|
Lamentations,
Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Lamentations?
The traditional Hebrew title of
the Book of Lamentation is Eikah (hkya),
meaning either “how” or “alas” (cf. 1:1; 2:1;
4:1; Harrison, 1065). The Talmud actually refers
to the text as qinot, meaning
“lamentations” (b.Bava Batra 14b),
followed by the Greek Septuagint’s title of
Thrēnoi (QRHNOI)
and Latin Vulgate’s Lamentationes. This
book is a collection of laments that bewail the
fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. Some
believe that the common title “Lamentations” is
misleading as the overall theme deals more with
grief than laments (ECB, 617).
Lamentations is placed among the five
Megillot of the Tanach Writings in Jewish
tradition, but placed immediately after the Book
of Jeremiah in the Christian book order of the
Old Testament following the Septuagint and
Vulgate (Dillard and Longman, 304). Lamentations
is specifically placed among the Megillot
because of its usage for special occasions in
Judaism, but the order of it being placed after
Jeremiah was probably present among some First
Century Jewish traditions (ABD, 4:138).
The text of Lamentations itself
is strictly anonymous and claims no author.
Jewish tradition ascribes some level of
authorship to Jeremiah, sometimes based on 2
Chronicles 35:25: “Jeremiah chanted a lament for
Josiah…they are also written in the Lamentations
[Heb. ha’qinot,
tAnyQh].”
There is debate among theologians whether this
is a direct reference to the Book of
Lamentations, or some other piece. The
Septuagint rendering of Lamentations 1:1
specifically names Jeremiah, though, as its
author: “And it came to pass, after Israel was
taken captive, and Jerusalem made desolate,
that Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with
this lamentation over Jerusalem” (Apostle’s
Bible).
The authorship of Jeremiah for
Lamentations is not impossible as we do see some
similarity in style between Lamentations and
Jeremiah 7:29; 8:21; 9:1, 10, 20. Jeremiah was
an eyewitness to the judgment of God on
Jerusalem that is thoroughly described in
Lamentations. Jeremianic authorship of
Lamentations is attested in the Talmud (b.Bava
Batra 15a) and was followed by the Church
Fathers (ISBE,
3:65).
Conservatives today generally
lean toward some kind of Jeremianic involvement
in Lamentations, but would concede that the
laments may have actually been composed by
Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch (NBCR, 659;
NIDB, 580), accounting for some stylistic
changes. “Theological similarities with Jeremiah
were to be expected from anyone who accepted his
teaching and that of the great prophets in
general” (EXP, 6:696), and so some
conservatives accept that Lamentations was
composed entirely by Baruch. A reliable
interpretation of the text should not insist
upon Jeremianic authorship (Dillard and Longman,
304), as we cannot be entirely certain who
finally authored these laments or compiled them
together. The text should be dated sometime in
the mid-to-late Sixth Century B.C.E., but even
conservatives are not agreed whether it was
written at the beginning, during, or at the end
of the Babylonian exile.
Liberal theologians primarily
lean to the laments being composed sometime
after the Babylonian exile. All liberals favor
an anonymous authorship of all of Lamentations,
and concede that it may have been written from
those among the priestly classes. Liberals
severely doubt any kind of genuine Jeremianic
involvement in Lamentations (IDB, 3:61,
62), and make light of the fact that the Jewish
book order places it separate from the Book of
Jeremiah (ABD, 4:138). Liberals will
often attribute some changes in style throughout
Lamentations to a plurality of voices being used
in compiling the text (Jewish Study Bible,
1587), and argue that the ideas in Lamentations
do not easily align with what is seen in
Jeremiah (ISBE, 3:65). Conservatives
point out that this is not an argument against
Jeremianic involvement because the author of
Lamentations is addressing a new situation that
the Book of Jeremiah does not portray (Harrison,
1069).
A few radical liberals of the
past proposed that the laments did not involve
the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the
Babyloninas, but rather the Second Century B.C.E.
siege of Antiochus Epiphanes (IDB, 3:62;
NBCR, 659). Today, however, some liberals
are moving to the opposite side of the spectrum,
in that “there is no strong reason to suppose
that more than one person was responsible for
these poems” (EDB, 785), and “have tended
to view the book more holistically” (Dillard and
Longman, 306). More evidence is seen to support
Jeremianic authorship or involvement in
Lamentations than what stands against it
(Harrison, 1070).
The Hebrew text of Lamentations
is in a relatively good state of preservation (ABD,
4:140). There are no significant deviations
between the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek
Septuagint (EXP, 6:699), although the
preservation of the LXX does demonstrate some
issues. It is likely that the LXX translators
used a different Hebrew source text than the
present MT (Harrison, 1071).
The text of the Book of
Lamentations is very poetic. The first, second,
fourth, and fifth laments all contain 22 verses,
reflecting the number of letters in the Hebrew
alphabet. Lamentations follows a distinct meter
(ISBE, 3:66-67; ABD, 4:139-140).
Lamentations is not unique in that there are
other laments in Scripture, but is unique is
that it is the only book of the Tanach
exclusively devoted to laments. Many have viewed
Jeremiah or Baruch as the one lamenting, but
today a personified Jerusalem is now being
suggested among interpreters (Dillard and
Longman, 306). There are definitely parallels
that exist between Lamentations and other
Ancient Near Eastern texts that lament the fall
of cities. These texts include: the Lamentation
Over the Destruction of Ur, Lamentation Over the
Destruction of Sumer and Ur, and Lamentation
Over the Destruction of Nippur (Dillard and
Longman, 307; EDB, 785).
Lamentations is traditionally
read during the Hebrew month of Av, particularly
on the Ninth of Av to remember the destruction
of Solomon’s Temple in 586 B.C.E. (cf. Jeremiah
41:5; Zechariah 7:3-5; 8:19) and the Roman
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (Jewish
Study Bible, 1589). The style of
Lamentations plays a very important role in the
development of Jewish liturgical prayer (IDB,
3:63). Lamentations is also a text that is
commonly employed by Orthodox Jews praying
regularly at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. In
Roman Catholic tradition, Lamentations is often
read during Holy Week to remember the sufferings
and death of Yeshua the Messiah (New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, 1141).
Lamentations forces its readers
to remember the judgment of God and the pain
that the Southern Kingdom had to endure for its
disobedience. The text of Lamentations was
clearly compiled to remind people of their
duties before the Lord and how He uses human
agents like the Babylonians to accomplish His
ends. Lamentations would have been used on the
part of the Southern Kingdom exiles to express
some remorse for what they let happen, but also
includes a message of hope for the repentant.
When reading Lamentations today,
one often asks whether the worldview of today’s
Christianity is substantially different from
those who originally encountered its message.
Does Lamentations minister to those who face
calamity in today’s world? The Book of
Lamentations largely focuses on corporate
suffering in a similar way that the Book of Job
focuses on individual suffering (Dillard and
Longman, 311). Common Jewish views of
Lamentations have viewed the text with great
profundity, given the great deal of suffering
that the Jewish people have had to experience
throughout history (Jewish Study Bible,
1587). Repentance is the way to demonstrate
thanksgiving for God’s faithfulness (ECB,
618), because “His compassion is greater than
his anger (3:31-33…)” (Dillard and Longman,
312).
Presently, Lamentations is not a
book of the Tanach that often receives a great
deal of attention from today’s Messianics. Some
will read Lamentations in conjunction with the
month of Av, but most do not. Future Messianic
examinations of Lamentations need to consider
its relationship to the destruction of
Jerusalem, and the issues that its original
recipients/audience faced. Likewise, subjects
that Lamentations forces us to consider include
corporate suffering, the necessity of
repentance, and the need to minister to the
hurting. What kind of suffering does today’s
Messianic movement actually face? Do we
recognize the suffering of others in the
worldwide Body of Messiah beyond our Messianic
community?
Bibliography
Broomall, Wick. “Lamentations,” in NIDB,
pp 579-580.
Clines, David J.A. “Lamentations,” in ECB,
pp 617-622.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Lamentations,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 303-312.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W. “Lamentations, Book of,” in
EDB, pp 785-787.
Ellison, H.L. “Lamentations,” in EXP,
6:695-733.
Gottwald, N.K. “Lamentations, Book of,” in
IDB, 3:61-63.
_____________. “Lamentations,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 1141-1152.
Grossberg, Daniel. “Lamentations,” in Jewish
Study Bible, pp 1587-1602.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Lamentations,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
1065-1071.
Hillers, Delbert R. “Lamentations, Book of,” in
ABD, 4:137-141.
Soderlund, S.K. “Lamentations,” in ISBE,
3:65-68.
Stephens-Hodge, L.E.H. “Lamentations,” in
NBCR, pp 659-663.
posted 23 June, 2007
Law of Moses,
Binding on Christians:
Do you believe that the Torah or Law of Moses is
binding on Christians?
We do not prefer to say that the
Torah is “binding” on Believers for the simple
fact that Yeshua says, “My yoke is easy and My
burden is light” (Matthew 11:30), and He
observed the commandments of the Law of Moses
perfectly and without error (Matthew 5:17-19),
thus becoming our perfect sacrifice. We do,
however, prefer to say that the Torah is valid
and relevant instruction from God for all
Believers, upheld as such by Yeshua and the
Apostles.
Within Christianity, there is the
notion that in order to live a proper life in
accordance with the Bible we need to do what
Jesus did, perhaps reemphasized today with the
popular slogan: “What Would Jesus Do?” We
could not agree more. But, if we are to
follow the example of our Messiah, we should
live as He did. Today’s Church has lost much
of its moral direction because of downplaying
the role of the Torah, and today’s emerging
Messianic movement has a great job to do in
redirecting the attention of concerned Believers
back to the faith of the First Century.
Yeshua lived as a Jewish Rabbi in
First Century Israel and obeyed His Father's
commandments, including those things that much
of Christianity has deemed “unnecessary,” such
as the seventh-day Sabbath, the appointed times
of Leviticus 23, and the kosher dietary
laws—which Messianics do not believe have been
“done away with.”
If you were to pinpoint us and
say, “Do you believe that the Law of Moses is
applicable today?” we would say yes. But
asking if it is “binding upon Christians” may
imply that obeying our Heavenly Father is a
“burden,” and is intended to be legalistic
bondage. This is not what the Lord wants.
Obedience to God must come from the heart, and
our motivation must come forth via the work of
the Holy Spirit inside of us, rather than the
flesh. Obedience to the Torah should come
because we want to live as our Messiah Yeshua
lived, and demonstrate good works as a result of
an inward transformation that has taken place.
Do note that the greatest commands in the Torah
are to love God and love others (Deuteronomy
6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-40; Mark
12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28).
If the whole concept of “Torah
observance” is new to you, please consult the
available publications:
Hebraic Roots: An
Introductory Study,
Introduction to Things
Messianic, and
The New Testament
Validates Torah.
updated 08 November, 2006
Least in the
Kingdom:
What does it mean to be “least in the Kingdom”?
There is a variance of
interpretations in the Messianic movement
regarding what being “least of the Kingdom”
means. In Matthew 5:19, Yeshua the Messiah says,
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches others to do
the same, shall be called least in the kingdom
of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.” What we may assume from these words is
that one’s status in the Kingdom of God is
determined by how one handles the Torah. If one
teaches the Torah, and encourages others to keep
its commandments, that person will be considered
great in the Kingdom. If one teaches against the
Torah and its commandments, that person will be
considered the least.
One of the most sobering words
from our Lord comes in Matthew 13:41-42,
speaking of His return. Yeshua says that when He
returns, “The Son of Man will send forth His
angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom
all stumbling blocks, and those who commit
lawlessness, and will throw them into the
furnace of fire; in that place there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He also says,
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the
will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord,
did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your
name cast out demons, and in Your name perform
many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them,
‘I never knew you;
depart
from Me, you who practice lawlessness’”
(Matthew 7:21-23).
These references to lawlessness,
or anomia (anomia),
are references to those who deny the place of
the Torah in their lives. Some have interpreted
being “least” in the Kingdom as not being in the
Kingdom at all. Unfortunately, there are some in
the Messianic community who make it their job to
judge the salvation of many who are not pursuing
a Torah observant lifestyle as they are. It
is not our job to judge the salvation of anyone.
But, it is our job to take the words of the
Messiah very seriously. If we are not pursuing
compliance with what He has told us concerning
the Torah, then where will we be spending
eternity? The Torah is God’s standard of what He
considers acceptable and unacceptable. If we are
not pursuing an acceptable lifestyle, then are
we in rebellion to God? Are we making ourselves
out to be God?
The Messiah attaches rewards to
those who keep the commandments of the Torah and
teach them to others, and penalties to those who
do not keep the commandments and teach others to
break them. The word “least” or elachistos
(elacistoß)
is of extreme importance. AMG defines
this as, “The least, minimal in magnitude,” “in
number and quantity,” “in rank or dignity,” “in
weight or importance” (p 561). What does this
mean? Does it mean that many who have taught
that the Torah is no longer to be followed are
going to be given few rewards in the Kingdom?
Again, it is not our place to judge the
status of anyone, but we must heed the Lord’s
words and endeavor to follow His admonitions.
We believe that being “least in
the Kingdom” is an admonition concerning one’s
final status in eternity. We believe that these
people will be in the Kingdom, even if they
might be Christians who right now are not really
Torah obedient. Thankfully, however, one’s
status in the Kingdom is ultimately determined
by God Himself as He is the final Judge of all
human beings.
updated 08 November, 2006
Leavening
Agents:
How can I determine what is, and what is not,
kosher for the Passover season?
One of the major
Biblical injunctions concerning Passover is to
eat unleavened bread for seven days, remembering
the bread of haste that the Ancient Israelites
had to eat as they left Egypt (Deuteronomy
16:3). By extension, not only does the command
pertain to eating unleavened bread, but it is a
week-long prohibition against eating anything
with leavening agents. This has been interpreted
and applied in different ways, with some
divergent halachah, in the Jewish
community over the centuries.
The Talmud, for
example, specifically rules that there are five
types of grain that can be used for the
production of matzah or unleavened bread:
wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt (b.Pesachim
35a), and notably the list does not include rice
and millet. Ashkenazic authorities would later
extend the list of forbidden grains to include
“legumes” such as beans, peas, corn, lentils,
buckwheat, and sometimes peanuts. The
prohibition exists because of the belief that
flour made from these substances could be easily
confused with leavened flour. It is notable that
the addition of legumes comes largely from
Medieval European Jewry, having made contact
with the New World, and debates over what grains
are “kosher for Passover” do not come from the
First Century. In more modern times, various
segments of Orthodox Ashkenazic Jewry have
liberalized their stance on whether or not rice,
beans, or corn can be eaten at Passover, as
prohibitions against eating these things were
largely given for a different time. Of course,
this has not stopped many Ashkenazics from other
branches of Judaism from eating “legumes” during
the season of Passover.
Generally, Jewish
halachah in both the Ashkenazic and
Sephardic communities permits matzah to
be mixed with grape juice, oil, or egg for the
young and infirm. Egg matzos for Passover
are not intended to be eaten by everyone
during this time, although if one is confused,
consulting one’s rabbi is recommended.
Much of the
confusion surrounding what is “kosher for
Passover” in the Messianic community comes from
non-Jewish Believers who were not raised in the
Synagogue (or possibly even adjacent to any
sizeable Jewish community), and hence are not
familiar with the customs and traditions
surrounding this holiday. In the Jewish
community, for example, it is not uncommon for
most homes to have a special set of dishes just
to be used for Passover and Unleavened Bread. In
some sects, kosher for Passover toothpaste,
bottled drinking water, Coca-Cola, and even
toilet paper is available. When some people see
all of the Rabbinical injunctions, they easily
get confused, even though they do not need to
be.
The commandment
regarding unleavened bread in the Scriptures
pertains to eating and one’s daily consumption.
Obviously, any kind of bread or cereal that has
yeast cannot be eaten. Various kinds of alcohol
that have been produced with yeast (i.e., beer)
cannot be consumed. This does not necessarily
mean that one has to buy “kosher for Passover”
cheese, because the cows who provided milk for
the cheese ate corn for their diet. Most of the
questionable items pertain to things that one
would normally eat bread with, and you should
check to see if there is a kosher for Passover
section at your supermarket. This should give
you a good idea about what you can eat. You may
also want to consult a Jewish cookbook that will
have many kosher for Passover recipes. More than
anything else, we would urge you not to feel
condemned if you make a few mistakes in an
effort to be kosher during Passover. God’s grace
covers our sins, our “leaven,” and when we find
that we do make mistakes, we try to quickly
rectify them.
posted 14 April, 2006
Virtual Passover
Left Behind
Books:
What is your opinion of the Left Behind
books?
We do not believe that the
Left Behind books should be taken very
seriously, per se, because they are a fictional
extrapolation of how co-authors Tim LaHaye and
Jerry Jenkins believe the Tribulation period
will occur.
Although we can agree with the
possibilities of much of LaHaye’s Tribulation
scenario, we do not agree with his
pre-tribulation rapture position. Thus, we would
urge some caution in reading his books, which
have become quite popular in the secular
arena as pure fiction. However, at the very
least, these books have stimulated a new
interest in Bible prophecy among many Believers,
and hopefully God can use this to get people to
begin examining prophetic Scriptures for
themselves.
updated 27 April, 2006
Leviticus,
Book of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Leviticus?
The third book of the Torah bears
the Hebrew name Vayikra (arqYw),
meaning “and He called,” derived from its first
verse, “Then the
Lord
called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent
of meeting.” Our English term Leviticus is
derived from its Greek Septuagint title,
Leuitikon
(LEUITIKON),
which means “pertaining to the Levites.” This
carried over into the Latin Vulgate as Liber
Leviticus. Some Jewish traditions, notably
in the Mishnah (Harrison, 589), refer to this
text as torat kohanim (~ynhK
trAT),
“the instruction of the priests,” or various
derivatives (Jewish Study Bible, 203).
The service of the priests in the life of Israel
is undeniably a major feature of this book (ABD,
4:312).
The Book of Leviticus functions
as part of a long narrative beginning in Exodus
25 with the giving of the Tabernacle
instructions. Leviticus continues these
instructions, with the only discontinuity
occurring when laws regulating Israel proper are
given (NIDB, 593). As Leviticus begins,
we see that the Tabernacle has been
manufactured, and now Israel needs to know how
to function with it present, becoming a special
nation unto God (EXP, 2:501). The
instruction contained in Leviticus makes up
almost a third of the Torah, and spans about a
year of the Israelites’ sojourn. Many
commentators think that the giving of many of
the commandments in Leviticus is interwoven with
the proclamation of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai
(Exodus 19-20), and probably also the covenant
ceremony (Exodus 21-24).
The textual themes of Leviticus
often concern the special duties of the Levites,
as well as the service of worship at the
Tabernacle (later to be applied to the Jerusalem
Temple). It is absolutely accurate to conclude,
“Leviticus consists almost entirely of law and
ritual” (ABD, 4:312). However, even
though the important role of the priests is
detailed in Leviticus, this book is not solely
concerned with priests. Leviticus ultimately
concerns all of the people of Israel (ISBE,
3:111; New Interpreter’s Study Bible,
145).
In the Jewish theological
tradition, Leviticus sits at the center and
“heart” of the Torah. It is often used early to
introduce Jewish children to the commandments of
the Torah, so they can learn to be viable
members of the religious community. Leviticus is
fairly straightforward, and it is not difficult
to inculcate its principles into one’s psyche.
As Allis notes, “Leviticus is in no sense an
esoteric book. The people were entitled and
expected to know exactly what was required of
them, and of their priests, in that service of
the sanctuary was so deeply concerned every
Israelite” (NBCR, 140).
Christian handling of Leviticus
is often vastly different than compared to that
of Judaism. Christian exegetes often have a very
difficult time understanding the holiness code
contained in Leviticus. Among theologians and
teachers who examine Leviticus, there is often a
great deal of allegorizing of the text (Dillard
and Longman, 73). Many only prefer to look at
the Messianic symbolism of Leviticus, solely
interpreting it in light of the “Christ event.”
There is significant difficulty in reading
Leviticus because it contains a great deal of
commandments that many believe are no longer
valid (EXP, 2:513-514), but Jewish New
Testament studies are revealing more and more
that Yeshua and the Apostles not only observed
these things in the First Century, but upheld
their validity as a standard to be continued.
Commandments of considerable difficulty for
Christians to understand are those of
clean/unclean and pure/impure. They are often
regarded as being archaic, not as simple
elements of the obedience that God requires of
His people (EXP, 2:524-530). In defense
of Christian exegesis and commentary on
Leviticus, though, many have made valid
comparisons between the service of the priests
and the service of ministers and pastors in
local churches today (ISBE, 3:111).
The Book of Leviticus deals with
several kinds of regulations: worship,
ceremonial cleanness, various moral laws, God’s
appointed times, the Sabbatical year, and the
year of Jubilee. Most of these commandments were
delivered by God to Moses during the year that
Ancient Israel encamped at Mount Sinai. How many
were actually given while Moses was on the
mountain, versus when he was in the Tent of
Meeting, cannot be fully known.
The key theme of the Book of
Leviticus is undeniably the holiness of God and
how He wants His people to be separated out. He
says, “I am the
Lord
who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be
your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy”
(11:45), a theme repeated throughout not only
the Tanach, but also the Apostolic Scriptures.
Leviticus may be divided into five principal
sections: the sacrificial system (chs. 1-7), the
inaugural service of the sanctuary (chs. 8-10),
the laws of impurities (chs. 11-16), the
holiness code (chs. 17-26), and the commutation
of gifts of the sanctuary (ch. 27) (IDBSup,
pp 541-545).
We see in these subdivisions that
God wants His people to be transferred into the
realm of being clean and sacred. Leviticus
requires perfect animals to be sacrificed (chs.
1-7), and that only priests without physical
deformity can serve (chs. 8-10). Signs of
physical blemish are listed, including: a
woman’s discharge after birth (ch. 12); sores,
burns, or certain types of baldness (chs.
13-14); a man’s seminal discharge (15:1-18).
Jewish and Christian commentators today are not
fully agreed as to whether such signs signify
ritual impurity and/or spiritual impurity.
However, before one can reenter the camp of
Israel, certain types of sacrifice may need to
be offered.
With Leviticus, we see that God
begins to establish His theocracy through the
people of Israel. Notable sacrifices among those
categorized would include those for the Day of
Atonement (ch. 16), a day of national mourning
and repentance. Between the commandments given
in Leviticus sit two major narratives: the death
of Nadab and Abihu (10:12-19), and God imparting
Israel the eye-for-eye principle (24:17-22).
Interestingly, when considering these, and other
points in Leviticus, some liberal commentators
have considered the commandments in Leviticus to
demonstrate some key salvation principles:
“Hebrew law is Heilsgesetz,
‘sacred and saving law.’ Heilsgesetz in
the OT not only records and is the revelation of
a divine order of society but also seeks to
establish such a society in the commonwealth of
Israel. The character and function of Leviticus
then is summed up in this idea of Heilsgesetz”
(IDB, 3:120).
Apparently, a critical part of
God’s salvation demonstrated toward human beings
is understanding His sacredness. Any reading of
Leviticus cannot fail to consider this.
The authorship of Leviticus, as
with all books of the Pentateuch, is a debated
issue among conservative and liberal
theologians. Ancient tradition, both Jewish and
Christian, ascribes authorship of Leviticus to
Moses (NIDB, 593). It is notable that
almost every chapter of the text includes the
phrase “The
Lord spoke to Moses” (NBCR, 140; ISBE, 3:111),
pointing to some kind of Mosaic involvement.
Conservative theologians today
generally will accept principal Mosaic
involvement in the composition of Leviticus,
especially as “These are the commandments which
the Lord
commanded Moses for the sons of Israel at Mount
Sinai” (27:34). Specific commandments are given
by God to Moses in Leviticus (i.e., 1:1; 4:1;
6:1) a fact confirmed in the New Testament
(Romans 10:5). Most conservatives will, however,
concede that Moses probably did not compose
Leviticus in its final form, and will allow for
some pre- and/or post-exilic redaction of the
text. Harrison notes that “Egyptian material…was
revised from time to time by various generations
of scribes” (p 592), and it is possible that the
Ancient Israelites may have employed similar
techniques. What is perhaps more significant for
us to consider, as Wenham indicates, is that
“Leviticus claims throughout to record what God
revealed to Moses; nowhere does it ever state
that Moses wrote down what he heard” (ISBE,
3:112). Most Messianics would argue for
exclusive Mosaic authorship of Leviticus,
including his penning it with his own hand. They
would have difficulty with the view that Moses
may have given the information God relayed to
him to scribes, or someone in his inner circle,
to then write down (Ibid.). But even if Moses
did not actually write down Leviticus with his
own hand, he is still ultimately its author.
In favor of its antiquity,
conservatives point out that the strong
theological assertion present in Leviticus is
that it prepares Israel for living in the
Promised Land (Ibid, 3:113). Arguments that are
commonly made in favor of Leviticus being
originally written around the time of the Exodus
often stem from comparison with other literature
in the Ancient Near East (EXP,
2:503-504). The law code present in Leviticus is
not unique to the Second Millennium B.C.E
(Ibid., 2:515-516), and the establishment of the
covenant between Israel and its God was
consistent with other agreements made in the
Second Millennium B.C.E. as well (Ibid.,
2:517-518). Harris asserts, “God used Moses’
extensive legal background and knowledge of the
common law of the East, and thus some of the
laws are of the familiar case-type law” (Ibid.,
2:519). What makes Leviticus unique when
compared to the other law codes of the Ancient
Near East is how Israel’s God is so concerned
for His people, rather than Israel being God’s
“slaves.” The priestly nature of the text
confirms this, incorporating the reality that
they would be responsible for training the
people, which itself is “a tradition that was
established by the Sumerians….[and] the same can
be said for ancient Egypt” (Harrison, 591).
Liberal theologians, in stark
contrast to the conservative view of dating
Leviticus back to the Second Millennium B.C.E,
commonly ascribe authorship to P or the
so-called Priestly writer (see
Genesis
FAQ entry for a summarization of the JEDP
documentary hypothesis), often ignoring any
conservative opinion (IDB, 3:117-118;
ABD, 4:319-320). Some apply P authorship to
just chs. 1-16, and the holiness code of chs.
17-26 to a theoretical H (IDB,
3:119-120). Liberals assume a very late date for
Leviticus’ composition, usually 500-450 B.C.E.
after the return of the Jewish exiles from
Babylon, and often describe the material as
“Josaianic” (Dillard and Longman, 74), having
originated during the reign of King Josiah. They
will often argue that the P material is
difficult to reconcile with other material in
the Torah (Jewish Study Bible, 205), and
critics of the JEDP hypothesis will sometimes
claim that the so-called P source comes from an
“Hegelian evolutionary philosophy” (NIDB,
593) of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Liberal scholars will often claim
that the complexities of Leviticus cannot be
present in a document that dates from between
1500-1300 B.C.E., but this is challenged by many
conservatives who argue that there were more
complicated religious systems in place before
this time. “Elaborate rituals and sacrificial
systems are attested in the Ancient Near East
long before the time of Moses. The normal
critical view that these institutions are a late
feature of Israelite religion is contrary to
what is known about the religious practices in
neighboring contemporary culture” (ISBE,
3:112). Further critiques of the liberal
hypothesis of dating Leviticus rather late is
that no situation would have presented itself in
Babylon requiring the separation of clean and
unclean animals (Harrison, 594), requiring this
code to have previously existed, and also the
fact that leprosy was widely known as a disease
as far back as the Third Millennium B.C.E.
(Ibid., 594-595), likewise requiring some kind
of pre-exilic regulation.
In recent days, the common
liberal view of Leviticus has been changing in
certain schools. The unity of the text in
relationship to the entire Torah is being
acknowledged. “Rhetorically, the material…is
presented as the direct ‘word of God’ and thus
makes a claim to absolute and unchallengeable
authority” (New Interpreter’s Study Bible,
146; cf. IDBSup, 541; Dillard and
Longman, 76). While P is sometimes described as
“least difficult” (IDB, 3:117) of the
Pentateuchal sources that liberals identify,
liberal Jewish scholars are challenging its
rather late dating, and are beginning to argue
for a much earlier dating of P, leading just a
few to consider some kind of Mosaic involvement.
Furthermore, literary examinations of the Torah
are causing many to seriously question the JEDP
hypothesis, and Leviticus is no exception
(Harrison, 598). Ironically, classical liberals
often admit “Jesus canonized Leviticus once for
all” (IDB, 3:122), especially with the
Messiah’s emphasis on God’s love.
Few divergences exist among
extant editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of
Leviticus (IDBSup, 541). Fragments of
Leviticus in paleo-Hebrew or Phoenician script
were discovered at Qumran, even though they are
often dated from the Second-First Centuries
B.C.E. (ABD, 4:318). Both the Samaritan
Pentateuch and Greek Septuagint editions of
Leviticus reflect various interpretative
traditions in their renderings, allowing some
theologians to conclude that the Hebrew source
text behind these versions was older than
today’s extant MT (Ibid.). It is notable that
the LXX includes some distinct Pharisaical
interpretations of commandments. The Apostles’
usage of the LXX in their writings should make
some of these halachic judgments
authoritative for Messianics today, which often
parallel the customs of mainline Judaism today,
and not some of the small sectarian movements of
the First Century.
In evangelical Christian
theology, teachings on Leviticus often include
the critical need to know about the New
Testament emphases on loving one’s neighbor
(19:18; cf. Matthew 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark
12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:24).
In an historical sense, evangelicals will often
emphasize how one needs to understand the laws
and customs found in Leviticus that Yeshua
observed as a Jew living on Earth. Coupled with
this is the fact that we need to understand the
Levitical priesthood, and its relationship to
Yeshua’s priesthood described in Hebrews (ISBE,
3:115; Dillard and Longman, 81-82). The
Tabernacle system is, to a degree, internalized
in Believers’ hearts (2 Corinthians 6:16; cf.
NBCR, 141-412; ISBE, 3:113).
Evangelicals are right to emphasize the fact
that when compared to ancient religions, a
strong thrust of Leviticus’ message is on seeing
one’s relationship to God restored (ISBE,
3:115). The concern of God for the well-being of
His people is thoroughly demonstrated in the
detail of Leviticus (Harrison, 603-612).
A great deal of Leviticus cannot
be kept today without an operating Tabernacle or
Temple, and Messianic Believers who often argue
in favor of the continuance of all of the
Torah often fail to recognize that the work of
Yeshua has set aside the Levitical sacrificial
system (Hebrews 7:18). This position, however,
is not adhered to by most, who will instead
often highlight only the parts of Leviticus that
can be observed in the modern world, such as the
kosher dietary laws or the appointed times. It
should be noted, however, that while there is a
broad consensus that the seventh-day Sabbath,
appointed times, and dietary regulations should
still be followed, there are diverse opinions
and views about how these things should be
followed. Some sectors of the Messianic movement
lack a consideration for the style of
halachah as demonstrated by Yeshua and the
Apostles in First Century Judaism, instead
preferring to reconstruct how they believe
various commandments should be followed from the
text. However, this is limited only to a few,
and more and more Messianics who study Leviticus
every year are making profound connections to
how its commandments are applied in the
Apostolic Scriptures.
The holiness of God that He
requires of His people is something that must be
emphasized in today’s generation—and it is seen
all throughout Leviticus. Many will simply label
the last third of Leviticus (17:1-25:55) as the
“holiness code,” with God emphasizing the
consequences of obedience and disobedience, but
holiness is much more than just “do’s and
don’ts.” God desires His people to be holy just
like He is, and be separated out from the ways
of the world. Many holiness movements in the
past several centuries have notably used verses
from Leviticus that focus on ethics and
morality, such as the German Piety movements and
Wesleyan movements of the Seventeenth and
Eighteenth Centuries. These movements, however,
often did not understand Leviticus in its
totality for Believers as is emphasized in
today’s emerging Messianic movement.
With this in mind, the Messianic
community today needs to understand that it has
been endowed with a sacred trust from the Lord
to convey the fullness of His holiness,
demonstrated by not only commandments dealing
with morality, but also how we conduct ourselves
outwardly as His people. We are often quick to
judge our Christian brethren for their lack of
following many of Leviticus’ outward
commandments, in spite of the fact that many
sincere Christians remain true to God’s ethical
commandments. As Wenham summarizes, “It seems
fair to say that the NT only accepts the moral
law of the OT but reiterates [its] basic
theology” (ISBE, 3:117). Harris further
remarks, “we can learn principles of atonement,
prayer, faith, and grace from Israel’s
ceremonies of justice in business, honor in
home, truth in speech, and so forth, from
Israel’s civil legislation” (EXP, 2:519).
Building on foundations such as these, with
Yeshua as the focus, should make it easier to
emphasize other points seen in Leviticus such as
Sabbath or kosher observance.
There are some notable weaknesses
in the Messianic community concerning Leviticus,
notably with a lack of engagement with current
conservative scholarship concerning its
antiquity. Too much attention has probably been
given to ultra Orthodox and/or Chassidic Jewish
commentaries on Leviticus, at the expense of
examining its historical setting. Another valid
critique that could be given is that some
Messianics base their interpretations of Torah
commandments solely on what is seen in
Leviticus, and they are not reconciled with
their counterparts in Deuteronomy, which may add
further details, to say nothing how they are
applied elsewhere in the Bible. Furthermore, a
lack of understanding some of Leviticus’
regulations in light of the Ancient Near East
can lead to some misinterpretation with how they
are applied in the Apostolic Scriptures.
Of all of the issues that we need
to consider when reading Leviticus is the need
for us to truly understand that this text is
Heilsgesetz, or “sacred and saving law.” We
need to understand how to focus on the missional
aspects of Leviticus and how the Lord is
concerned with the well-being of His people. We
need to emphasize that God wants to have
communion with His people, and be restored to
them—themes ultimately embodied in His Son,
Yeshua the Messiah.
Bibliography
Allis, Oswald T. “Leviticus,” in NBCR, pp
140-167.
Davies, G. Henton. “Leviticus,” in IDB,
3:117-122.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Leviticus,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 73-82.
Harris, R. Laird. “Leviticus,” in EXP,
2:501-654.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Exodus,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
518-613.
____________. “Leviticus,” in NIDB, 593.
Hayes, John H. “Leviticus,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 145-188.
Levine, Baruch A. “Leviticus, Book of,” in
ABD, 4:311-320.
Milgrom, J. “Leviticus,” in IDBSup, pp
541-545.
Schwartz, Baruch J. “Leviticus,” in Jewish
Study Bible, pp 203-280.
Wenham, G.J. “Leviticus,” in ISBE,
3:110-117.
posted 16 November, 2006
Liturgy,
Hebrew:
What do you think about the use of Hebrew
liturgy in Messianic congregations?
There are generally two extremes
that one encounters among Messianic
congregations as it relates to Hebrew liturgy:
(1) those who rely on liturgy exclusively, and
(2) those who see no value in liturgy at all.
Those who rely on liturgy exclusively for
prayers and worship are those that often embrace
a strictly Orthodox Jewish style of halachah,
whereas those who often see no value in liturgy
are largely influenced by charismatic and/or
Pentecostal Christianity.
Any cursory examination of Second
Temple Judaism will reveal that liturgical
prayer and worship was an important part of the
religious expression of Jewish life. For the
most part, the type of liturgy from this period
that was used included singing Scripture to
music, employing Psalms in daily and corporate
prayer, and various other praises issued to God
in the Temple service. While varied traditions
existed from community to community, and between
Judean and Diaspora Judaism, liturgy was
nevertheless an important part of the Jewish
world Yeshua and the Apostles were a part of.
The use of liturgy was not only
limited to ancient Jewish worship, as the early
Christian movement of the Second Century modeled
its worship style after the Synagogue, employing
many of the same prayers or praises, as well as
new prayers or praises based on the Gospels and
Apostolic texts. Certainly, spontaneous prayers
were also a major part of Christian worship,
probably more so than what we see in the
Synagogue. Throughout most of Christian history,
liturgical worship has given structure to
corporate services, notably being seen today in
the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and
Anglican traditions.
Today’s emerging Messianic
movement sits between the two major liturgical
traditions seen in Judaism and Christianity. Not
surprisingly, many Messianic congregations use
Jewish liturgy to structure their worship
services. Most Messianic congregations do not
use the amount of liturgy that an Orthodox
synagogue would employ, and so the amount is
usually somewhere in between what is seen in
Conservative and/or Reform synagogues—not that
much unlike various Protestant traditions that
use a moderate amount of liturgy. There are some
Messianic congregations that use no liturgy at
all, or for that matter have a structured
worship service, often modeling themselves off
of a style of charismatic Christian worship
unique to the Twentieth, and now Twenty-First
Century.
We would encourage Messianic
congregations to use a moderate amount of
liturgy, be it in the form of traditional
prayers and praises, as a way to not only give
structure and organization to worship—but also
to invite a reverent attitude to the assembly.
It can be easily said that with all of the
vibrant song and dance seen at many Messianic
congregations, there does need to be a moment
when the music stops, there is no dancing, and
the people join in one accord and one voice in
proclaiming who God is. Of course, the amount of
liturgy used is an issue that must be determined
by the local needs of an assembly. Likewise, not
all of the liturgy need be in Hebrew, as a
significant amount of it can be done in English
(or whatever other native language is spoken).
For a further discussion of this,
and related subjects, consult the editor’s
article “The
Proper Protocol.”
posted 07 June, 2007
Lord’s Day
(first of the week):
I have been taught that the Apostles met on the
first day of the week, Sunday, which was the
Lord’s Day. How do you reconcile this will the
belief that they kept the Sabbath?
It is important to understand the
Hebraic way of how time is determined. Genesis
1:5b says, “there was evening and there was
morning, one day.” From the start of Creation,
it has been understood that the day Biblically
begins in the evening. J.H. Hertz notes in his
work Pentateuch & Haftorahs, “The day,
according to the Scriptural reckoning of time,
begins with the preceding evening” (p 2). The
Sabbath or Shabbat begins on what we
consider to be Friday evening and ends on
Saturday evening. The first day begins on what
we often consider to be Saturday evening. When
the early Believers in the First Century met on
the “first day,” it would not have been on
Sunday as we consider it, but it would rather
have been on Saturday evening to commemorate
Havdalah, which is a customary tradition
following the departure of the Sabbath as the
upcoming six working days are consecrated unto
God. Acts 20:7 in the NEB correctly reflects
that the meeting of the Believers at Troas took
place “On the Saturday night.”
As the emerging Christian Church
separated itself from its Hebraic Roots by the
beginning of the Second Century, the “first day”
took on a new meaning as the Jewish leadership
was replaced by non-Jewish leadership that had
not been reared in the Synagogue. The Romans
considered the new day to begin at 12:00
Midnight, as does today’s modern Western
calendar.
As far as “the Lord’s Day” is
concerned, it is important to note that the
phrase only appears once in the Bible itself. It
appears in Revelation 1:10 when the Apostle John
says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.”
Most Christian expositors believe that this was
Sunday. But this conclusion cannot be drawn from
internal evidence within the Scriptures
themselves. The Greek phrase tē kuriakē
hēmera (th
kuriakh hmera)
speaks of a day or time period that is
specifically becoming of the Lord. Given the
scope of the subject matter of the Book of
Revelation, it is more likely that “the Lord’s
Day” is in actuality speaking of the Day of the
Lord or Yom Adonai
(hwhy
~Ay),
spoken of quite frequently in the Tanach (Old
Testament) in relation to the end-times. The
only difference with the usage of “Lord’s Day”
instead of “Day of the Lord” is the fact that
the emphasis is on the Lord rather than the time
period itself. This is evidenced by the fact
that Revelation is indeed a revealing of Yeshua
the Messiah to His servant John, and Yeshua’s
defeat over Satan is the overarching theme of
the book at the End of the Age.
External evidence suggests that
by the early Second Century the phrase “the
Lord’s Day” became attached to Sunday, which by
this time had supplanted the Biblical Sabbath.
The first extra-Biblical usages of “the Lord’s
Day” occur in the writings of Ignatius, bishop
of Antioch. In about 110-120 C.E., about twenty
years after the death of John, Ignatius wrote
that we are to “no longer [be] observing the
Sabbath, but living in the observance of the
Lord's Day” (Epistle of Ignatius to the
Magnesians 9). He also wrote, “It is absurd
to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to
cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come
to an end” (Epistle of Ignatius to the
Magnesians 10), as he considered anything
having to do with the Torah or the Sabbath to be
antiquated and largely obsolete. In 2
Thessalonians 2:7 Paul wrote, “For the mystery
of lawlessness is already at work,” and by the
early Second Century it was already well in
force as the Torah was being widely discarded
for new ways determined by the new generations
of Church leadership.
Internal Scriptural evidence is
clear that the early Apostles and Believers kept
the seventh-day Sabbath, and that Sunday did not
come onto the scene until after the death of the
Apostles and some of their immediate successors.
updated 02 February, 2006
Lost Sheep, Only:
I heard a Two-House teacher said that Yeshua
came to “save only the lost sheep of the House
of Israel.” This person extrapolated it as
meaning that only physical descendants of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could be saved. This
disturbs me a great deal.
It disturbs us a great deal when
people in the Two-House community advocate that
only physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob can be saved. The statement that Yeshua
makes regarding the lost sheep of the House of
Israel, presumably those of the scattered
Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim, appears in
Matthew 15:24 in His encounter with the
Canaanite woman (cf. Matthew 15:22). Yeshua,
traveling near the city of Tyre in Phoenicia,
encounters a woman who comes to Him, asking that
her daughter might be healed from a demonic
spirit. She is identified as being a Greek,
specifically “a Syrophoenician by birth” (Mark
7:26, RSV). ISBE notes, “she was a
non-Jewish native of the coastal region of
Phoenicia…who possibly spoke Greek, though she
may have been simply an inhabitant of the area”
(C.N. Jefford, “Syrophoenician,” 4:694).
The Syrophoenician woman entreats
the Messiah to cast the demon out of her
daughter. In response, Yeshua says “I was sent
only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”
(Matthew 15:24). This woman was not a Jewess,
nor was she a member of the scattered Northern
Kingdom. She was a complete Gentile, and
identifies herself as a “dog” (v. 27). The Jews
of the First Century did not always regard
non-Jews as total outcasts, because many
well-to-do Jews had dogs as pets. IVPBBC
observes that “Jesus is making an illustration:
the children must be fed before the pets” (NT p.
88). This would mean that the woman was in the
“household of humanity,” so to speak, meaning
among those who could be saved, but the first
claim to the good news was to the Jews and to
those of exiled Israel. However, she does not
give up in her persistence, and Yeshua tells
her, “O woman, your faith is great!” (Matthew
15:28). This is definitive prove against the
claim that only physical Israelites can be
saved, because the Syrophoenician woman had
her request granted by the Messiah.
In the Biblical context of Yeshua
saying that He came to save the lost sheep of
the House of Israel, He says that the
Syrophoenician woman’s faith was great. This is
not an indication in the least that salvation is
only available to physical descendants of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but does place
salvation going to those of Israel as being
primary. Unfortunately, there are those in the
Two-House community who are reading Scripture
selectively and believe that only physical
descendants of Israel can be saved. The
Scriptural truth of the matter is that Israel is
God’s vessel whereby the whole world might come
to salvation.
It is also important to note, as
Paul writes in Romans 9:6, “For not all
Israelites truly belong to Israel” (NRSV). In
the end, those who are considered to be of
“Israel” must have faith in Israel’s Messiah,
Yeshua. If they do not have salvation in Yeshua,
even if they are of physical Israel, they will
not be considered Israel in the end.
updated 08 November, 2006
Luke, Gospel
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Gospel of Luke?
The Gospel of Luke is the longest
of the Gospel narratives. It is extremely
thorough in its scope and appeal, as the author
is very knowledgeable of First Century Judaism
and the larger Greco-Roman world that Israel was
a part of at the time. His appeal is to a broad
audience, both Jewish and non-Jewish, which has
led some theologians to believe that he is
trying to validate the growing Messianic sect to
its Jewish and Roman critics.
There is a mass of evidence that
Luke the physician was the author of this Gospel
and the Book of Acts. An entire array of ancient
Christian leaders acknowledged Lukan authorship,
including: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and Tertullian. The Muratorian Canon and
the anti-Mariconite Prologue to Luke also
identify Luke as the author (Guthrie, 114).
Irenaeus attests in Against Heresies,
“Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a
book the Gospel preached by him” (3.1.1).
Colossians 4:14 has Paul
identifying Luke as “the beloved physician.”
While various theories are espoused as to Luke’s
place of birth, it is largely agreed that Luke
was certainly raised a Greek and later may have
become a proselyte to Judaism. The text of
Luke’s Gospel “reveal[s] more important
characteristics of its author: his stylistic
ability, which enables him to use various Greek
dictions; his Hellenistic education, shown by
his facile use of rhetorical conventions…his
wide reading in Torah, manifested in his dense
textual allusions and in the structure of his
story; his storytelling ability, demonstrated by
his striking vignettes and parables” (ABD,
4:404-405). Luke was without any doubt, a
learned man of culture, and he demonstrates an
affinity for Philippi, which boasted a medical
school in ancient times where he may have been
trained (Acts 16:12). Luke likely had some
firsthand contact with Mary, as he spends an
inornate amount of time writing about the
particulars of Yeshua’s birth.
Conservative scholars are not
agreed as to the exact dating of Luke’s Gospel,
favoring either an early date of 59-63 C.E., or
a later date sometime in the late 70s to early
80s. As Luke ends the Book of Acts abruptly, it
is assumed by some that he did not survive long
after the martyrdom of Paul in Rome, or may have
been arrested prior to completing it. The dating
of Luke depends on one’s interpretation of his
phrase, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded
by armies, then recognize that her desolation is
near” (Luke 21:20). Many interpret this as a
reference to Jerusalem’s destruction at the
hands of Titus. Luke is certainly adapting
Matthew’s phraseology of “abomination of
desolation” (Matthew 24:15) to a non-Jewish
audience, but v. 21, “Then those who are in
Judea must flee to the mountains” is not
realized as the Jewish Believers in 70 C.E. fled
to Pella which is not mountainous (Gundry, 209).
The reference in Luke 21:20 must be futuristic
in nature, which allows for a post-70
composition date.
Luke’s Gospel is written to the
“most excellent Theophilus” (1:3), to whom he
also directs Acts (1:1). There is not uniform
agreement as to who or what “Theophilus” was, as
the name Theophilos (Qeofiloß)
in Greek means “one who loves God.” Some believe
that it is directed to all lovers of God or
Believers at the time, but it is employed as a
proper name. It is safe to assume that
Theophilus was an actual man, possibly a recent
convert when Luke was writing, or possibly even
Luke’s patron. Some have even speculated that
the terminology “most excellent” indicates that
Theophilus was a Roman official, and there is
historical evidence that in the 80s families of
Roman nobility began receiving Yeshua (IDB,
3:181). Certainly, Luke’s Gospel was not
exclusively written to Theophilus, but a broad
audience, especially including God-fearers in
the Synagogue (Gundry, 206). Luke’s writing is
certainly of a more Jewish character than Mark’s
Gospel, but less than Matthew’s Gospel. Without
a doubt, “his readers were Greek-speaking, and
sufficiently acquainted with scriptural
traditions to grasp at least the gist of his
allusions” (ABD, 4:405).
Some in the Messianic community, believing the
Gospel of Luke to have been originally written
in Hebrew or Aramaic, believe that he wrote to a
Theophilus who was high priest in Jerusalem,
based on a vague reference to such a man in
Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 18.123.
However, in order for this to be the case, it
would require a dating for this Gospel’s
composition in the late 30s, which would have
been prior to the conversion of Luke. It
certainly does not account for the fact that a
so-called “Hebrew speaking” high priest actually
has a Greek name. Furthermore, Luke’s own
name of Loukas (Loukaß)
is of Greek origin, and modern Hebrew New
Testament translations employ the form of
Louqas (sqWl)
for this Gospel’s title.
The Gospel of Luke, more than any
other of the Apostolic Writings, demonstrates
the highest competence in Greek, yet there are
most certainly Semitic influences via the
Septuagint: “Luke’s Greek is remarkable for its
adaptability. The preface is modeled on
classical patterns, which gives some insight
into his cultural background. But after writing
1:1-4, he drops the literary style for a type of
Greek strongly flavoured with Semitisms, which
he uses for the infancy narratives. Subsequent
to this he generally uses what may be described
as good literary Koiné Greek…The strongly
Hebraistic character of Luke’s Greek in this
section is admirably adapted to link the
incarnation of Jesus with the Old Testament
history and that may well be the effect that
Luke wished to create. By his obvious
familiarity with the Septuagint, which he often
cites throughout his gospel, Luke’s Greek has
become strongly coloured with Hebraisms”
(Guthrie, pp 131-132).
The place of Luke’s composition
is not agreed upon, although there are various
suggestions that are made. Rome is the first
possible place of Luke’s composition, as Luke
was a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul.
It is suggested that Luke traveled with Paul to
Rome, and while in Rome read Mark’s Gospel,
which he used for the basis of his own Gospel.
Another likely possibility is Achaia, as
indicated in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to
Luke. Other suggested cities include Ephesus or
Caesarea, but it is all dependent on where
Theophilus was from (Guthrie, 110).
When compared to the Gospels of
Mark and Matthew, Luke noticeably arranges the
events in a slightly different order, likely
because the priority he places on the events for
his intended audience is different. This would
have been especially true if Luke was indeed
written to validate the growing Messianic sect
as being legitimate in the eyes of the Pharisees
and Rome (EXP, 8:800). Luke’s Gospel was
written to a broad audience of Jews and
non-Jews. His emphasis is summed up clearly in
19:20: “For the Son of Man has come to seek and
to save that which was lost.” Luke describes the
universal nature of the good news. He relies on
eyewitness testimony; he describes the
historicity of the narrative; and Luke makes
aims to adequately address Yeshua’s Messianic
claims.
Theologically, Luke’s Gospel is
largely focused around three groups of
narrative: events in Galilee (4:14-9:50), events
in Judea and Perea (9:51-19:27), and Yeshua’s
final week in Jerusalem (19:28-24:53). Unlike
Matthew’s Gospel, which largely focuses on the
Kingdom of God, Luke focuses on individuals,
making strides by addressing the situation of
women, children, and outsiders to the Jewish
community like Samaritans.
Bibliography
Blaiklock, Edward M. “Luke,” in NIDB,
604.
__________________. “Luke, Gospel of,” in
NIDB, pp 604-606.
Blair, E.P. “Luke, Evangelist,” in IDB,
3:179-180.
Ellis, E.E. “Luke, Gospel According to, “in
ISBE, 3:180-186.
Gundry, Robert. “Luke: A Promotion of
Christianity in the Greco-Roman World at Large,”
in A Survey of the New Testament, pp
205-251.
Guthrie, Donald. “Luke’s Gospel,” in New
Testament Introduction, pp 102-135.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Luke-Acts, Book of,” in
ABD, 4:403-420.
Liefield, Walter L. “Luke,” in EXP,
8:797-1059.
Taylor, V. “Luke, Gospel of,” in IDB,
3:180-188.
updated 06 February, 2006
Lunar
Sabbath:
What do you think of the Lunar Sabbath theory?
We believe that there is no
Biblical basis or historical evidence at all for
the Lunar Sabbath theory. It is not acknowledged
as having been practiced in ancient times by
anyone in the scholastic community. The Sabbath
or Shabbat is very clearly to be on a
set seventh day of the week, which on our
modern day calendar is commonly known as
“Saturday.” The belief being espoused is that
when the New Moon or Rosh Chodesh is
spotted, then seven days after this is the
Sabbath. This is extremely problematic when the
New Moon is spotted in the middle of the six-day
period from Sabbath to Sabbath, because then the
counting to the Sabbath must start over and it
is possible for one not to have a Sabbath rest
for a period of 13 days.
posted 06 February, 2006 |
