Male Headship: How can your ministry be egalitarian, meaning that both men and women share leadership roles equally, when Scripture says that the man is to be the head of the woman (Ephesians 5:23)?

This entry has been adapted from the commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic.

Being filled with God’s Spirit (Ephesians 5:18) will result in a manner of life for Paul’s audience different from their previous pagan experience. Many are agreed that the instructions which complete Ephesians ch. 5, vs. 21-33, are an expansion upon a prior message given in Colossians chs. 3 & 4. Other than how Ephesians 2:14-16 is encountered by Messianics, Ephesians 5:21-33 is the most debated and controversial part of the entire epistle for today among interpreters. This is why Ben Witherington urges, “the trajectory and contextualizing of the argument are as important as the details of what Paul says.”[a] If not read closely and carefully, we are likely to not only miss some key points of Paul’s instruction to First Century readers, but also significantly misapply them in a modern setting.

Ephesians 5:21-6:9 compose a very important part of Biblical instruction because it concerns the institution of the family, specifically the institution of the family after the arrival of the Messiah. The Apostle Paul describes the relationship husband and wife are to have to one another (Ephesians 5:21-33), the relationship of children to their parents (Ephesians 6:1-4), and even the relationship of slaves and masters (Ephesians 6:5-9). It is commonly referred to in theological works by the German term Haustafel, meaning “house table.” One point that should not elude us is the fact that for his audience in Asia Minor, Paul is largely subverting (or even countering) ancient Greco-Roman household codes.

What does this mean for the following verse?

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Messiah also is the head of the [assembly], He Himself being the Savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23).

A wife is to submit to her husband the same as she would submit to the Lord, as an act of obedience to the Lord—but the principle of mutuality is that the husband too is required to submit: “be subject to one another in the fear of Messiah” (Ephesians 5:21; cf. vs. 30, 33). In the husband’s submission to his wife, Paul says, “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Messiah also is the head of the [assembly], He Himself being the Savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23). As the two are submitted to each other, the husband is to recognize himself as the “head” of his wife. But what does the husband being the “head” of his wife mean, specifically? Does it mean that he gets to treat his wife in whatever way he wants? Does he truly get to be an autocrat?

In the Hellenistic world, the husband being the “head” of his wife did largely mean that he got to be an autocrat. In desiring that women be utilitarian tools of the state, Plato said “if we are going to use men and women for the same purposes, we must teach them the same things” (Republic 451e).[b] This reveals that in the Greek world, giving men and women equal opportunities was not something looked upon favorably. But it was Plato’s student Aristotle who specifically taught, “the relation of male to female is naturally that of the superior to the inferior, of the ruling to the ruled. This general principle must similarly hold good of all human beings generally” (Politics 1.1254b).[c] The question that has dogged many interpreters of Ephesians 5:23, especially in the past twenty to thirty years, is whether or not the Christian Church (and by extension us as the Messianic movement) has adopted a view of the husband being “head” more consistent with Scripture, or more consistent with Hellenism.

There are two different views regarding “head” present in today’s evangelical Christian theology:

1.  The traditional or complimentarian view, which sees “head” as meaning the husband’s authority over the wife.

2.  The egalitarian view (simply derived from the French égal, meaning “equal”), which sees “head” as relating to the man being the “source” or “origin” of the woman.

Complimentarianism

Most of us in our religious experience have been exposed to the complimentarian view of “head” in Ephesians 5:23. This is a view which holds that males and females are essentially equal in terms of their spiritual standing before God (cf. Galatians 3:28), but that there are specific roles only designated for males. Since Paul is writing in terms of an ancient society where a top-down, male-dominated family structure was the norm, it would seem fairly obvious that the man, who was created first, should take the lead. The more powerful male family members were responsible for the well being of weaker family members, namely the women. Within this framework, the submission of the wife to her husband comes because she is ordered under her husband. Complimentarians consider that support of their view of “head” as meaning “authority” or “first,” comes from Ephesians 1:22 where Yeshua is seen as “head over all things.”

The available lexical definitions of kephalē (kefalh) do allow it “to denote superior rank” (BDAG).[d] From this point of view, when Paul says “the man is the head of a woman” (1 Corinthians 11:3), and in this epistle that Yeshua is the Head of the assembly (4:15; cf. Colossians 1:18), the husband is first in the family with the wife coming second. Some suggest that Tanach typology of Israel being the wife of God is at work in Ephesians 5:23 (Isaiah 54:4; 62:4; Ezekiel 16:7; Hosea 2:16). As the husband is the head of the wife, the traditional perspective, as summarized by Harold W. Hoehner, would be “It means that she recognizes her husband is the head of the home and responds to him accordingly without usurping his authority to herself.”[e] So in this schema, it is the husband who would be the “head of the household.”

Too much can be made of complimentarians who argue that wives must submit to their husbands as though the husband is a complete superior, and women have little value. The basis of a wife’s submission to her husband is obedience to the Lord and is motivated by love. Peter T. O’Brien, supporting a complimentarian view, is right to remind us, “Subordination smacks of exploitation and oppression that are deeply resented. But authority is not synonymous with tyranny, and the submission to which the apostle refers does not imply inferiority.”[f] Indeed, the vast majority of complimenarians in today’s Christianity encourage extreme respect and honor to be shown to women. A. Skevington Wood concurs, “He is not implying that women are inferior to men or that all women should be subject to men. The subjection, moreover, is voluntary, not forced.”[g] The issue at hand in Ephesians 5:23 is the relation of husbands and wives in marriage. O’Brien is quite specific to state,

“The apostle is not urging every woman to submit to every man, but wives to their husbands. The use of the middle voice of this verb (cf. Col. 3:18) emphasizes the voluntary character of the submission.”[h]

It is also too much to say that the traditional perspective argues that a total and blinded obedience of wives to husbands is somehow taught or demanded by Paul (and likewise as though Paul would also argue blind obedience to civil government in Romans 13). This is not true at all, and not only of interpreters from the past century. Nineteenth Century commentator Adam Clarke emphasized that a wife must submit to her husband in “every lawful thing; for it is not intimated that they should obey their husbands in any thing criminal, or in any thing detrimental to the interests of their souls.”[i] If a husband is engaged in illegal activities, or activities that clearly violate God’s will and Law, then a wife is surely expected to resist.

Traditionalists hold to men and women being spiritual equals in the Lord, but advocate that a man’s position as leader is necessary for familial cohesion. F. Foulkes comments, “in the family, for its order and its unity, there must be leadership, and the leadership is that of the husband and father.”[j] But he goes on to describe how a married woman with equal rights in society may “make herself a career as well as her husband,” and how “the New Testament…[says] she may do so, provided that it does not mean the sacrifice of the divine pattern for home life.”[k] Most complimentarians today do not oppose women in the workplace, and would solely argue that the issue of male “headship” only concerns the husband as benevolent leader of his family. Christian complimentarians rightly argue against any kind of harsh or dictatorial leadership on behalf of the husband toward his wife and family.[l]

Egalitarianism

A second, and widely growing position in today’s evangelicalism, is that of egalitarianism. Egalitarians view Galatians 3:28 as meaning that Yeshua the Messiah has brought total equality to the genders, and that roles previously allowed for men in the Tanach can now be opened up for women.[m] The lexical definition of kephalē (kefalh) as “source” like that “of a river” (LS),[n] meaning the headwaters of a river, is something that egalitarians strongly appeal to.[o] When Paul says, “Messiah is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Messiah” (1 Corinthians 11:3), “head” as meaning “source” or “origin” is what is intended, as from the Godhead (ho Theos, o qeoß) came forth the Messiah, the Messiah is the Creator of the world including the man/Adam, and from the side of the man/Adam came Eve. Philip B. Payne asks how if kephalē/head here is to mean “authority,” “Why would Paul say that Christ is the authority of every male human being? Is there any sense in which Christ would be the authority over men but not over women? If so, that would undermine the very universal lordship of Christ.”[p]

In Ephesians 5:23, viewing kephalē/head as “source,” when Paul says that the husband is the “head” of his wife, it is to be a reminder of what Adam said of Eve: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23). Egalitarians strongly argue that “head” meaning any kind of “authority” in Ephesias 5:23 is something that interpreters have read into the text, not being supported by an ideal of male-female equality in the Lord. It is something more influenced by how in much of modern English, the term “head” is associated with leadership, not something always seen in Biblical Greek.

(The idea that most egalitarians are somehow “feminists,” because they advocate that men and women be given equal treatment in the Body of Messiah, is quite dumbfounded. Not withstanding a modern feminist movement that advocates abortion rights and worship of a mother goddess, historically the feminist movement has had many things that both Jews and Christians have supported. This would include things like: opposition to physical abuse and rape, wife beating, sexual harassment and exploitation, bride burning in countries like India, harsh physical labor in rural Africa, abortions of female children because they are female, and infirm female children being allowed to die because they are female. These are things that all complimentarians oppose.)[q]

Does Paul’s usage of “head” automatically equal “authority”? What does the Greek term kephalē (kefalh) really mean? There has actually been a considerable amount of ink spilled defending the view that kephalē should be viewed as “source” in some key Pauline texts describing gender roles,[r] and strong rebuttals issued holding to the position that kephalē means “authority.”[s] While it is easy to think that the debate over what kephalē means has been limited to the scholastic arena,[t] it is steadily making its way into materials more common to be accessed by the normal layperson. The publication Hard Sayings of the Bible, for example, describes how “Besides its literal, physical meaning (‘head of man or beast’), kephalē had numerous metaphorical meanings, including that of ‘source.’ It is this meaning that seems most suited to the texts (1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23) in which the relationship of husband and wife (or man and woman) is addressed.”[u]

In terms of the ongoing discussion over what kephalē really means throughout the Apostolic Scriptures, most especially in texts like Ephesians 5:23, Aida Besançon Spencer summarizes some important points to consider:

“For us ‘Who is head here?’ means ‘Who is the boss?’ Yet many excellent studies have been done in recent years to prove that ‘head’ (kephale) when used in Greek never stood for the decision maker. Such studies are reinforced by looking at the Bible. ‘Head’ or kephale can refer to a literal head (Matt. 8:20), to hair only (Acts 18:18), to the whole person (a synecdoche, a part representing the whole, as in Ex. 16:16), the top or foundation (Gen. 8:5; Matt 21:42), the source (Col. 2:19), life (Isa. 43:4; Acts 18:6), the first-born (Col. 1:18), and a blessing (Deut. 28:13, 44). What meaning does Paul have in mind in Ephesians 5:23? Whatever meaning Paul has in mind would in some way be analogous to Christ’s relationship to the church.”[v]

Spencer goes on to conclude that if it were Paul’s intention to use “head” as meaning decision-maker or authority figure, “he would have used arche or ‘ruler’ (as in Luke 12:11), or ‘judge’ or ‘mind’ (used in Philo as the dominant aspect of humans, e.g., Allegory II.5-8).”[w] One of the available definitions of archē (arch) is clearly, “an authority figure who initiates activity or process, ruler, authority” (BDAG).[x] Andrew T. Lincoln indicates something that we as Messianics should pay close attention to: “In its LXX usage, where it translated the Hebrew var, rōš, kefalh also took on at times the further connotations of that Hebrew term and had the force of determinative source or origin.”[y] Payne also asserts, “The LXX translators...almost always chose not to use kefalh when var means ‘leader,’” further claiming “This is compelling evidence that the vast majority of LXX translators did not regard kefalh as appropriate to convey the metaphorical meaning ‘leader.’”[z] Egalitarians would argue that “source” language is what is used in Ephesians 4:15-16 where Paul describes Yeshua as “head” of the body, also seen in Colossians 2:19 where Yeshua is the source of life for the ekklēsia, “the head, from whom the entire body [originates], being supplied and held together.” In Payne’s estimation for Ephesians 5:23, “The best solution is probably to translate kefalh as ‘source’ and add a note, ‘literally, “head.”’”[aa]

If “source” language for “head” is what is being used in Ephesians 5:23, then it only serves to reinforce the fact that husbands are to love their wives the same as their own bodies (Ephesians 5:28). The analogy made would be that Eve originated from Adam, and so the husband needs to think of the wife as personally originating from himself.[bb] In the view of Witherington, “It is of course quite true that Paul does not appear here in the guise of the modern feminist. He still speaks of the headship of the man in the family. But that headship has been transformed by the model of Christ.”[cc] It would not be a headship in terms of the husband being the only decision maker, but an equal partner along with his wife in the marriage experience. Any subordination of the wife within marriage is something that came as a direct result of the Fall (Genesis 3:16), and should now be a status reversed by the work of Yeshua (Galatians 3:28).

The issue of viewing “head” as “source” for egalitarians in Ephesians 5:23 is that there is a mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21, 30) which is to be seen in the Body of Messiah, which is a distinct manifestation of Believers’ being filled by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18) and being changed by God’s love. Husbands are to treat their wives the same as they would themselves, as opposed to husbands being absolute autocrats—something that was surely affluent in Greco-Roman society. Egalitarians remind us that while Paul’s words about submission are also given in a context where slaves are to submit to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-9), masters were required to submit to slaves if they were Believers (as Paul implies in Philemon). As is further stated, “we are [all] members of His body” (Ephesians 5:30), which for the marriage relationship means “each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband” (Ephesians 5:33).

The value of a good wife to a good husband is not an exclusive concept to Paul. Proverbs 31:10-11 declares, “An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain.” This section of the Tanach actually depicts a husband and wife partnership in business, with the two working together for the mutual benefit of their household (Proverbs 31:12-27). While there may be a great deal of discussion of the male as “head of the household,” egalitarians point out that such language is not seen in the Apostolic Scriptures—and they would be correct.[dd] This phraseology is instead derived directly from Hellenistic philosophy; it was Aristotle who said “the head of the household rules over both wife and children” (Politics 1.1259a).[ee] A more literal rendering of kai gar gunaikos archei kai teknōn (kai gar gunaikoß arcei kai teknwn)[ff] might instead be, “rules over wife and children,”[gg] but the point taken is that the verb archō (arcw) appears here, related to the noun archē (arch)—and not kephalē/head as used in Ephesians 5:23.

Plutarch later taught, “So is it with women also; if they subordinate themselves to their husbands, they are commended, but if they want to have control, they cut a sorrier figure than the subjects of their control. And control ought to be exercised by the man over the woman, [but] not as the owner has control over a piece of property” (Advice to Bride and Groom 142e).[hh]

Considering these ancient sentiments, egalitarians often argue that the premise for male “headship” equaling “authority” is something that first affected First Century B.C.E.-C.E. Judaism, having adopted some Hellenistic cultural norms in treating women, going off the Biblical mark. These are Hellenistic views of women that likewise made their way into the emerging Christian Church of the Second Century. Craig S. Keener notes how “Some marriages may have been nearly equal, with husbands and wives working in the market together; but the ideal model propagated in ancient society was that wives should be submissive and obedient, often even slavishly so.”[ii]

Viewing kephalē/head as “source” is changing a great deal of contemporary thought in today’s evangelical Christianity. It has helped men have a much higher view of women, and it has helped women see that they need not allow themselves to suffer any kind of “Biblically-based” harassment and/or abuse from men simply because they are female. How Ephesians 5:23 is interpreted in evangelical theology in the days ahead will be a continuing debate, specifically as it regards the ordination of female clergy.[jj] This is a debate that will affect today’s Messianic movement sooner than many currently think, as it is directly related to the already present discord and battling over Jewish and non-Jewish equality and inclusion.

While a great deal of background material must be considered in properly interpreting Ephesians 5:22-23, it would be a mistake for us to overlook the important Christology here. Paul has said that “the husband is the head of the wife, as Messiah also is the head of the [assembly],” ho Christos kephalē tēs ekklēsias (o Cristoß kefalh thß ekklhsiaß). The reason He is the “head” of the assembly is because He is “the Savior of the body,” Sōter tou sōmatos (swthr tou swmatoß). Messiah being the Savior of His Body is a concept directly taken from the Tanach, where the Lord God is depicted as the Savior of His people (Deuteronomy 32:15; 1 Samuel 10:19; Psalm 24:5; Isaiah 12:2; 45:15; 62:11; Micah 7:7; Habakkuk 3:18). The usage of Yeshua being head of the Body, here, leads me to conclude that Ephesians 4:15-16 is what is more in view, as opposed to Ephesians 1:22. The power and vitality of Yeshua as Divine Savior comes from the head to the rest of His Body—us as Believers. Yeshua is the Source in Heaven of what His people on Earth are supposed to be.

The teaching for husbands here is that being the “source” of their wives, they are to act toward their wives the same way that Yeshua has done for all people—sacrificing themselves if need be.

The concept of Biblical submission for the Body of Messiah begins with the main admonition, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Messiah” (Ephesians 5:21). From this mutual submission to one another, the wife is to submit to her husband (Ephesians 5:22, 24). She is to respect her husband because he is her kephalē (“head”), correctly meaning her origin as Eve came from Adam (Ephesians 5:23; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3, Grk.). Husbands demonstrate a submission to their wives via a manifestation of the love Yeshua Himself demonstrated, by dying for His followers (Ephesians 5:25-27). Most significant and subversive for the ancient period, is how “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies” (Ephesians 5:28), a testament to how woman came from man as her head/source. Jewish and classical history are both replete with examples of how women were commonly treated as either the significant inferiors of men, or sub-human to some degree.[kk] Here, Paul expresses how “no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Messiah does the [assembly]” (Ephesians 5:29). A husband is to treat his wife the same way he would treat himself. The relationship and oneness that husband and wife are to have together is to teach Believers important things about the relationship that the Messiah has to the ekklēsia (Ephesians 5:30-32).

The significant requirement that the Apostle Paul places on the husbands in Asia Minor is, “husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (Ephesians 5:28). While one can certainly see a reaffirmation of one loving his neighbor as himself,[ll] loving one’s neighbor is not as specific as husbands loving their wives hōs ta heautōn sōmata (wß ta eautwn swmata)—“as their own bodies.” Presumably, the same careful attention and respect that a husband shows his own body, is the same kind of attention that he should now show toward his wife. As Paul has said it previously in 1 Corinthians 7:4, “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” The mutual responsibility does not just relate to spirituality or personal attitudes, but what a man or woman does with the human body God has framed, as the Psalmist declares “for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

(The commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic has much more to say regarding the issues of Ephesians 5:21-6:9).

NOTES

posted 14 June, 2011

Mark 7:19: What does it mean that “Jesus declared all foods clean”? Does this mean that the kosher dietary laws were abolished by the Messiah? I am confused.

Many Christians will readily admit that Yeshua, as a First Century Jew, observed the dietary commandments of the Torah. But, they will say that Yeshua abolished the kosher laws in the Gospels. Did Yeshua truly abrogate these commandments as many Christians believe? Mark 7:18-19 is often used as a proof text to say that the Messiah annulled kashrut law:

“And He said to them, ‘Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?’ (Thus He declared all foods clean.)” (NASU).

Many will examine these two verses, here quoted from the New American Standard, and then make their case that Yeshua did indeed “declare all foods clean.” But in order to understand what He is truly saying here, we must consider the entire scope of His statements, and examine the Greek source text.

Previously, Mark 7:1-5 tells us, “The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, ‘Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?’”

Notice that the issue that this group of Pharisees brings against Yeshua relates to His Disciples eating with unwashed hands. These Pharisees held to a tradition that required them to “give their hands a ceremonial washing” (NIV) or “wash the hands to the wrist” (YLT), before eating, which is what Yeshua’s Disciples failed to do. This, and related traditions, are described in the Mishnah tractate Yadayaim.

It is with this background that Yeshua tells these Pharisees that what goes into a person does not defile him, but it is what comes out of a person that does. This spiritual principle is by far what is most important as Proverbs 12:18 tells us, “There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing,” as what we say can be administered as a deadly weapon. However, even though this is true, this does not suddenly negate or make unimportant the need to eat as God has told us. These Pharisees were making an issue out of an extra-Biblical tradition in regard to ritualistic hand washing before eating. Author David Friedman makes the following important observations from his book They Loved the Torah:

“In this passage, Yeshua nowhere negated the validity of kashrut. To do so would contradict his statement of Matthew 5:17-18, where he said he had not come to abolish the Law. Instead, Yeshua was teaching about the misconceptions of the ~yydy tlyjn (Hebrew, n’tilat yadayim, the ritual hand washing before meals). The group of Pharisees in this text always carried out this ritual hand washing before each meal, believing that not to do so according to their specific method would cause a person to be ritually defiled. Therefore, Yeshua said, ‘To eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.’ That is, not performing the ritual hand-washing ceremony according to the method of this group of first-century Pharisees did not make one impure before God, and thereby did not obligate the person to cleanse himself ritually.”[a]

Another description of this comes later in Matthew 15:1-2: “Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Yeshua from Jerusalem and said, ‘Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’”

Friedman makes another important observation, “In Matthew 15:2, [this] is considered a type of ‘tradition of the elders.’ In the Greek text paradosin twn presbuterwn (paradosin ton presbuteron) reflects the Hebrew concept twbah ytrwsm (masortey ha’avot, or ‘traditions of the fathers’) and not a mandated mitzvah [commandment] from the Torah. This concept denotes the development of traditions, not necessarily found in the Torah, which deal with how to perform a certain mitzvah.”[b]

The Complete Jewish Bible renders Mark 7:19 as “Thus he declared all foods ritually clean,” meaning that it was unnecessary to participate in the extra-Biblical ceremonial hand washings to eat. This rendering could be valid, however the Greek text does not say, “Thus He declared” in it at all. It simply reads katharizōn panta ta brōmata (kaqarizwn panta ta brwmata). Literally what this means is “purging all the foods” (LITV).

There is a debate in Bible translation regarding how katharizōn panta ta brōmata should be translated. The majority of modern English versions render it as “Thus he declared all foods clean” (NRSV) or something close. Many English versions render this phrase in parenthesis ( ), indicating the opinion of some that this statement may have been added by a scribe in later centuries to clarify Yeshua’s words. However, there has always been the long-standing minority opinion that “purging all the foods” is the more accurate translation. Robert A. Guelich remarks, “Others view this as a possible anacoluthon drawing an obvious, if sarcastic, conclusion that the digestive process ‘cleanses all foods.’”[c]

In the context of Mark 7, Yeshua says that it is not eating with unwashed hands that makes one unclean, but what goes into a person’s heart. He then finishes His discourse with saying that food, which Biblically does not include pork or shellfish, eaten with unwashed hands does not defile a person: “This is because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the wastebowl, purging all the foods” (Mark 7:19, LITV). That food which is eaten with unwashed or dirty hands is processed by the natural functions of the body and “is eliminated, thus purifying all foods” (NKJV).

Two liberal English translations, surprisingly enough, properly render Mark 7:19. The New Covenant by Willis J. Barnstone renders it as “since it doesn’t enter the heart but the stomach, and goes into the sewer, purging all foods.”[d] The Original New Testament by Hugh J. Schonfield says, “because it enters his stomach, not his mind, and is evacuated in the toilet.”[e]

“Thus He declared” is an addition by Bible translators that is not in the Greek text. On the contrary, the text speaks of a person’s bodily elimination of food by excretion. This is confirmed by the parallel passage in Matthew 15:17: “Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?”

Yeshua the Messiah did not abrogate the Biblical dietary commandments in Mark 7. He criticized a group of Pharisees for their ritualistic handwashing and said that food eaten with unwashed hands was not unacceptable. But at the same time He also said that what is more important is what comes out of a person’s mouth. Those of us who follow the dietary commandments need not be harsh to those who do not. We need to speak words of encouragement and life into these people that the Holy Spirit may convict them to fully obey the Lord.

NOTES

posted 13 November, 2006

Mark of the Beast: What do you believe the mark of the beast is, or will be?

Revelation 13:16-17 tells us, “And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.” The mark of the beast is received by those who follow after the antimessiah/antichrist, and is required for them to conduct in commerce. Given the advent of modern technology and electronic transactions, it is possible to say that the mark of the beast will probably be some kind of microchip or biotechnology implant. There will be seemingly “logical reasons” given by global authorities in the future for the necessity of such implants, including the dangers of identity theft and terrorism. Nevertheless, the eternal fate of those who take the mark of the beast is not a pleasant one:

“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Revelation 14:11).

Consult the editor’s article “What is the Mark of the Beast?” for a more detailed discussion of this issue.

updated 13 November, 2006

Matthew 5:17-19: How can you say that the Law of Moses is still to be followed by Christians today, when it is quite clear that “Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law.”

NOTES

posted 08 March, 2011

Matthew 10:28: How can your ministry adhere to an ongoing punishment for the condemned in the Lake of Fire, when Yeshua Himself clearly says that the condemned will be destroyed?

In Matthew 10:28 Yeshua says, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The emphasis of His remark is clearly that we are to fear God, versus fearing human beings. While human beings might have the power to kill a person, God has the power to do something much worse. What this something actually is, however, is debated among expositors.

The traditional view of eternal punishment is often that the unrighteous condemned will be eternally tormented in a literal Lake of Fire, concurrent with Revelation 14:11, “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” Many evangelical interpreters believe that the unrighteous condemned will be punished in a literal Lake of Fire, with literal fire and smoke and brimstone. Many others, however, believe that the images of fire, smoke, and brimstone are only representative, and that they were the worst images that a First Century Jew could conjure up in regard to God’s punishment on sinners. A metaphorical view of eternal punishment, while adhering to the Lake of Fire as an ongoing punishment, holds that the images of the Lake of Fire are often representative of the separation that the unrighteous will experience, not to be pressed too literally. What both a traditional and metaphorical view of eternal punishment have in common is that they consider the condemned to suffer a judgment that never ends.

Annihilationism is the idea that the process of being eternally condemned is not something that is ongoing. Rather, what is ongoing is only the effect of being eternally condemned, and the unrighteous are merely snuffed out of existence. The primary Scripture that annihilationism is based on is Matthew 10:28, and annihilationists make the strong point of indicating that Yeshua says to fear Him “who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Since it would seem that God will destroy the condemned, it is assumed that this means that rather than punish them indefinitely forever, that He will simply obliterate them from existence. Hence, this is why proponents of this view are often called annihilationists. There are annihilationsts present in the Messianic movement, but there are also annihilationists in evangelical Christianity and liberal Christianity as well.

Advocates of annihilationism pay particular attention to the English word “destroy,” and insist that God will “destroy” sinners in the Lake of Fire, when in English itself “destroy” has a wider variety of definitions than just “wipe out of total existence.” Indeed, the main English definitions of destroy include: “to tear down, demolish,” “to ruin,” “to do away with,” and “to kill.”[a] “Destroy” in an entirely English context need not be what annihilationists insist it means. “Destroy” can very well mean existing in a completely decrepit and demolished or ruined state—as opposed to meaning completely extinct.

Not surprisingly, the Greek verb apollumi (apollumi), used in Matthew 10:28, likewise has considerable variance. Some possible definitions of this verb include: “‘To destroy,’ ‘kill,’ in battle or prison;” “to suffer loss or lose,” “to perish,” and “to be lost.”[b] A related noun, apōleia (apwleia), likewise means “destruction,” “ruin,” “perishing,” or “loss.”[c] AMG notes that in many cases, “the verb must not be thought of as indicating extinction, but only change from one state of being to another. Nothing actually becomes extinct, but everything changes.”[d] So, when we apply the definition of “ruin, destroy” (BDAG)[e] for apollumi, we cannot insist on a strict definition of “destroy” as meaning “obliterated out of existence.”

On the contrary, when we take into consideration the varied usages of apollumi throughout the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, including references to ruined wineskins (Matthew 9:17), lost sheep (Matthew 15:24), and rotten food (John 6:27), it is perfectly valid for one to interpret Matthew 10:28 as meaning something other than complete and total annihilation. Synthesizing all of the varied applications of apollumi, Matthew 10:28 can be rendered with “fear Him who is able to utterly ruin both soul and body.” With this rendering, the reality of an ongoing, eternal punishment is maintained—while recognizing that the condemned sinner is going to undergo a severe change for the worst.

Many are agreed that the closest Hebrew equivalent for apollumi is the verb avad (dba), as avad is typically rendered with apollumi in the Greek Septuagint. Apollumi is rendered as l’avdan (!dbal) is used in the UBSHNT in Matthew 10:28, and gives us some clues as to what Yeshua may have orally spoken.

In the Qal stem (simple action, active voice), avad can mean “become lost,” “go astray,” “perish,” “be ruined,” or “be carried off” (CHALOT).[f] In the Piel stem (intensive action, active voice), avad can mean “give up as lost,” “let perish,” “destroy,” and “dissipate” (CHALOT).[g] These definitions provide us with the same array of options that apollumi gives, regarding how we are to consider the “destruction” of the wicked as either a complete annihilation, or utter ruin/devastation. In the Hebrew Scriptures, avad is used to represent utter defeat (Joshua 1:7), the overthrow of a nation (Deuteronomy 28:51), as well as the taking of a life (Exodus 10:7; Leviticus 23:30; Deuteronomy 7:10, 20; 2 Kings 10:19). Avad can likewise refer to the enslavement or loss of a people (Numbers 21:29), as well as broken objects (Psalm 31:12).

Avad has the same basic array of meanings as does apollumi. From this connection and the uses of avad, must we likewise insist upon an annihilation of the unrighteous condemned?

While exegetically, both the verbs apollumi and avad allow for the “destruction” of the wicked to be something other than annihilation (namely being “utterly ruined” for eternity), the question of what will actually occur is ultimately one of ideology. If one believes that a loving God could never eternally torment sinners in some way or another, then one’s examination of the Scriptures will reflect this belief. Likewise, if one believes that a loving God would not allow sinners to only be “snuffed out,” and that an ongoing punishment is the only just punishment, then one’s examination of the Scriptures will reflect this belief. But note that the One who will dispense such punishment is God Himself. The punishment that is meted out upon the unrighteous condemned can only be something that an Eternal Being can deliver. Are there things worse than being dead for eternity, meaning snuffed out of existence and annihilated? This is a question that will continue to be debated, as each interpreter has to decide which value judgment to make.

The message of the gospel, though, is that no one has to experience such punishment. All of us can eternally commune with the Lord and be spared from the eternal fate that awaits those who reject Him.

NOTES

posted 29 August, 2007

Messiah, Confirms the Covenant: How do you respond to the teaching which says that the Messiah confirms the covenant of Daniel 9:27?

There has been a particular interpretation of Daniel 9:25-27 circulating among many Christians, and to our deep concern, among some Messianic Believers as well. This interpretation claims that it is not the antimessiah/antichrist that makes or confirms the “covenant with many,” but rather that it is actually Yeshua the Messiah. A careful reading of the Biblical text will show this interpretation to be flawed and actually supportive of antinomianism. Let us review these verses.

To set the stage, Daniel 9:25-26 tells us “you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.”

The occurrence of the first seven weeks and then the sixty-two weeks took place from the decree issued to Nehemiah that the Temple in Jerusalem was to be rebuilt to the point of Yeshua’s “cutting off.” This cutting off was His crucifixion and death. After this, we are told that “The people of a prince yet to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” (Daniel 9:26, CJB).

It is important that we understand that the prince who is to come in the future is not the Messiah. He is a descendant of the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E., a destruction that took place after the Messiah’s being “cut off.” It is not the Messiah that makes or confirms the covenant in Daniel 9:27, but it is this other leader, for “He will make a strong covenant with leaders for one week of years” (CJB).

The alternative view held by some today is that the Messiah confirmed “the covenant” through His ministry on Earth. Because Yeshua’s ministry lasted roughly three-and-a-half years, it is said that the first half of the Seventieth Week has already occurred. All that remains now is a three-and-a-half year Great Tribulation where the Holy Spirit will be poured out incredibly upon Believers so they can perform miracles greater than He did.

Although we will not deny the admonitions in Scripture of the Holy Spirit being poured out on the saints in the Last Days (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18), Yeshua warns us very strongly that “False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect” (Mark 13:22, NRSV; cf. Matthew 24:24). Adherents of this interpretation, many of whom are found in charismatic or Pentecostal-type arenas, are usually led more by their emotions of wanting to see “the Spirit poured out,” rather than rationally and realistically exegeting the Scriptural text. There can be a danger in wanting to see “the Spirit poured out” that can cause misinterpretations.

In addition to not accepting this interpretation because the “he” of Daniel 9:26-27 is the prince of the people who destroyed Jerusalem (the Romans), we as Messianics must not accept it even more so on the basis of what Yeshua’s “cutting off” is believed to be. As it is commonly asserted that if it is Yeshua who confirmed “the covenant,” likewise then He is the One who will put “a stop to sacrifice and grain offering” (Daniel 9:27b). According to most adherents we have encountered, who are in mainstream Christianity, this means that He terminated all the functions of the Torah or the Law of Moses from the animal sacrifices to the Sabbath to the Biblical holidays to the dietary requirements. This, as should be obvious, is a position that we, as Torah obedient followers of the Lord, must reject.

If we accept this interpretation, then who are the people that destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? Adherents of this belief run into a serious problem here. The pagan people who destroyed Jerusalem were the Romans who had no regard for the God of Israel and who were not “Yeshua the Prince’s people.” More notably, the Messiah Himself tells us to look for the Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24:15-21. If we follow through, are we to assume that He, Yeshua, is the One who commits it in Daniel 9:27? Surely not.

If we accept the belief that it was the Messiah who confirmed the covenant of Daniel 9:27, then the logical end is that we also dispense with the Torah, as have many proponents of this interpretation. We must likewise conclude that it is Yeshua who commits the Abomination of Desolation, and not the antimessiah.

The Messiah’s words in Matthew 5:17-19 stand very clearly against this. Yeshua said that the authority of the Torah stands until Heaven and Earth pass away. Even more important, we must understand that animal sacrifices will be occurring in the Millennial Kingdom, so it is impossible that He has terminated the validity of the Torah—including these ordinances. (Consult our FAQ entry Sacrifices, in the Millennium.) The sacrifice of Yeshua is certainly superior to the animal sacrifices of the Temple, but the Book of Acts is clear that the Apostles continued to participate in the Temple service as long as the Temple stood, and would have understood the animal sacrifices as a memorial of the Messiah’s final sacrifice. It is obvious here that it is the antimessiah/antichrist who stops the sacrifices during the middle of the Seventieth Week, not the Messiah.

The assertion that there is a “Seventieth Week of Messiah” is misguided and as Messianic Believers we should not accept it—unless we are prepared to become antinomians against the Torah and believe that Yeshua the Messiah commits the Abomination of Desolation.

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

posted 13 April, 2006

Messianic: What does it mean to be “Messianic”?

Aside from the fact that semantically, the terms “Messianic” and “Christian” mean the same things—both detailing a belief in the Anointed One or Messiah/Christ—probably the biggest difference between the belief systems of “Christianity” and “Messianism,” if the latter can be termed that, is that being Messianic entails a much stronger connection to the practices of the Hebrew Bible or “Old Testament,” such as the seventh-day Sabbath or Shabbat, the appointed times of Leviticus 23, the kosher dietary laws, and regular (often weekly) study of the Torah.

When we refer to being “Messianic” on this website, it is to identify with a readily available movement within the “Christian world” which places a very high emphasis on the Hebraic origins of our faith, most of which are not necessarily emphasized in many Christian churches. Although we would certainly point out that doctrinally there are many similarities between mainline evangelical Christianity and the Messianic movement, there can be differences in regard to ecclesiology (the study of God’s elect) and Torah application. But just as Christianity itself is quite diverse, so is the emerging Messianic movement.

Consult the editor’s article “Introduction to Things Messianic” for a more detailed discussion.

updated 13 November, 2006

Messianic Judaism, Negativity Toward Two-House Teaching: Why do you think that Messianic Judaism exhibits a great disgust and disdain toward the Two-House teaching? Why can I not get my Messianic Jewish friends to be reasonable and sit down and examine the Scriptures?

The question of why today’s Messianic Jewish movement is largely negative toward the Two-House teaching of Judah and Ephraim is very complicated. On the one hand, many Messianic Jews feel that Messianic non-Jews who believe themselves to be “returning Ephraim” are trying to usurp the position of being Israel from them, and by extension Judaism as a whole. When a Messianic non-Jew enters into a Messianic Jewish congregation and possibly claims that he is of the “Tribe of X,” when no proof is given and the Jewish person knows that he is of the Tribe of Judah or Levi, some extreme skepticism is rightly displayed. Furthermore, there are many independent Messianic non-Jews who in a quest to become Torah obedient, disregard or are hostile to a great deal of Jewish custom and tradition as though it has no validity. This negativity toward Judaism is only responded in kind by Messianic Jews who will disregard any Scriptural reference to the restoration of all Israel.

The solution to these problems is not difficult to see on paper, but is rather difficult to emulate in practice. When any of us emphasizes the Two-House teaching of Judah and Ephraim, we must first recognize the Jewish leadership of Israel. Without Judaism and the Jewish people, almost all of us would be lost without any form of Israel, a Bible, and most significantly Yeshua the Messiah. What any of us read about the Two Houses of Israel regarding the division of Israel into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms is undeniably written from the perspective of the Southern Kingdom. The Biblical Books of 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles were compiled from the royal annals of the Kingdom of Judah. It would be best for anyone teaching about the Two Houses of Israel to have it rooted in the history of Scripture and the traditions that we see in Judaism.

If emphasized as a part of the Jewish eschatological expectation, Messianic Jews should hopefully not have a problem with the Two-House teaching—or at least not casually disregard it as “heresy.” Unfortunately because of a great deal of sensationalism, both on the pro- and anti-Two-House side, Messianic Judaism today widely discounts the Two-House teaching as having any validity. This may be in response to the fact that proponents of the Two-House teaching largely do not emphasize the unification of the House of Judah, scattered House of Israel/Ephraim, and the nations as eschatology—ultimately being the message of the restoration of God’s Kingdom on Earth via the return of the Messiah—but instead as some newfound “identity.” Furthermore, Messianic Judaism’s inability to want to discuss this subject in a reasonable manner may be symptomatic of the fact that it does not have a very developed eschatology, as the Two-House teaching is firmly rooted in an understanding of the Last Days.

The only major solution to the negativity that exists in Messianic Judaism today is for Two-House proponents to see how they can refine their understanding so it does not become any kind of “racial teaching,” but rather one that is consistent with how mainline Judaism expects to see all Israel reunited. God is the only One who can identify anyone as “this tribe” or “that tribe,” and ultimately as people from all over the world, whether native born of Israel or not, are involved in the restoration of all Israel. Messianic non-Jews in the Two-House movement need to become more sensitive and appreciative toward Jewish custom and tradition related to the Torah, and recognize the Jewish leadership of Israel. Perhaps then some of the rhetoric that we see against this teaching from Messianic Judaism can be toned down, and we can realistically examine it from the Bible.

For a further discussion of this issue, consult the editor’s article “The Ephraimite Error: Critical Errors.”

posted 11 December, 2006

Messianic Terms, not exclusively used: Why do you not exclusively use Messianic terms in your writings?

TNN Online is a large website with information detailing a wide range of Biblical subjects. As such, we receive an incredibly large amount of visitors whose Scriptural views range from the far Left to the far Right, with many views expressed in-between. We receive many inquiring Christian visitors in addition to Messianic visitors. With this understood, we find it necessary to meet many people where they currently are in their walk with the Lord.

Some Messianic Believers with whom we fellowship wonder why we do not exclusively use Hebraic terms or names in our writings. There are many Messianic websites on the Internet which have the same kind of outreach to Christians as we do and find that if they do not use familiar English names and titles such as Jesus, Christ, Lord, and God then they will “lose” their readers. We have kept the use of the English name of our Messiah, Jesus, to a minimum, but believe that it can be a major stumbling block to people to use terms that they are entirely unfamiliar with. The principal Messianic terms that we use are: Yeshua, Messiah, and Torah. With some notable exceptions, we have limited ourselves to only these three.

Certainly, we have no hesitancy to talk about Yeshua the Messiah or Jesus Christ, because they are both the Same Person. However, we do need to be “all things to all people” and if we were to exclusively refer to both our Savior and Biblical figures by Hebrew names many would not understand us. So, we do find it necessary to use, even at a minimum, our Messiah’s English name so we can readily emphasize to mainline Christians who access TNN Online that we do worship the same God and serve the same Lord.

updated 13 November, 2006

Mixed Fibers: What do you think about Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11 and wearing clothes of mixed fibers? These Scriptures do not seem very clear.

Leviticus 19:19 says, “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.” It lists a variety of forbidden mixtures, not only pertaining to kinds of materials or cloth, but also breeding different kinds of cattle and different kinds of seed. The challenge in interpreting this text correctly does not relate to the principle that we are not to mix things or have an imbalance of them, but how we apply this today in the clothes we wear. Based on this verse alone, it would seem that we can only wear clothes that are of one type of fabric.

Many Messianics can get confused from this verse, because of the simple reason that many clothes today are made of mixed threads or different types of fabrics. One of the most common types of mixed fabric today is cotton and polyester. Does this mean that we are to throw out all of those clothes that have synthetic fabrics in them?

It is important that we let the Scriptures interpret themselves here. Deuteronomy 22:11 clarifies what is said by telling us, “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.” Here, the text is specific and indicates that a mixture of wool and linen is prohibited. This is because the combined fibers of wool and linen are a poor combination and that garments made of this mixture will wear out very easily. This is to be contrasted with mixtures today such as cotton and polyester, which is actually very strong and versatile.

We need to interpret these verses together, noting that they forbid us from mixing wool and linen. We do not believe that it forbids the mixing of organic and synthetic fabrics. This commandment was originally given in an Ancient Near Eastern context where linen and wool were the two major fabrics. It was not given in a time when more diverse organic fabrics, in addition to synthetic fabrics, would exist.

updated 13 November, 2006

Moses, Write the Entire Torah?: Do you honestly believe that Moses wrote the entire Torah or Pentateuch? How could Moses have written that he was the “humblest man who ever lived,” or have written about his own death?

There are two points of view which are often espoused relating to the written origins of the Torah. Among fundamentalist Jews and Christians, it is believed that the Written Torah that exists, Genesis-Deuteronomy, was entirely written by Moses himself, and has been preserved perfectly since the Ancient Israelites were in the wilderness. The exact opposite of this, believed by liberal Jews and Christians, is that the Torah was compiled after the Babylonian exile, by the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P) classes of, or sources from, Israelite society. This theory, commonly called the JEDP documentary hypothesis, advocates that Moses did not write the Torah, but rather these writings are attributed to Moses and that the Torah as it exists today is largely a product of the post-Babylonian exile. The majority in the Messianic movement believe that Moses wrote the entire Torah, whereas most in liberal Judaism and Christianity believe that Moses did not write it.

We believe that Moses is the principal author or compiler of the first five books of Scripture, the Chumash or Pentateuch, himself. There are parenthetical phrases that were likely written at another date. Genesis 14:14 is a glaring example of this, appearing very early in the text, where Abraham pursues Lot’s kidnappers “as far as Dan.” This appears long before the Israelites enter into the Promised Land and ascribed geographical place names to where they settle. Some would say that since Moses was a prophet, he prophesied this into being, but that is doubtful given the fact that this is a place name, and not an event. This was obviously a textual addition added at a later date to clarify for readers where Abraham actually pursued. It does not subtract from the value of the text, nor the event that takes place, nor does it subtract from essential Mosaic composition.

Numbers 12:3 says, “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.” In the NASB and NIV translations, the text actually appears in parentheses ( ). Truly, if Moses did live as the most humble man on the face of the Earth, at least at the time of writing this, then Moses’ being so humble would have prevented him from ever having written this. This likewise appears to be a textual addition to the Torah from a later date. In a similar vein, the final chapter of Deuteronomy details the death of Moses and how the Lord buried him. This is something that Moses could not have written about in such detail, but it does not immediately mean that it was written many centuries later as liberal critics of the Bible often claim. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics notes,

“Such scholars as R.D. Wilson, Merill Unger, Douglas Young, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and R.K. Harrison easily accept that the final chapter of Deuteronomy was likely appended by Joshua or someone else in Moses’ inner circle. This, in fact, supports the view of the continuity of the writing prophets, a theory that each successor prophet writes the last chapter of his predecessor’s book. The addition of a chapter on Moses’ funeral by another prophet is in accordance with the custom of the day in no sense takes away from the belief that Moses was the author of everything up to that final chapter.”[a]

There have been parenthetical additions to the Hebrew text of the Torah since the time of Moses. This does not subtract for the value of the text, the events that took place, and certainly not the message of the text. It also does not mean that Moses did not write or oversee the writing of the vast majority of the Torah, but it is to say that textual additions have been made along the way. We do not believe that Moses wrote that he was the humblest man on Earth, or about his own death. These were statements added by either someone in his inner circle, perhaps one of the seventy elders, or Joshua who succeeded him.

For a further discussion about these, and related issues, consult our varied FAQ entries on the composition of the books of the Bible. Also recommended is D.W. Baker, “Source Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, pp 798-805.

NOTES

updated 29 September, 2007

$20.00 including U.S. shipping & handling

$25.00 includes U.S. shipping & handling

$15.00 including U.S. shipping & handling

$21.00 including U.S. shipping & handling

$17.00 including U.S. shipping & handling