiate it from Iakob.

updated 14 December, 2006

Jashar, Book of: What is your position on the Book of Jashar? I have seen that some Messianics consider it to be legitimate, perhaps even Scripture. This disturbs me.

There are only two references to a book of Jashar or sefer haYashar (rvYh rps) in the Tanach (Old Testament):

“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day” (Joshua 10:13).

“[A]nd he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar” (2 Samuel 1:18).

There is a wide variance of opinion regarding what this “book of Jashar” is. The Orthodox Jewish ArtScroll Tanach renders these verses with “the Book of the Upright” and “the Book of Uprightness,” respectively, explaining that “The Book of the Upright is the Torah, in which God told Moses (Exodus 34:10) that He would act in an unprecedented manner for the benefit of Israel (Radak)” (p 540), and “The Torah, which alludes to Judah’s prowess in archery (Genesis 49:8).”

ABD makes some important remarks regarding the various traditions for what the “book of Jashar” is. It first says that it is “A lost source book of early Israelite poetry, quoted in Josh 10:12b–13a (Joshua’s command to the sun and moon) and 2 Sam 1:19–27 (David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan).” Noting on the Hebrew term yashar, its entry states “The term ‘Jashar’ is a common Hebrew word meaning ‘one who [or that which] is straight, honest, just, righteous, upright.’ Thus, it is commonly assumed that the title refers either to the heroic individuals who are the subjects of its contents or perhaps to all Israel as the upright people.” Reflecting on what the “book of Jashar” is considered to be, we see that “The mysterious nature of the Book of Jashar has given rise to false identifications and imitations of the book. The Talmud (Abod. Zar. 25a) homiletically identifies the Book of Jashar with the ‘book of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ (i.e. Genesis), who were ‘upright.’ Certain ancient Jewish commentators considered the title to be a reference to the Torah” (Duane L. Christensen, “Jashar, Book of,” in ABD, 3:647).

We believe in the traditional Jewish view that the book of Jashar is a reference to either the Book of Genesis or the entire Torah, that either directly refers to or prophecies of mighty deeds that relate to the people of Israel or Israel’s Patriarchs.

There are some who claim that there was a book of Jashar that originally existed, and should be considered Scripture. However, there are no original texts of a book of Jashar or proof that such a text ever existed. The same entry in ABD remarks that “An interesting example of a more recent forgery from Christian circles is associated with Alcuin, Bishop of Canterbury (d. a.d. 804), who is said to have discovered it in the city of Gazna on a ‘Pilgrimage into the Holy Land, and Persia.’ First published in 1829, it is reputed to have been the words of ‘Jashar, the son of Caleb’ rediscovered in England in 1721. The Rosicrucian Order published a 5th edition of this particular text in 1953” (3:647). It is likely that whatever text of the book of Jashar you see published and touted as being “original” is this text, clearly identified as a “recent forgery from Christian circles.”

updated 14 December, 2006

Jeremiah, Book of: What can you tell me about the composition of the Book of Jeremiah?

Approximate date: 600s-500s B.C.E. (Right, some conservative-moderate); 500s B.C.E. (some conservative-moderate); 500s-300s B.C.E. (Left)
Prophet/author(s): Jeremiah and/or Baruch (Right; some conservative-moderate); Baruch (some conservative-moderate); anonymous writers and editors (Left)
Location of prophet/author(s): Land of Israel or Jerusalem (Right, conservative-moderate) Land of Israel, Jerusalem, and/or Babylon (Left)
Target audience and their location: Southern Kingdom Israelites before the Babylonian exile (Right, some conservative-moderate, Left); Southern Kingdom Israelites during the Babylonian exile (some conservative-moderate, some Left); Southern Kingdom Israelites after the Babylonian exile (some Left)

The Book of Jeremiah (Heb. Yirmayahu, Whymry) covers the prophetic ministry of Jeremiah, with most of his prophecies being delivered immediately before the conquering of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Jeremiah is unique in that it covers more biographical and personal data than any of the other Tanach Prophets, and truly gives us an insight into who Jeremiah was as a man who served God (Harrison, 808-809; ABD, 3:707; Dillard and Longman, 287-289). Jeremiah’s immediate prophetic predecessor was Zephaniah, with Habakkuk and Obadiah probably being prophetic contemporaries. The sources we have to reconstruct the period of Jeremiah’s ministry are largely found in the narratives of 2 Kings 21-25 and 2 Chronicles 33-36, and some of the prophets who succeeded him such as Nahum and Ezekiel (ISBE, 2:985).

The Book of Jeremiah has come under some substantial criticism over the past several hundred years, particularly in liberal theological circles. It is imperative for anyone who examines the text to disregard “modern notions regarding coherent structure, logical development, and chronological sequence…Jeremiah is not a modern book and must not be judged by those standards” (ISBE, 2:987; cf. Dillard and Longman, 289-291), as Jeremiah simply does not operate from a modern or postmodern framework of “accuracy.” Notably, Jeremiah is the longest book of the Hebrew Bible by a word count, with significant sections composed in poetry and prose, as well as personal pleadings. The Talmud indicates that Jeremiah was once placed at the head of the Prophets (b.Baba Batra 14b-15a; cf. EDB, 686), a place now held by Isaiah.

Jeremiah was a member of the priestly house of Hilkiah, from Anathoth (1:1), and may have been a descendant of Abiathar (1 Kings 2:26). Jeremiah was a prophet that forecasted doom for Judah, and as a direct result he had few friends. However, one of those closest to him was his scribe Baruch, who often wrote down his prophecies as they were dictated (26:4-32). Jeremiah’s life was continually in danger (11:18-23; 26:8; 38:6), and he has often been described as the “weeping prophet” (EXP, 6:358-360). Jewish tradition largely holds that he was stoned to death while in Egypt (cf. Hebrews 11:37; NBCR, 627).

Rabbinic tradition indicates that Jeremiah actually wrote his own book (b.Baba Batra 15a), but upon careful scrutiny of the text this seems doubtful. The prophetic oracles are arranged in a narrative and historical framework that was surely not written by Jeremiah. The most logical choice for the final composition of Jeremiah then falls to Baruch (36:32). Conservative theologians generally feel that all of the prophetic oracles in Jeremiah are genuinely Jeremianic, with Baruch being responsible for that narrative and biographical material (NIDB, 508). “[T]he book of Jeremiah is composed of a minimum of two sources” (ISBE, 2:989), those sources being Jeremiah’s prophecies and Baruch’s narration.

Ch. 52 is widely acknowledged to be an appendix to Jeremiah, probably an addendum composed by Baruch (ISBE, 2:988). We also cannot disclude the possibility of further redaction of Jeremiah after Baruch, or more likely that some of Jeremiah’s prophecies were composed by people other than Baruch.

Liberals largely feel that Jeremiah did not reach its final form until after the Babylonian exile. They generally argue for three main source strands for Jeremiah: genuine Jeremianic prophecies, Baruch’s redactions, and anonymous source material (ABD, 3:712-716). It is sometimes called “a compilation of compilations” (IDB, 2:831). Liberals concede that there is some genuine material in the text originating from Jeremiah, but that it would be difficult to filter out with all of the presumed other additions. Whereas conservatives primarily argue that any additions to the prophecies are the narrative plots given by Baruch, liberals argue for substantially more change (ABD, 3:711-712; EDB, 687-688).

It is not uncommon to see liberals also argue for their final editors of Jeremiah to be associated with the so-called Deuteronomist school (Harrison, 805), with extreme liberals actually arguing that the Book of Jeremiah influenced the composition of Deuteronomy (Harrison, 810-811; see Deuteronomy FAQ entry for a summarization of the Deuteronomist view). Liberals often assert, “the chaotic nature of the book was the result of this long process of editing pre-existing sources” (New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 1052). It is frequently argued that the Book of Jeremiah is reflective upon how the Jewish exiles must now deal with God considering that Jerusalem and the Temple have been destroyed, and their independence has been taken from them. Thus, liberals commonly assert that Jeremiah did not reach its final form until after the Babylonian exile, and is the result of Jewish communities trying to rebuild their nation.

The text of Jeremiah is problematic, with two distinct versions of Jeremiah in existence (IDB, 2:831; Harrison, 817-818; NBCR, 627; NIDB, 508; ISBE, 2:990; ABD, 3:707-708; Dillard and Longman, 291-294). The Hebrew Masoretic Text edition is the base for most English translations. However, the Greek Septuagint version is one-eighth shorter, with some chapters laid out differently. Chs. 46-51 from the MT appear as 25:14-31 in the LXX. Some believe that the LXX is a witness to an alternative Hebrew edition that once existed. It is also fair to say that the turmoil surrounding Jeremiah’s life accounts for the two versions, with more than one collection of his messages circulating when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (NIDB, 508). We do know that a part of Jeremiah’s prophecies were burned by King Jehoiakim (26:32), which meant that it would have to be re-written (EXP, 6:362; Dillard and Longman, 290).

One of the textual traditions clearly stands behind the LXX, whereas the longer textual tradition is what was traditionally used by Judaism. Witnesses to both textual traditions were discovered at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls (EDB, 686-687), causing some to speculate that the Hebrew vorlage behind the LXX was expanded into the current MT version (Jewish Study Bible, 919). Some feel “that the MT of Jeremiah, originating in Palestine, is full of secondary expansions…while the LXX, originating in Egypt, gives in most cases a ‘purer,’ less expanded text tradition” (IDBSup, 472). “The debate since Qumran has shifted, focusing now on the relationship between these two different text types” (Dillard and Longman, 292)

The fact that there are two versions of Jeremiah’s prophecies should neither affect nor subtract from Jeremiah’s message. However, knowing (or not knowing) about this can affect our exegesis where Jeremiah (perhaps from the LXX) is quoted in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures.

Jeremiah’s prophecies were delivered during the final period of the Southern Kingdom from the reigns of Josiah to Zedekiah in the Seventh-Sixth Centuries B.C.E. (EXP, 6:363-367), with Jeremiah likely beginning his ministry in 627-626 B.C.E. Jeremiah was commissioned for the Lord’s work against the backdrop of the expanding Babylonian Empire and the fall of Assyria (NBCR, 626; ISBE, 2:985; Dillard and Longman, 286-287). The Egyptians attempt to defeat the Babylonians, but are defeated instead. Tensions are rife in the Judahite court between those who favor an alliance with Egypt, and Jeremiah who favors Babylon. The Prophet Jeremiah is politically engaged, believing that opposing Babylon was contrary to God’s will.

While prophetic, Jeremiah is interspersed with historical data. It is easy for some interpreters to be confused as to which is which, as Jeremiah’s oracles are likely not composed in any distinct chronological order. But “In spite of the fact that the book is not at all in chronological order, it is possible to date many of its sections because they contain chronological notations” (NIDB, 508; cf. ISBE, 2:988; Dillard and Longman, 302). Furthermore, the discovery of the Lachish letters 1032-1938 has shed some interesting light on the possible circumstances surrounding Jeremiah (NIDB, 508), possibly being a major extra-Biblical witness to his existence. We find that many of Jeremiah’s prophecies were fulfilled in the short term following his ministry, yet many remain to be fulfilled in the future.

Divine judgment is a major theme seen in the Book of Jeremiah, but so are repentance and restitution also major themes. God is portrayed as the Creator of all and One who is in control of the affairs of humanity. The Prophet Jeremiah in his service to Him is concerned with the responsibility of the individual, and indicates many times that sin will have its consequences. “The idea of a close, personal walk with God lies at the heart of Jeremiah’s conception of being a prophet” (NBCR, 628). While God will judge His people, He nevertheless promises a New Covenant where they will be restored to His favor (31:31-34). We see that Judah as a state would be judged, but individuals would not be lost to God’s grace. Jeremiah frequently speaks words of rebuke to false prophets who would deter God’s plan.

The message of Jeremiah was not popular. The most significant factor that led to Jeremiah’s widescale rejection was his support of Babylon as God’s instrument of judgment upon corporate Judah. Jeremiah warns the people of their sin, and urges individuals to repent and seek restitution with God. Jeremiah does offer hope, but recognizes that chastisement is necessary. Some theologians have compared Jeremiah to being like Moses, but unlike Moses seeing his people out of bondage, Jeremiah oversees them entering the exile (Dillard and Longman, 299-300; Jewish Study Bible, 917).

The time period of Jeremiah is very important for anyone to understand the ultimate restoration of Israel. “Included in Jeremiah’s vision of a new future for Judah and Israel was…a restored line of David, embodied in the person of the Messiah (33:14-26)” (ISBE, 2:986). These are undoubtedly themes that we see in the ministry of Yeshua and His Apostles.

There is presently not a great deal of Messianic examination of Jeremiah as a whole. We may occasionally see bits and pieces of teaching dealing with certain end-time themes, or the promise of a New Covenant. Yet, the historical and textual issues of Jeremiah are seldom, if ever, addressed. Today’s emerging Messianic movement would do well to improve its understanding of Jeremiah, and his sincere call for the people to return to God and His ways of obedience.

Bibliography
Cawley, F., and A.R. Millard. “Jeremiah,” in NBCR, pp 626-658.
Diamond, A.R. Pete. “Jeremiah,” in ECB, pp 543-616.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III. “Jeremiah,” in An Introduction to the Old Testament, pp 285-302.
Feinberg, Charles L. “Jeremiah,” in EXP, 6:357-691.
Graybill, John B. “Jeremiah, Book of,” in NIDB, pp 508-509.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Jeremiah,” in Introduction to the Old Testament, pp 801-821.
Holladay, W.L. “Jeremiah the Prophet,” in IDBSup, pp 470-472.
Lundbom, Jack R. “Jeremiah, Book of,” in ABD, 3:706-721.
Muilenburg, J. “Jeremiah the Prophet,” in IDB, 2:823-835.
O’Connor, Kathleen M. “Jeremiah,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 1051-1139.
Soderlund, S.K. “Jeremiah, Book of,” in ISBE, 2:985-991.
Sweeney, Marvin A. “Jeremiah, Book of,” in EDB, pp 686-689.
________________. “Jeremiah,” in Jewish Study Bible, pp 917-1041.

posted 07 June, 2007

Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): I understand that you believe that the Torah or Law of Moses is still to be followed. What do you do about the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and its decree that non-Jews did not have to keep it?

What is commonly asserted from Acts 15 is that the non-Jewish Believers coming to faith from the nations were not required to keep the Torah, as it was being said by a certain group of Pharisees that if they were not Torah observant and circumcised, then they could not be saved. Their position is stated quite well in Acts 15:1, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” The Jerusalem Council was assembled to address what was to be done with the non-Jews coming to faith, and how they were to be properly included in the fold.

There was debate at the Jerusalem Council concerning what needed to be done concerning the non-Jews coming to faith. There were those who insisted that they be circumcised and become “Jews” first before being saved, undergoing formal conversion, and others who said that this did not matter:

“The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith’” (Acts 15:6-9).

Through all the commotion of the Jerusalem Council, the Apostle Peter arose and said that the Holy One of Israel cleansed the heart of the non-Jews coming into the assembly by faith, just as He saved the Jewish Believers. Circumcision and Torah observance were not required for being born again and spiritually regenerated. All that was required for salvation was belief in the Messiah of Israel and His atoning work, and confession and repentance of one’s sin. Peter accuses those who were forcing circumcision and Torah observance on the new non-Jewish Believers as placing a yoke upon them:

“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Yeshua, in the same way as they also are” (Acts 15:10-11).

From this point, there is substantial deviation from the standard Christian and conservative Messianic interpretation of what the “yoke” being placed upon these non-Jewish Believers was. The Ryrie Study Bible states that the yoke was “that of the law, which in its complexities had become a burden, almost literally impossible to keep” (p. 1673). But how had the Torah become impossible to keep, if Yeshua the Messiah Himself very clearly stated that His purpose was to fulfill the Law, not abolish it, and that it would not pass away until all had been accomplished (Matthew 5:17-19)? How could the Torah be impossible to keep as Yeshua was the Word or “Torah” made flesh (John 1:1; cf. Psalm 119:16-18), embodying the commandments in His teachings, actions, and deeds, and He Himself said that “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:30)?

Consider what the Prophet Isaiah says:

“Then the Lord said, ‘Because this people draw near with their words and honor Me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote’” (Isaiah 29:13).

The Lord says that “their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote” (RSV). These mitzvot anashim (~yvna twcm) are “rules taught by men” (NIV). Yeshua quotes this Scripture in Matthew 15:8-9 and Mark 7:6-7. The Messiah chastises a group of Pharisees, telling them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?….you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:3, 6). When properly understanding First Century Judaism, we can see how many extra-Biblical regulations and “commandments” were added by the Rabbis to the Torah itself, making it an almost impossible burden to keep. Yeshua often criticized the Pharisees for their handling of the Torah and their interpretations and applications of it, but never the validity of it.

What was the “yoke” that was being attempted to be placed upon the non-Jewsish Believers? Was it the commandments of the Torah? Or was it the extra-Biblical human regulations that made the Torah into a burden? Stern states in his Jewish New Testament Commentary that the yoke being referred to by Peter was one “of legalism prescribed by men! The yoke of legalism is indeed unbearable, but the yoke of mitzvot [commandments] has always required, first of all (Mk 12:28-34), love of God and neighbor; and it now implies love toward Yeshua the Messiah. But love can never be legalistic!” (p. 276).

Yeshua said the two greatest commandments of the Torah were to love the Lord and then for us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-28). Yeshua tells us “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:40). The Torah commands say:

“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5).

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:18).

Any and all Torah observance must be focused around these two commandments. If the yoke being placed on the new non-Jewish Believers in the Book of Acts was indeed the Law of Moses, and this was the yoke being spoken against by Peter, then Peter would have been speaking against the Torah commands to love God and to love one’s neighbor. We do not believe that this is what was being spoken against, rather, the yoke was a particular segment’s interpretation of the Torah that led to legalistic bondage, something readily spoken against by both Yeshua and the Apostles. This required that one be physically circumcised and/or convert to Judaism to be saved.

James, the half-brother of Yeshua, arose in the council and compares the salvation of the nations to the restoration of the whole House of Israel. He says, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). In Acts 15:16-18, he quotes from Amos 9:11-12:

“‘In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name,’ declares the Lord who does this.”

James considers the salvation of the nations to be tantamount to the restoration of all of Israel, including the prophesied ingathering of the scattered exiles of the Northern Kingdom (Isaiah 11:12-16; Jeremiah 10:6-10; Ezekiel 37:15-28; Zechariah 10:6-10). He specifically refers to the non-Jews coming to faith as “returning [Grk. epistrephow, epistrefw ‘to cause to return, bring back’ {Thayer, 243}] to God from among the nations” (Acts 15:19b). In Ezekiel 37:24, we are told that when all Israel is restored: the House of Judah, the scattered House of Israel/Ephraim, and all the companions who join in, that “they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them.” Jeremiah 31:33 says, as part of the New Covenant made with all Israel, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it” (cf. Hebrews 8:10). Part of the restoration of all Israel is a return on the part of the exiles coming in from the nations to the commandments of the Torah.

James ruled the following concerning the non-Jews coming to faith:

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:19-21).

The non-Jews coming to faith were required to do four things:

1. Abstain from idolatry and heathen worship (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7)

2. Abstain from fornication and sexual immorality (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 5:18)

3. Abstain from non-kosher meat (Deuteronomy 14:2-20)

4. Abstain from blood (Deuteronomy 12:25-35)

When we put ourselves back in the First Century, and we understand the Greco-Roman religious background that most of these non-Jews were coming out of, it only makes perfect sense for them to begin their walk of faith by adopting these four things. Much of what we consider Greco-Roman “mythology” as demonstrated by literary works such as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, or Virgil’s Aeneid, had been the “theology” of these non-Jews entering into the assembly. The need for them to be properly discipled and trained in the truths of the Scriptures cannot be overstated. They needed to be properly instructed in what the God of Israel considered acceptable and unacceptable, so they could cast off their former way of life in paganism.

In v. 21, the Greek conjunction gar (gar), translated “for,” is used. CGEDNT defines gar as “for, since, then; indeed, certainly” (p 36). The reading Mowuseis gar (Mwushß gar) for “For Moses,” implies that once these Believers adhered to (1) abstinence from idols, (2) sexual immorality, (3) meat which is strangled, and (4) from blood, they would fit the four requirements necessary to enter the synagogue. LS indicates that gar is “regularly placed after the first word of a sentence: to introduce the reason” (p 160). While gar is most often translated as “for” in Acts 15:21, it is theologically significant that it implies a connection between the four requirements given, and the Torah being taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath day.

When they adhered to these four requirements, the non-Jews would then be fit to go into the synagogues and hear Moses taught. The reference to Moses in v. 21 is a reference to the Torah. The new non-Jewish Believers did not have to have Torah obedience “forced” upon them. Rather, after being saved, they would be expected to go to the local synagogue and hear the Scriptures being taught. As they would grow and mature in their faith, Torah obedience would come naturally. It is important to understand that the only Scriptures in existence at the time were the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and the only copies of them were available at the synagogue. This is true of both the Hebrew scrolls and the Greek Septuagint translation.

James the Just, the brother of Yeshua, was the ideal person to deliver this admonition. Theologians over the centuries have recognized that James’ epistle emphasizes the works of the individual perhaps even more so than any other of the writings of the Apostolic canon. Perhaps James’ most candid statement is, “faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (James 2:17). The placement of the Epistle of James in the Apostolic canon was readily questioned because of his large emphasis on works, but its place has been assured because of the fact that James was the half-brother of Yeshua.

James, the brother of the Lord, unquestionably had a very high regard for the place of the Torah. NIDB states that “According to Hegesippus (c. A.D. 180), James’s faithful adherence to Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation ‘the just’” (pp 493-494). Referencing Hegesippus, the Fourth Century Christian historian Eusebius writes,

“James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name, was surnamed Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the government of the church with the apostles. This apostle was consecrated from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woolen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the temple alone and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camel’s, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God” (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4-5).

James is the one who gave the ruling, concerning the non-Jews coming to faith, that “For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues” (Acts 15:21, RSV). Some theologians have tried to say that what James is telling us is that he is only emphasizing the point that the Torah prohibits idolatry, fornication, things strangled, and blood, and that the Torah is proclaimed on a weekly basis in the synagogue. Many of them will often go further, and say that these requirements only applied to those non-Jewish Believers who wanted to fellowship with Jews in the First Century, and that these things are no longer necessary for us today since Christians are not having to assemble in synagogues with Jews. We are told by these same people that the Messianic interpretation of the non-Jews in Acts 15 going to the synagogue to be trained in the Torah is flawed. Part of this is based on the letter that is then sent to the non-Jewish Believers at the assembly in Antioch:

“Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, and they sent this letter by them, ‘The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah. Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell’” (Acts 15:22-29).

There are some who would say that in the letter written to the non-Jewish Believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia that there is no reference to the Torah or Law of Moses being kept by them. After all, does not v. 28 say “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials”? We could see how some could come to this conclusion, but this is not what is implied by the Greek word epanagkeis (epanagkeß). Vine tells us that this is “an adjective akin to the preceding, with epi, used intensively, found only in the neuter form, is used as an adverb signifying ‘of necessity’ and translated as an adjective in Acts 15:28, ‘necessary,’ lit., ‘(things) of necessity’” (p 428). In other words, it was absolutely clear that the non-Jewish Believers in Antioch had to do these things. They were not considered to be optional. They were, rather, the first steps on their road to growing in their faith, and as they entered into the synagogue they would be able to be taught the Torah. While it was not written in the letter to those in Antioch, James the Just recognized it as a reality, because where else would they be able to find the Scriptures to be instructed from?

The problem with accepting the widely held Christian view that these four requirements were only things to be adhered to in the First Century should be very obvious. If these Believers did not go to the synagogue, how would they learn about God from the Scriptures? There was no “New Testament” at this time. The only Scriptures in existence were the Torah of Moses and the Prophets—copies of which we suspect were only available at a synagogue—especially among the Greek-speaking Believers. How were the early non-Jewish Believers supposed to understand what God expected of them unless they went to the synagogue to hear the Word preached? Certainly, these Believers were not expected to just sit in a room and pray. They had to be instructed from the written Word of God, and be told what the God of Israel considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

(This entry includes adapted quotations from the editor’s book The New Testament Validates Torah.)

updated 14 December, 2006

Jewish Marriage Analogy: As a Messianic ministry, how can you be post-tribulationists? Certainly you have heard about the Jewish Marriage Analogy where Believers as the Bride of Messiah are to be raptured up to Heaven prior to the Tribulation to experience the wedding feast.

The idea that the Body of Believers is the Bride of Messiah is usually based on the Apostle Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 11:2: “For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Messiah I might present you as a pure virgin.” This one verse of Scripture has been responsible for innumerable teachings in evangelical circles on how we as Believers are to be virtuous in our faith and devotion for God and live as though we were virgins awaiting our future husband. Unfortunately, such teachings have also been a strong cause of passivity. Many in the faith have been taught to view themselves in a very pacifistic, feminine way, and simply wait for Yeshua to whisk them away on some random day. Somehow, for many, the admonitions to fight the good fight of faith are ignored (1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7).

It is important to note that when Paul tells the Corinthians that he hopes to present them as a virtuous bride prepared for her husband, that he says in 2 Corinthians 11:1, “I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness.” The NLT has, “I hope you will be patient with me as I keep on talking like a fool. Please bear with me.” What is this to mean? To what extent are we to interpret Paul’s comments about us being as a “bride”? How literal did Paul intend his words to be interpreted?

The Prophet Isaiah also saw what we might consider “the Bride,” and he gives a somewhat different description than the Apostle Paul:

“For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not keep quiet, until her righteousness goes forth like brightness, and her salvation like a torch that is burning. The nations will see your righteousness, and all kings your glory; and you will be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord will designate. You will also be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God. It will no longer be said to you, ‘Forsaken,’ nor to your land will it any longer be said, ‘Desolate’; but you will be called, ‘My delight is in her,’ and your land, ‘Married’; for the Lord delights in you, and to Him your land will be married. For as a young man marries a virgin, so your sons will marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so your God will rejoice over you” (Isaiah 62:1-5).

If you read this prophecy closely, the city of Jerusalem is described as being “the Bride” as well. The text is quite clear that the sons of Israel will “marry” this Bride. But just like Paul emphasizing being a “betrothed virgin” in passing, so the Hebrew in Isaiah reveals that this is to be taken metaphorically. The verb baal (l[B) does mean “to get married” (HALOT, 1:142), but it appears in the Nifal stem, implying a passive action. Whenever these terms are used, important spiritual concepts are being communicated using the imagery of a human marriage.

Some may interpret this passage in the sense of Believers in Yeshua being “the city” and that the Messiah will marry them. But the Hebrew bachur (rWxB) clearly means “young man” (BDB, 104,) and the Scripture says “a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you” (NIV). Others may try to say that this text speaks of “the Father’s bride,” and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 speaks of “the Son’s bride.” But Yeshua and the Father are One (John 10:30), and They will have only one bride. God is not divided and He cannot be a polygamist.

In both 2 Corinthians 11 and Isaiah 62 we see allegorical statements made by both the Apostle Paul and Prophet Isaiah detailing important spiritual truths. Paul speaks of Believers living as virgins, awaiting their coming husband and admonishes us to be pure—set-apart from the world and holy unto God. Isaiah speaks of the future state of Jerusalem where we as the Body of Messiah under Yeshua’s authority, who is the head of the assembly, will “marry her.” Interestingly enough, this imagery is confirmed by Paul in Galatians 4:26 where he says “the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.” God, who is one, will marry this bride.

The importance of Jerusalem being the ultimate Bride of Messiah is emphasized in Revelation 21. Yeshua shows the Apostle John the city of New Jerusalem coming down to the Earth as a “bride”:

“Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, ‘Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper. It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel” (Revelation 21:9-12).

Is the Bride of Messiah the Body of Messiah? To this, we must answer: yes and no. In one respect, we as Believers are to be “as a bride” in preparation for our coming husband. We are to be spiritual virgins and not adulterating ourselves with the world. We are certainly to seek a husband-wife intimacy with our Redeemer. Ultimately, however, the true Bride of the Messiah is the Heavenly city of New Jerusalem. As members of the ekklesia—or the Commonwealth of Israel—we as “the children of Israel” will marry this bride. In this respect, we as Believers are not the Bride of Messiah. In the final equation, we as Believers are part of the Body of Messiah—but are not the “Bride of Messiah.”

Using some of these themes, many pre-tribulationists believe in what is commonly called the “Jewish Marriage Analogy.” In his book The Great Escape Jack Van Impe says, “According to Oriental marriage customs, we are now in the betrothal stage—promised to Jesus Christ....[I] believe we are about to be called into the heavenlies for that great marriage ceremony...” (p 69). Van Impe, and many other pre-tribulationists like him, do not consider the study of the Hebraic Roots of our faith important for spiritual growth and maturation. They do not embrace the foundational elements of the Messianic lifestyle such as keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, celebrating the appointed times of Leviticus 23, or eating kosher. Yet, they will accept what is purported to be a “Jewish teaching” on marriage that seems to support their pre-tribulational beliefs.

It is very important to we note that this “Jewish Marriage Analogy” is not readily attested to anywhere in the Bible. Post-tribulational scholar Robert H. Gundry offers the following remarks in his book First the Antichrist:

“[I]f a purported pretrib coming to fetch the church to heaven is supposed to reflect the ancient Semitic custom of a groom’s fetching the bride to his home, what is Jesus’ taking the church with Him back to earth right after the marriage supper, and for a thousand years, supposed to reflect? An ancient Semitic custom of the groom’s taking his bride back to her home to live with her for a long time? The pretrib reasoning here gets itself into a pickle by injecting a marriage custom that isn’t even mentioned in the biblical text at hand, and then giving that custom argumentative weight of an allegorical sort but not carrying out the allegory consistently. In fact, our ignorance of ancient Semitic marriage customs exceeds our knowledge. And what knowledge we do have shows considerable variation in these customs” (pp 94-95).

These statements should signify that the so-called “Jewish Marriage Analogy” may have a shaky Scriptural basis. Is it attested anywhere in the Gospels by Yeshua?

A common Scripture often quoted in reference to this “marriage analogy” is John 14:2-3: “In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.” By quoting this, pre-tribulationists tell us that Yeshua is presently in Heaven preparing a marriage residence for us, and one day the Father will tell Him to gather the saints to “consummate the marriage” prior to the Tribulation period. But is this really what He is saying?

First of all, Yeshua tells us that in His “Father’s house are many dwelling places.” The verb eisin (eisin) appears in the present active indicative tense in John’s Greek, indicating that these dwelling places presently are in Heaven. This implies that if any of us die in the faith, we have some kind of a dwelling waiting for us in Heaven. Yeshua does not need to go and “create them.”

Secondly, can we assume that the Father’s house is exclusively Heaven? The Messiah referred to His “Father’s house” as the Temple in John 2:15-17. Throughout the Hebrew Tanach there are passages that refer to this house, which is “the house of the Lord” or beit Adonai (hwhy tyB). It includes the Tabernacle in the wilderness (1 Samuel 1:24), Solomon’s Temple (2 Chronicles 2:1; 7:16), and the future Millennial Temple (Isaiah 2:2-4; Joel 3:18). Furthermore, the ekklesia or assembly of called out ones is allegorically understood to be “the Temple” (Ephesians 2:19-22).

But what of the “place” that we are told the Messiah is “preparing” for us? If it is not a “marriage residence,” then what is it?

The Greek word translated “place” in this passage is topos (topoß). While generally used in the Apostolic Scriptures to refer to a physical location, it nevertheless has a variety of additional usages. In usages outside of the Bible “topos sometimes means ‘sanctuary’ (the holy place)…Another use is for ‘someone’s place,” e.g., a senator’s seat, a place at school, one’s place in the world” (H. Köster, “topos,” in TDNT, 1184). Is the place Yeshua is preparing for us a “marriage chamber”? Or, is the Messiah preparing a place of authority for us in His Father’s Kingdom? After all, are we not told that “we will be cohanim [priests] of God and of the Messiah, and...will rule with him for the thousand years” (Revelation 20:6, JNT)? What is the “place” that Yeshua is preparing for us?

It is important that we make the correlation between Yeshua’s preparing a place or position of authority for us in the Kingdom and His Father’s house, the Temple. In Yeshua’s day there were many apartments designed for the priests as part of the Temple complex (1 Kings 6:5-10; 1 Chronicles 9:26-27). This complex, no doubt, symbolizes the positions that we as Believers will have when we reign with Messiah from Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40-44).

The Messiah is presently not in Heaven preparing a marriage residence for us as pre-tribulationists commonly tell us. He is, however, in Heaven readying our stations or places of authority for His coming Earthly Kingdom. The Scriptures are replete with admonitions how we are to be responsible Believers here in this world so that the Lord can reward us in His future Kingdom in the world to come.

(This entry includes adapted quotations from the editor’s book When Will the Messiah Return?)

added 18 January, 2006

Jews, Ashenazic and Sephardic: Can you tell me the difference between Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews? Whose interpretations do you generally accept?

Sephardic Jewry is the Judaism of the Mediterranean basin and Muslim lands. The term “Sephardic” is derived from the Hebrew word Sephard or Spain. Ashkenazic Jewry is the Judaism of Northern and Eastern Europe. The term “Ashkenazic” is derived from the Hebrew word for Germany, Ashkenaz. Generally speaking, it is our observation that non-Jews of Hispanic or Latin American descent tend to favor Sephardic interpretations of the Torah and/or traditions, while non-Jews of Northern European Caucasian descent tend to favor Ashkenazic interpretations. And, there are many in the Messianic community who fall somewhere in the middle, neither favoring Sephardic nor Ashkenazic interpretations and traditions completely.

updated 14 December, 2006

Job, Book of: What can you tell me about the composition of the Book of Job?

Approximate date: 900s B.C.E. (Right, some conservative-moderate); 700s-400s B.C.E. (some conservative-moderate, Left)
Author: Moses (some Right); anonymous (some Right, conservative-moderate, Left)
Location of author: wilderness (some Right) Land of Israel (some Right, some conservative-moderate); Land of Edom (some conservative-moderate, some Left); Babylon (some Left)
Target audience and their location: human beings who endure suffering

The Book of Job is widely considered to be one of the most ancient stories in Scripture, but it is also a highly contested text as to its composition and message. The events depicted in Job are pre-Israel, likely dating from sometime in the Second Millennium B.C.E. The setting of Job is Uz (1:1), which may be another designation for Edom (Lamentations 4:21), giving us a strong clue that the general area Job occurs is certainly a desert region (Harrison, 1028). Job is a substantial wisdom text that has affected Biblical studies for millennia, asking us questions about Divine justice or theodicity, combined with human patience in times of suffering. In the Christian tradition, Job is placed among the books of Wisdom literature, whereas Jewish tradition places it among the Writings.

Many Rabbis and theologians consider Job to be a real historical person enduring a real experience. Others, however, consider the story to be parabolic, reflecting a true reality but with fictional characters as historical fiction. A proper interpretation of Job will take into consideration how it is deeply rooted with an Ancient Near Eastern background (Ibid., 1023-1027).

While most of the book is written in first person, it can be safely assumed that the author of the text is not Job. The final author of Job is likely an Israelite as the Divine name YHWH is used intermittenly to refer to God, even though the story of Job is not unique to Israel. In fact, the story of Job enduring difficult times is an integral part of the overall human experience (NIDB, 529). We see a mix of literary types in Job, including: poetry, prose, and polemic speeches. Various scholars have compared Job to Ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature as well as Greco-Roman diatribe (ISBE, 2:1071; Jewish Study Bible, 1499). Examining each of these forms gives the interpreter a unique perspective.

The Book of Job is not without its controversy from its message to its composition (ECB, 337). Did the story of Job originally come from oral or written sources? A basic story of Job as a person is seen in 1:1-2:13 and in 42:7-17, interspersed with various dialogues and arguments in between. Some consider the Elihu speeches of chs. 32-37 to be a later addition. Was there a single author for Job? Or, was the story added to over time? These are some of the questions that arise when one considers the makeup of Job, and there is no uniform agreement among either conservatives or liberals.

Many conservatives believe that Job was a real person, but many others consider him a parabolic figure based on the literary type that we see in the text. Job is mentioned by name in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 as being a significant character, but the view of Job being a fictional character is attested in Jewish tradition (b.Baba Batra 15a; cf. Harrison, 1031).

Some Jewish tradition holds that the author of Job was actually Moses (b.Baba Batra 14b), a view likewise held by some early Church Fathers (Harrison, 1040; EXP, 4:850). Most conservatives today, however, feel that this is an arbitrary assignment and consider Job to be an anonymous book. This should not be surprising as no author is identified in the text (Dillard and Longman, 200). But this does not mean that conservatives consider the text to have been pieced together over a series of centuries, either. Many conclude “the bulk of the present work comes from a single author. Some obscure passages are most likely the result of difficulties in transmission” (ISBE, 2:1072).

Dating the text of Job is very difficult (NIDB, 529). The events of the book probably occur concurrent to the Patriarchal era, and it is not improbable that Job was some kind of contemporary to Abraham (IDB, 2:913; ABD, 3:863; Dillard and Longman, 200). The two options we are afforded to dating the composition are (1) sometime during or after the reign of Solomon, or (2) sometime during or after the Southern Kingdom’s exile to Babylon.

Conservatives generally date the text to the Solomonic period or immediately thereafter (Dillard and Longman, 200), and adhere to some kind of unified authorship or composition of Job. A few do concede, however, that the text may not have reached its final form until the Third Century B.C.E. (ISBE, 2:1065). Conservatives do not deny interpolations or additions to the text of Job, probably from its original sources (EXP, 4:846-847). The existence of a Targum on Job by the Second Century B.C.E. cannot place Job as a late text.

Liberals often date Job to the post-exilic period, and consider Job to solely be a literary character but not a real person (ECB, 338). They argue for a later dating of the text sometime in the Fifth Century B.C.E., and frequently argue that the story developed over time with bits and pieces added (EDB, 716; Jewish Study Bible, 1501). The main pieces of Job added or compiled over time would have included: (1) the prose narrative (1:1-3:1), (2) a Book of Job the Patient (1:1-2:13; chs. 27-28; 42:7-17), (3) a Book of Job the Impatient (chs. 1-31; 42:7-14), and finally (4) the three speeches of Elihu the intruder (chs. 32-37). Some liberals will even suggest that the theological message of Job became more complicated in relationship to the suffering of Israel (IDB, 2:920), possibly to answer the questions of the exile with Job representing “Israel” (ECB, 337). Interestingly enough, trends in liberal scholarship today are leaning toward a more unified composition (ECB, 338), but this does not necessarily mean that liberals are arguing for an older story.

Conservatives find a post-exilic dating for Job difficult due to the literary genre(s) of the book, and specific comparison with other Ancient Near Eastern literature of the same variety (EXP, 4:843-844; Dillard and Longman, 205-206). These comparisons are now acknowledged by most liberals (IDB, 2:914-917; ISBE, 2:1066-1067; ABD, 3:864-866; New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 704), leading them to a variety of conclusions. Some liberals have thought that the author of Job was an Edomite, and that the text or its sources were originally composed in a Semitic cognate of Ammonite, Moabite, or Aramaic (IDB, 2:912), not Hebrew. Others have thought that the story was originally Babylonian and brought into Hebrew during or after the exile (Ibid., 2:913). Interestingly enough, various Rabbis who have held to a rather low opinion of Job have proposed similar theories since the Twelfth Century (ISBE, 2:1065).

The Book of Job can be very difficult to translate due to some of its archaic words (Jewish Study Bible, 1500). Consider that the meaning of the name Iyov (bAY) itself is open to a variety of meanings, ranging from “enemy” to “where is my father?” (IDB, 2:911) to “the penitent one” (ISBE, 2:1064; EXP, 4:861). The Greek Septuagint version omits information from the Hebrew Masoretic Text because of the relatively primitive nature of some of the words, abridging sections of the story (Harrison, 1032; EXP, 4:855). In Bible translation and interpretation, the LXX of Job must be relied on less than the MT. Fragments of Job were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The overall theological message of Job is suffering, but the kind of suffering described is open to a wide variance of interpretations. Is Job depicted as debating with God? Does Job have a crisis of faith? Certainly, we see in Job a person who struggles through life, losing his heath, family members, and possessions, and he wonders why he must endure terrible tragedy. Is God the One who allows this evil? Or, is it the result of the satan or accuser that is introduced (ISBE, 2:1067-1068)? Was Job’s godliness genuine, or perceived? Did he experience difficulty because of his faithfulness, or a lack of it? Did Job lose almost everything because of God’s action—or inaction? Was Job being punished for his sin, or the sin of his forebearers? The Book of Job asks its readers a variety of difficult questions. It also details the reactions of Jobs friends to his suffering. In the end, we see that Job is faithful to God and is restored.

Many debates have ensued for centuries over the precise message of Job. In the end, we see that “No comprehensive answer is given to the problem of suffering” (NIDB, 530), and each reader is left to himself to meditate on the text and draw his own conclusions. Job certainly teaches us critical lessons about suffering, and suffering that he did not willfully submit to. This is to be contrasted against the suffering and agony of Yeshua the Messiah who suffered and died willingly for humanity (Dillard and Longman, 209-210).

The current Messianic handling of Job today is uncertain. It often ranges from standard positions proposed by evangelical conservatives to fringe advocates who date Job’s composition prior to the Noahadic Flood. No discussions to our knowledge have ensued over whether the account is historically factual or parabolic. Likewise, not many discussions occur in today’s Messianic community over the subject of true suffering and the involvement or non-involvement of God. Ultimately, we see Job arising above the conflict and the emerging Messianic movement will eventually be forced to address age-old theological questions when it considers Job as a part of its greater Biblical studies.

Bibliography
Brown, William P. “Job, Book of,” in EDB, pp 716-719.
Crenshaw, James L. “Job, Book of,” in ABD, 3:858-868.
Davison, Lisa. “Job,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 703-748.
Dell, Katharine J. “Job,” in ECB, pp 337-363.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III. “Job,” in An Introduction to the Old Testament, pp 199-210.
Gruber, Mayer. “Job,” in Jewish Study Bible, pp 1499-1562.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Job,” in Introduction to the Old Testament, pp 1022-1046.
Hartley, J.E. “Job,” in ISBE, 2:1064-1076.
Kline, Meredith G. “Job, Book of,” in NIDB, pp 529-530.
Pope, M.J. “Job, Book of,” in IDB, 2:911-925.
Smick, Elmer B. “Job,” in EXP, 4:843-1060.
Zukerman, B. “Job, Book of,” in IDBSup, pp 479-481.

posted 10 April, 2007

Joel, Book of: What can you tell me about the composition of the Book of Joel?

Approximate date: 800s-600s B.C.E. (Right, some conservative-moderate); 600s-400s B.C.E. (some conservative moderate; Left)
Author(s): Joel and/or a close associate (Right, conservative-moderate); Joel, writers and editors (Left)
Location of prophet/author(s): Judah and Jerusalem (Right, some conservative-moderate); somewhere in the Land of Israel (some conservative-moderate, Left)
Target audience and their location: Southern Kingdom Israelites

The name Joel, or Yo’el (laAy) means “the Lord is God.” Little is known of Joel the man (Harrison, 874; EXP, 7:230; Dillard and Longman, 365; ECB, 686), as virtually nothing is stated in the text surrounding is background. There is even confusion about the name of his father, Pethuel (1:1), rendered in the LXX as Bethuel (1:1). What we do know about the Prophet Joel is that he is concerned about Judah and Jerusalem (2:32; 3:1, 6, 8, 16-20), and it is most likely that he was from the Southern Kingdom. Joel has an innate knowledge of the Temple and its services, which has led some to conclude that he was somehow involved with the priesthood (ISBE, 2:1076; ABD, 3:878). The Book of Joel can be a confusing text, even though it includes standard prophetic elements of the need for repentance, the judgment of God, and promised restoration.

There is difficulty with dating the Book of Joel because no contemporary events are mentioned (Jewish Study Bible, 1166), and it is likely to remain the most controversial issue regarding its composition (ISBE, 2:1077; EXP, 7:231-233; Dillard and Longman, 365-367). While Joel is placed second among the Twelve Prophets in the Jewish order of the Tanach, the Septuagint places it fourth after Micah, indicating some uncertainty as to when Joel prophesied (ABD, 3:879; ECB, 686).

Among conservatives, a broad dating of the Seventh-Fifth Centuries B.C.E. is often assumed. Some place Joel’s prophetic ministry during the reign of King Uzziah (EXP, 7:229-230), with some even placing him earlier in the Ninth Century. Proposals across the spectrum for Joel’s composition often range over a 500 year period (Harrison, 876-877; ISBE, 2:1078; NIDB, 530; EDB, 720).

Those leaning toward an earlier date for Joel note the mention of Ancient Israel’s more ancient enemies of the Philistines and the Phoenicians (3:4), and Egypt and Edom (3:19), when compared to the later enemies of Assyria and Babylon. Likewise, it is believed that Amos may have been acquainted with Joel’s prophecies (3:16; cf. Amos 1:1; 3:18). While conservatives often favor an earlier dating for Joel (Harrison, 877), some still note “there is no single element of the thought of Joel that is incompatible with a pre-exilic date for the prophecy” (Ibid., 878). Regardless of where Joel specifically falls within this paradigm, it should not affect our overall understanding of the text.

Liberals examining the Book of Joel feel that the prophet is interpreting contemporary events of his time, using unique symbology (IDB, 2:927; ISBE, 2:1077; ABD, 3:878-879; New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 1271), perhaps borrowing from other prophets. Many Jewish and Christian interpreters over the centuries have followed a similar style (ISBE, 2:1079). Liberals tend to favor a post-exilic, Fifth Century or later composition for Joel, dating Joel at the earliest to the time of the Persians (IDB, 2:928; Jewish Study Bible, 1166). They make note of the reference to the Greeks (3:6), and assume that Ancient Israel did not have contact with them prior to the Fifth-Fourth Centuries B.C.E. (IDB, 2:926). In the past, liberals have doubted the authenticity of any of Joel’s prophecies (EXP, 7:230). Surprisingly, though, a fair number today do hold to some kind of unified authorship/composition for Joel, and do not advocate that multiple sources were used for the text (IDB, 2:927; ISBE, 2:1079; ABD, 3:873-874), although some still do feel that a few of Joel’s visions (chs. 3-4) were added later (Harrison, 875; ABD, 3:879).

Some similarities in language are present with the other Prophets, which causes some to believe that Joel is a later text and borrowed from Prophets such as Haggai, Zechariah, or Malachi (ABD, 3:879). However, the argument could equally be made that these Prophets borrowed from Joel. The Hebrew MT of Joel is in relatively good condition, with textual witnesses present among the DSS at Qumran (Harrison, 881; ABD, 3:879). The major difference between the MT and LXX textual witnesses is the latter’s division of Joel into three, rather than four chapters (EXP, 7:235). Christian Bibles today divide Joel into three chapters, whereas Jewish Bibles divide it into four.

The Prophet Joel emphasizes a series of physical plagues that will herald “the day of the Lord” (2:31). The first part of this judgment is seen in a series of natural catastrophes (1:1-2:27), with the second part seen with God’s judgment upon foreign peoples (2:28-3:21). Joel calls on Judah to turn to God in repentance. An invading army will come (2:1-10) culminating in a final battle (ch. 3). God’s Spirit will be poured out (2:28). After this judgment is concluded, a period of restoration will ensue (ISBE, 2:1076-1077; ABD, 3:876-878; EDB, 720).

The only reference to the Prophet Joel outside of the Book of Joel is in the Book of Acts (Acts 2:16-17). Luke interprets the events of Shavuot/Pentecost as involving some kind of fulfillment of Joel’s prophecies (Harrison, 881; NIDB, 531). Joel’s message of God’s salvation helped fuel the expanse of the gospel message during the First Century (ISBE, 2:1080; Dillard and Longman, 370-371).

The Book of Joel also has some important liturgical properties (Dillard and Longman, 368). In some Jewish traditions (Ashkenazi, Conservative) the Book of Joel is considered on Shabbat Shuvah, or the Sabbath between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur during the Ten Days of Awe (Jewish Study Bible, 1167).

As things currently stand, there is not a great deal of Messianic engagement with the Book of Joel.

Bibliography
ben Zvi, Ehud. “Joel,” in Jewish Study Bible, pp 1166-1175.
Crenshaw, James L. “Joel,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 1271-1278.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III. “Joel,” in An Introduction to the Old Testament, pp 363-371.
Gelston, Anthony. “Joel,” in ECB, pp 686-689.
Graybill, John G. “Joel, Book of,” in NIDB, pp 530-531.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Joel,” in Introduction to the Old Testament, pp 874-882.
Hiebert, Theodore. “Joel, Book of,” in ABD, 3:873-880.
Neil, W. “Joel, Book of,” in IDB, 2:929-929.
Patterson, Richard D. “Joel,” in EXP, 7:229-266.
Simkins, Ronald A. “Joel, Book of,” in EDB, pp 720-721.