|
Nahum, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Nahum?
The Book of Nahum (Heb. Nachum,
~Wxn)
is a text containing this prophet’s vision
(1:1), and primarily concerns the fall of
Nineveh which occurred in 612 B.C.E. The name of
the prophet means “comfort” (3:7). Nahum appears
seventh among the Twelve Prophets of the Tanach,
but is listed after the Book of Jonah in the
Greek LXX (Harrison, 926). We know little about
Nahum himself, other than that he came from the
(unknown) village of Elkosh (1:1), and there are
various proposals offered as to where this place
was located in antiquity (Harrison, 926; Dillard
and Longman, 404).
Nahum is a brief, yet difficult
book to consider, as its principal focus is
God’s judgment upon Nineveh. It is a text rooted
in Biblical history, as the author attests to
the fall of the Egyptian city of Thebes or No
Amon (3:8-10), something that occurred in
663 B.C.E. With Nahum prophesying the fall of
Nineveh/Assyria, the period portrayed by the
text thus falls somewhere between 663-612 B.C.E.
Nahum was likely a contemporary of Zephaniah,
Habakkuk, and Jeremiah (NBCR, 762).
Often asserted by conservatives
is that Nahum was actually a “writing prophet”
(Harrison, 928; EXP, 7:452; Dillard and
Longman, 404). It is suggested that Nahum was a
writing prophet because of the eloquent
composition of his prophecies, which are
considered more eloquent than just oral accounts
of a prophet written down. Conservatives widely
accept that Nahum is predicting future events
regarding the defeat of Nineveh, not
reflecting back on events that have already
happened. Some propose a composition of around
625 B.C.E., about ten years before the fall of
Nineveh (ABD, 4:999).
Because of the detailed
description of the fall of Nineveh, liberals
often assert that the Book of Nahum was written
very close to the event, possibly immediately
after it. Some liberals adhere to a post-exilic
composition of Nahum (ABD, 4:999), and
may simply argue that “Nineveh is viewed as
paradigmatic of evil” (EDB, 943; cf.
ECB, 708). A common criticism of Nahum is
that it only depicts a vengeful God with no
mercy or compassion, and that the Prophet Nahum
is a nationalistic, perhaps even false prophet,
with no interest in anything but Israel (EDB,
943). However, one cannot overlook the fact that
in Nahum God is depicted as merciful (1:3; cf.
Exodus 34:6) and that Nahum quotes Isaiah’s
promise of peace for His people (1:15; cf.
Isaiah 52:7).
There are no significant
differences between the DSS and LXX versions of
Nahum. However, because of the unique poetry of
Nahum, studies in Ugaritic and of Neo-Assyrian
literature can aid in one’s examination of the
Hebrew of the text (ABD, 4:998).
The historical backdrop of Nahum
can aid one significantly in examining the text.
Assyria, represented by Nineveh, had already
conquered the Northern Kingdom and posed a
significant threat to the Southern Kingdom. The
Assyrians were extremely brutal and ruthless (EXP,
7:449-451; Dillard and Longman, 405), yet the
judgment upon Nineveh had been temporarily
averted per the work of Jonah (Jonah 3:4).
However, following the death of Ashurbanipal the
Babylonians began approaching upon Assyria
(Harrison, 927), by this time a waning power.
The Prophet Nahum cheered the fall of Nineveh as
part of the Divine justice of God. Notable
parallels exist between the Books of Nahum and
Isaiah (EXP, 7:454-456).
Nahum includes words directed to
both the Southern Kingdom Israelites (1:12-13)
as the Temple is mentioned (1:15), but more are
directed to the Ninevites (1:1, 14; 2:1, 13;
3:5-17,19). The judgment oracles issued include
vocabulary with varied moods present. The Book
of Nahum depicts God as being “slow to anger”
(1:3) and “a refuge in times of trouble” (1:7,
NIV), but also one “who will by no means clear
the guilty” (1:3, RSV). Difficult questions are
often asked of the interpreter, as Nahum does
depict a God who will judge the nations of the
world. An underlying theme seen in Nahum is that
while God will judge Nineveh for its sin, God
will also judge Judah should it fall into a
similar state. It is not impossible that Judah
was in its own tenuous political and spiritual
condition at the time of Nahum prophesying (NIDB,
689).
The message of Nahum for us today
is very clear: if we lose trust in God then we
are in severe danger. God is against those who
oppose Him (2:13; 3:5). The setting of Nahum’s
prophecies regarded the defeat of Nineveh and
the comfort of Judah (NBCR, 763).
Appropriating this, “The Qumran community saw
these theological issues and took comfort
because they believed God would destroy their
enemies” (ISBE, 3:479; cf. Harrison,
930). Both conservative and liberal interpreters
should be united around the fact that “the book
contains magnificent imagery as it contrasts the
awesome majesty of God with the ultimate
nothingness of some of the highest achievements
of human civilization” (ECB, 708).
The tone of the Book of Nahum is
harsh and it is very bloody, sadly keeping many
Christians away from examining it (Dillard and
Longman, 403, 408). From a typeological
standpoint, though, Nahum helps us to understand
Yeshua the Messiah as a warrior who will fight a
future battle against Satan and his armies. At
present, there is no significant Messianic
engagement with the Book of Nahum.
Bibliography
Amerding, Carl E. “Nahum,” in EXP,
7:449-489.
ben Zvi, Ehud. “Nahum,” in Jewish Study Bible,
pp 1219-1225.
Cathcart, Kevin J. “Nahum, Book of,” in ABD,
4:998-100.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Nahum,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 403-408.
Fraser, Alexander. “Nahum,” in NBCR, pp
762-766.
Harris, R. Laird. “Nahum, Book of,” in NIDB,
p 689.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Nahum,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
926-930.
Leslie, E.A. “Nahum, Book of,” in IDB,
3:498-499.
Nowell, Irene. “Nahum,” in New Interpreter’s
Study Bible, pp 1315-1319.
Nysee, Richard. “Nahum, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 943-944.
Rogerson, John W. “Nahum,” in ECB, pp
708-709.
Smith, G.V. “Nahum,” in ISBE, 3:477-479.
posted 18 September, 2007
Nazarenes,
Nazarene Israel:
What do you think about the movement known as
“Nazarene Israel” or “Nazarene Yisrael”?
While the groups invariably known
as “Nazarene Israel” or “Nazarene Yisrael” or
even “Nazarene Judaism” claim to have a Biblical
basis for their beliefs, we believe that most of
what they claim is poorly founded. The only
Biblical reference to the “Nazarenes” (Heb.
Netzarim or Natzarim,
~yrcN
UBSHNT) is found in Acts 24:5, where it is
attested that Paul is a member of a sect of
those believing in the Messiah Yeshua. The
problem with attesting that the “Nazarene
belief” is the original First Century faith
expression is the same problem with attesting
that this belief is the same as “the Way” (Acts
9:2). There is no one designation for Biblical
faith in Scripture, as Biblical faith is a
practice and outworking of one’s belief in the
Messiah—not a name like “Nazarene Israel,” or
even “Christianity.”
One of the most serious problems
with calling oneself a “Nazarene” in a Messianic
context is the fact that there is a Christian
denomination called the Church of the Nazarene
(an offshoot of the varied Wesleyan and holiness
traditions), so if one calls himself a
“Nazarene” in the context of being a Torah
observant follower of Yeshua, one runs the risk
of being associated with the Nazarene Church.
The groups known as “Nazarene
Israel” often base their beliefs on quotations
from various figures from Church history who
criticized Jewish Believers who continued to
follow the Torah. While it is true that there
was a group of Jewish Believers that called
themselves the “Nazarenes,” it is also true that
they had varied beliefs over Yeshua’s Divinity
and Messiahship and the canon of Scripture, just
as the Second and Third Century Church did. The
groups known as “Nazarene Israel” often fail to
recognize this, and build a mythos around the
fact that the “Nazarene belief” is the one true
faith. We believe this goes beyond the scope of
what we should be aiming for as the modern
Messianic movement which has a shared spiritual
heritage in both Judaism and
Christianity.
updated 14 November, 2006
Nazarene,
Yeshua Called:
What specific verse in the Tanach says that
Yeshua will be called a “Nazarene”? I could not
find any.
Matthew 2:23 records that Yeshua
the Messiah “came and lived in a city called
Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was
spoken through the prophets: ‘He shall be called
a Nazarene.’” The challenge for some
interpreters is the fact that no specific text
is being quoted. This is not unusual to see in
the Apostolic Scriptures by any means. Yeshua
Himself says in Matthew 26:54, “How then will
the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say
that it must happen this way?” Here, the Messiah
is speaking of the general sense or meaning of
the Tanach, not necessarily a specific verse.
James 4:5 also says, for example, “Or do you
think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose:
‘He jealously desires the Spirit which He has
made to dwell in us’?” Here, James appeals to
the general sense of Scripture from the Tanach,
rather than a specific verse or prophecy.
We see the same thing in
Matthew’s Gospel in Matthew 2:23, as it is
important for us to keep in mind that Matthew
references the “prophets,” indicating that he is
appealing to a theological concept evidenced in
several places in the Tanach. What is actually
being communicated by the statement, “He will be
called a Nazorean” (NRSV) has been a cause of
great discussion and some debate among Bible
interpreters and commentators.
What is likely being communicated
by Matthew is some kind of word play on the
terms nazir (ryzn),
primarily meaning “(s.one) dedicated,
consecrated” (CHALOT, 232), by extension
“a nazirite,” and the word “Nazarene” (Grk.
Nazōraios,
Nazwraioß),
meaning someone from the city of Nazareth. An
adequate description of a nazirite is given to
us in Judges 13:7, where Samson’s mother is told
how her son is to live:
“But he said to me, ‘Behold, you
shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now
you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat
any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a
Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his
death.’”
The Hebrew ki nezir Elohim
yihyeh (hyhy
~yhla ryzn-yK)
was rendered two different ways in the Greek
Septuagint, both of which would have been extant
in the First Century. The LXX(a) version has
naziraion Theou (naziraion
qeou)
or “nazirite of God,” whereas the LXX(b) version
has hagion Theou (agion
qeou),
“holy to God” (LXE). As Tim Hegg notes, “This
tells us that from a very early period, well
before the 1st Century, the idea of ‘holy one of
God’ and ‘Nazirite of God’ were linked through
the concurrent translations of Judges into
Greek” (The Gospel of Matthew, pp 69-70).
One did not necessarily have to take a “nazirite
vow” to be considered a holy person, which there
is no record of Yeshua ever doing. In Mark
1:23-24 we see Yeshua being Nazarēne (Nazarhne,
adjective) or “of Nazareth” connected to His
holiness:
“Just then there was a man in
their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he
cried out, saying, ‘What business do we have
with each other, Yeshua of Nazareth? Have You
come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy
One of God!’”
Matthew, seeing this concept
referred to in Mark’s Gospel, whose audience was
largely Roman and would have overlooked any
connection between “Nazareth” and “Holy One,” is
likely expounding upon this for his Jewish
audience, possibly using additional source
material (probably from what most scholars call
“Q”). His Jewish audience would have been
familiar with the terms nazir, or the
Septuagint renderings of naziraion Theou
or hagion Theou. Matthew’s emphasis, more
than anything else, is to connect the concept of
Yeshua being a Nazarene to His holiness.
Notably, one does not necessarily have to take a
“nazirite vow” to be considered holy, though as
Hegg notes, “Yeshua’s words at the last Pesach
[Passover], that He would not drink of the fruit
of the vine until He came into His kingdom, are
reminiscent of the Nazirite prohibition against
eating or drinking anything from the vine. The
same may be said of Yeshua’s refusal to accept
the wine while on the cross” (The Gospel of
Matthew, p 70).
A second, and more commonly
proposed view espoused by many Messianics is
that Matthew is making some kind of word play on
netzer (rcn),
meaning “sprout,
shoot
(of plant)” (CHALOT, 244),
or by extension “branch.” This would have
probably been a commonly known Hebrew word in
the First Century among both Jews in Israel and
the Diaspora, and does not require that
Matthew would have had to compose his Gospel in
Hebrew. It is commonly connected to prophecies
such as Isaiah 11:1:
“Then a shoot will spring from
the stem of Jesse, and a branch [netzer]
from his roots will bear fruit.”
This prophecy was viewed in a
Messianic context by the Jewish Sages, and is
appealed to various times by the Apostles
(Romans 15:12; 1 Peter 4:14; Revelation 5:5).
One of the challenges with holding
exclusively to this view, though, is the
fact that other Messianic prophecies applying to
Yeshua employ the Hebrew term tzemach (xmc)
for “branch”:
“‘Behold, the days are
coming,’ declares the
Lord,
‘When I will raise up for David a righteous
Branch [tzemach]; and He will reign as
king and act wisely and do justice and
righteousness in the land” (Jeremiah 23:5).
“In those days and at that time I
will cause a righteous Branch [tzemach]
of David to spring forth; and He shall execute
justice and righteousness on the earth”
(Jeremiah 33:15).
“Now listen, Joshua the high
priest, you and your friends who are sitting in
front of you—indeed they are men who are a
symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My
servant the Branch [tzemach]” (Zechariah
3:8).
“Then say to him, ‘Thus says the
Lord
of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch [tzemach],
for He will branch out from where He is; and He
will build the temple of the
Lord”
(Zechariah 6:12).
We can certainly consider the
words netzer and tzemach to be
synonyms, as the latter likewise means “growth,
what sprouts,” “shoot, bud” (CHALOT,
307). This would account for Matthew’s reference
to “the prophets,” as opposed to a singular
prophet (cf. Isaiah 11:1). Matthew, more than
anything else, relies on his audience’s
knowledge of knowing that the terms nazir,
naziraion, and “holy one” are all
connected with Yeshua being a “Nazarene.” The
major point that Matthew is emphasizing is that
Yeshua has been separated out as the Father’s
appointed servant and is the ideal of holiness.
Hegg validly states, “Yeshua, in all of His life
lived out the quintessential meaning of the
Nazirite vow, for He was the Holy One of God in
every way” (The Gospel of Matthew, p 71).
One need not go very far to understand this
connection and how it makes Yeshua a “Nazarene.”
For a further discussion of this
issue, we recommend you consult Tim Hegg’s Bible
study on the Gospel of Matthew, available at
www.torahresource.com. Also consult
TNN Online’s FAQ entry on composition data of
the
Gospel of Matthew.
posted 18 May, 2006
Nephilim:
Who do you believe that the Nephilim of Genesis
6 were? Do you believe that these were fallen
angels who had sexual relations with human
females?
There is a wide variety of
interpretations of Genesis 6:4, “The Nephilim
were on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the
daughters of men, and they bore children
to them. Those were the mighty men who were
of old, men of renown.” Both Jewish and
Christian theologians have struggled over what
the phrase “sons of God” means, debating over
whether it means righteous men joining ungodly
women, or “divine beings” (NJPS), meaning
angels, having sexual relations with human
females. If the latter is the case, then this
sin would have been one of the reasons why God
destroyed the inhabited Earth with the Flood.
This interpretation is actually reflected in the
writings of the First Century historian
Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews
1.73:
“[F]or many angels of God
accompanied with women, and begat sons that
proved unjust, and despisers of all that was
good, on account of the confidence that they had
in their own strength; for the tradition is,
That these men did what resembled the acts of
those whom the Grecians call giants.”
There are some allusions in the
Apostolic Scriptures to these fallen angels and
what God has done with them. Jude 6 says speaks
of “angels who did not keep their own domain,
but abandoned their proper abode,” telling us
that “He has kept in eternal bonds under
darkness for the judgment of the great day.” If
this can be applied to the Nephilim, it would
mean that God has reserved them in a special
place until the final judgment. 2 Peter 2:4
parallels this, indicating, that God “cast them
into hell and committed them to pits of
darkness, reserved for judgment.” The Greek
source text actually says “Tartarus” (YLT),
which would be a specific part of Hell for
judgment.
It is unlikely that
there will be a definite position established in
the Messianic community pertaining to who the
Nephilim actually were. Some, adhering to the
belief that the Nephilim of Genesis 6 were
fallen angels cohabitating with human women, and
coupling this with Yeshua’s words of Matthew 24
that the Last Days will be like the “days of
Noah,” believe that so-called alien and UFO
sightings are modern-day manifestations of the
appearance of Nephilim, making them demonic.
There is no specific reference of the appearance
of “aliens” in any of the prophetic texts which
relate to the Last Days, but certainly if
so-called extra-terrerestrials appear as a part
of the end-time scenario, we can certainly
consider them to be “Nephilim” and demonic in
origin.
updated 14 November, 2006
New Moon,
Rosh Chodesh:
Do you believe that Messianic Believers should
keep the New Moon?
The New Moon or Rosh Chodesh
is not listed as one of the Lord’s appointed
times of Leviticus 23. However, because the
Hebrew rosh chodesh (vdx
var)
means the same as “new month,” determining the
rosh chodesh is important as it relates
to the timing of the Biblical festivals.
Prophetically, in the Millennial Reign of
Yeshua, Rosh Chodesh is to be a time of
great rejoicing and festivity: “‘And it shall be
from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to
sabbath, all mankind will come to bow down
before Me,’ says the
Lord”
(Isaiah 66:23).
The problem with “keeping” the
New Moon is that the Bible itself is
by-and-large mute on how we are to keep it.
Numbers 29:6 describes “the burnt offering of
the new moon and its grain offering.” Psalm 81:3
says, “Blow the trumpet at the new moon, at the
full moon, on our feast day.” And the New Moon
is mentioned in Colossians 2:16, “Therefore no
one is to act as your judge in regard to food or
drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon
or a Sabbath day.” Because of the lack of
information in the written Scriptures themselves
about what do about the New Moon, we are forced
to turn to Jewish custom and tradition. The
JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions states the
following concerning Rosh Chodesh:
“Rosh Hodesh (lit., ‘head of the
month’) is the first day of the month, which
correlates with the sighting crescent of the new
moon. In a lunar calendar, each month has a
little more than 29 days…Originally it was the
Sanhedrin’s task to determine whether a
particular month had 29 or 30 days, based on the
visual observation of witnesses. The members of
the Sanhedrin gathered on the 30th of each month
and awaited testimony. If witnesses appeared,
Rosh Hodesh was celebrated, and that day was
counted as the first day of the next month. If
no witnesses appeared, the next day was
celebrated as Rosh Hodesh. To spread word that
the new month had begun, fires were lit on the
Mount of Olives and then successively throughout
Israel. Jews living far from Jerusalem always
celebrated Rosh Hodesh on the 30th day of the
month. When informed that it had been postponed
to the next day, they also celebrated that day.
“In ancient times, Rosh Hodesh
was considered an important holiday, observed
with great seriousness. Work was suspended,
special sacrifices were offered in the Temple,
the shofar was blown, and it was customary to
visit the prophet….
“After the destruction of the
Temple, the power to declare the day of the New
Moon passed to the head of the court at Yavneh.
During the fourth century C.E., however, the
Christian authorities in the Land of Israel
prohibited the dissemination of information
regarding the day of the New Moon. Consequently,
in about 360, Hillel II published a fixed
calendar based on astronomical calculations…thus
freeing Jewish communities from having to rely
on the declaration by the high court in the Land
of Israel.
“….Although the importance of
Rosh Hodesh as a religious festival has declined
and it retains only a shadow of its former
prominence, the Rosh Hodesh service contains
three liturgic elements that raise it to the
level of the intermediate days of the major
festivals. Ya’aleh v’Yavo…is included in
the morning Amidah…, the half Hallel
is recited…, and there is a Musaf service
that recounts the sacrifices that were offered
in the Temple on that day. As a joyous, though
minor, festival, Tachanun…is not recited,
fasting is forbidden, any funeral service is
abbreviated, and it is tradition to partake in a
festive meal” (pp 166-167).
Many of those in the independent
Messianic community who attempt to observe
Rosh Chodesh do not tend to observe it as
described above. While the New Moon is to be
observed to determine when a New Month begins,
in Biblical times it was to be validated by the
Sanhedrin. Today, the closest thing we have to
the Sanhedrin are the Rabbinical Jewish
authorities who publish the Jewish calendars
that are used today. If we are to observe
Rosh Chodesh, it must be with this in mind,
as Yeshua did validate us taking the lead of the
Pharisees, recognizing that they sat in Moses’
seat (Matthew 23:1-3). The Pharisees today would
be represented in the Jewish authorities, and
any future Sanhedrin that may be established to
determine when the New Moon is and when the
dates are for us to celebrate the appointed
times or moedim. We should observe
Rosh Chodesh the same way as the Jewish
community.
updated 06 February, 2006
New Testament, Written in Hebrew:
Do you believe that the New Testament was
originally written in Hebrew?
There has been a great deal of
misinformation circulating throughout the
Messianic movement that relates to the
composition of the Bible, particularly the
Apostolic Scriptures or the New Testament.
Asserting that the Apostolic Scriptures were
written in Hebrew, when no extant documents in
Hebrew of these texts exist from the ancient
period, has caused the credibility of the
Messianic movement as a whole to suffer with
evangelical Christianity—even if a ministry does
not espouse this teaching. In extreme cases, it
has also caused many people to doubt or even
deny the Divinity and Messiahship or Yeshua,
when no “original Hebrew New Testament” can be
found.
As a ministry, we do not
believe that the New Testament was
originally written in Hebrew.
We do fully believe, however, that to understand
the New Testament you must understand the Old
Testament. For example, when Paul talks about
“the Law,” you should have a foundation in what
the Torah actually says. But we would never
suggest that the Greek text cannot be trusted or
has resulted in “gross misinterpretation” for
centuries as extremists might suggest. Those who
make this conclusion often do so from English
translations alone, not the Greek source text,
and frequently fail to incorporate sound
hermeneutical skills in their exegesis of God’s
Word. When one has available scholarly Greek
lexicons, dictionaries, and Bible background
tools at hand, you can easily see how some
seemingly anti-Torah passages have been
transmitted into English with a bias, and the
Greek source text is not in error. A great deal
of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of a
Biblical text can be remedied by having the
right background tools available at one’s
disposal.
We believe in the existence of an
oral Hebraic archetype behind much of the text
of the Gospels, and proper comparison with the
Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the
Tanach or Old Testament, validates the Hebraic
understanding and vocabulary definitions behind
the written Greek text. R. Timothy McLay
explains, “what might be explained as a
Semitism in the NT, whether an Aramaism
or a Hebraism, might just as easily be
due to the prior influence of the Greek Jewish
Scriptures on the style and language of the
writer (Septuagintism)” (The Use of
the Septuagint in New Testament Research, p
32). He further states, “An appreciation for the
ways in which the LXX translators rendered the
Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language is
also necessary for our exegesis of the NT
because of the NT writers’ use of the
Scriptures” (p 44).
We seriously question the motives
of those who seek to deny the inspiration of the
message of our Lord and Savior in favor of a
so-called “Hebrew New Testament,” which has
never proven to have existed, nor is supported
by conservative Biblical scholars or Biblical
history. The so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,
for example, is a Fourteenth Century
anti-missionary document and not an original
text. It uses the word Kristo (wjsyrq)
or “Christ” in 16:18, and antichristos (Xwjsyrqyjna)
in 24:15, pointing to the fact that it is a
Hebrew translation from Medieval Greek and Latin
sources. The Aramaic Peshitta dates from the
Fifth Century C.E., and while a valuable
supplementary tool like the Latin Vulgate, does
not include the entire New Testament Canon
(excluding 1&2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, and
Revelation) and reads too close to the Greek
Textus Receptus as opposed to the critical and
more accurate texts used today. It is an Aramaic
translation from the Textus Receptus family, as
opposed to the Alexandrian texts that are used
in most modern translations today.
It is a sad pattern that many who
are looking for “Hebrew originals” of the
Apostolic Writings, who never find them, often
deny Yeshua as the Messiah. This is because they
deny our Creator’s ability to communicate His
message in languages other than Hebrew. Their
issue, sadly, is ideological more than anything
else because in their minds God is monolingual
and only able to communicate in Hebrew.
It also must be said that most of
those who believe that the Apostolic Scriptures
were originally written in Hebrew have often
never studied Hebrew or Greek, and their
knowledge of documentable First Century history
is nominal and undeniably skewed. Understanding
the context and time periods of when each of the
books of the Apostolic Scriptures (New
Testament) alone shows why they were originally
written in Greek, but not the Greek of the
philosophers, but rather Hebraist Septuagint
Greek, the Greek used in the transmission of the
ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible, known
by the Jewish congregations of the Diaspora.
Ironically, when challenging the composition
and/or inspiration of the Greek Apostolic
Scriptures, the status of the Hebrew Tanach
often goes unchallenged as though it has been
“perfectly preserved” since antiquity.
Let us also clarify that simply
because we believe in the inspiration of the
Greek New Testament, it does not
mean that we are Hellenists. We do not encourage
study or practice of Greek philosophy to study
the Scriptures. We encourage Hebrew language
study and Tanach analysis every bit as must as
Greek language study. We are a conservative
Messianic website that looks favorably on the
Torah, and practices such as honoring the
Sabbath, the appointed times, kosher eating,
circumcision, etc. But we are also realistic
when it comes to Biblical history and the
composition of all the Scriptures.
For a further study of these
issues, consult the publications
A Survey of the Apostolic
Scriptures for the Practical Messianic
and
Scripture Under Scrutiny:
Was the New Testament Really Written In Hebrew?
by TNN Press
updated 14 November, 2006
Niddah,
laws of:
Can you tell me anything about the laws of
niddah?
The laws of niddah (hDn)
in the Torah relate to a person's sexual purity
and proper cleanness, and among the commandments
relating to sexuality, the bulk of them relate
to women. This is an area that for obvious
reasons, can be embarrassing to many, and as
such often goes unaddressed in the Messianic
community. But, if there is anything that is
absolutely imperative for Believers to
understand in today's world, it is proper
sexuality according to the Bible, as Satan has
done his best to pervert something that God gave
to a husband and wife.
One of the commandments related
to niddah is in Leviticus 12:2-4: “Speak
to the sons of Israel, saying: ‘When a woman
gives birth and bears a male child, then
she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the
days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin
shall be circumcised. Then she shall remain in
the blood of her purification for
thirty-three days; she shall not touch any
consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until
the days of her purification are completed.’”
During a period of uncleanness
for a woman, which specified here would include
the time after a woman has given birth, or
during her menstrual cycle, no sexual contact
with a man is to take place. When a woman is not
pregnant, after her menstrual cycle she must
wait seven days before she can have sexual
contact with her husband.
One thing we should note about
the laws of ritual purity, relating to both men
and women, is that they pertain to one entering
the Sanctuary or Temple. There is no Temple
presently to go to in Jerusalem, so there should
be no worry about being unclean in this regard.
However, simply because those who were ritually
unclean were not permitted to go into the Temple
complex, does not all of a sudden mean that a
ritually unclean person cannot go anywhere,
contrary to what some in Orthodox Judaism may
teach. It is notable that there many other
things given in the Scriptures that can make a
person unclean. If a man and a woman have sex in
the confines of marriage, they are considered
unclean (Leviticus 15:18). All this means is
that until they bathe in water they are not
permitted to go to the Tabernacle or Temple.
There is no Temple to go to today, so there is
nothing we can do about entering it. We do the
best that we can to stay clean and proper in
regard to our sexuality. This includes unmarried
people as well, as they can also make themselves
ritually unclean (Leviticus 15:16-18).
Many of the commandments relating
to sexual purity and uncleanness have to do with
proper bathing. During the Middle Ages in
Europe, bathing was considering something to be
looked down upon and unnecessary. It is said
that Queen Elizabeth I of England only took
three baths in her entire lifetime. It is no
surprise why disease was rampant in many parts
of Europe. The Jews of Europe, in contrast,
maintained basic cleanliness and did not have
many of the diseases of their non-Jewish
neighbors.
In traditional Judaism, the
belief is that because there is no Temple, and
that no one can be fully cleansed, has resulted
in the premise that by default all are unclean.
Just by touching something that was touched by a
ritually unclean person you are unclean. This
means that if a person boards an airplane and a
woman going through her menstrual cycle had
previously sat down in your seat, you become
unclean by sitting there. Orthodox Judaism has
made the laws of niddah very complicated
when you read the Mishnah and the Talmud, which
adds many things to the basic Scriptural
instructions, and then among those
extra-Biblical regulations there are differing
and contradicting opinions. One thing that we
need to understand as Believers is that Yeshua’s
sacrifice indeed covers us from any ritual
uncleanness, which prior to His sacrifice could
have limited individuals’ contacts with God in
the Temple. Most of the basic instructions on
ritual uncleanness that can be followed in the
Diaspora pertain to married men and women,
appropriate sexuality, and bathing.
Obviously, as the Messianic
movement grows and refines its halachic
orthopraxy, so will our knowledge,
understanding, and application of these
commandments (and the whole subject of
sexuality) be improved.
updated 14 November, 2006
Non-profit
organizations:
What can you tell me about what a non-profit
organization is?
A non-profit organization in the
United States is some kind of an institution,
group, or society that is legally registered as
being a “business” that is not incorporated for
making profit. The most common forms of
non-profit organizations that we see are
churches or synagogues, charities, orphanages,
social missions, and various schools and
educational groups. Being made a registered
non-profit organization means that an
institution is exempted from various forms of
taxes and can allow contributions to be
tax-deductible, as the organization is
presumably offering a “social service” for human
betterment. Most, if not all of what the
non-profit organization offers must be provided
without charge. This is unlike a for-profit
business which will often never offer its
clients any kind of special benefits or free
services.
Contrary to popular opinion,
non-profit organizations do have to file tax
returns, report their earnings, and their
financial records are available for public
scrutiny. This does not mean that there are not
abuses among non-profit organizations that
function as though they are for-profit
businesses. One watchdog organization,
www.guidestar.org, provides access to
the filed tax returns of various non-profit
organizations for you to consider how they use
funds and contributions they are given.
posted 30 April, 2007
Numbers, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Numbers?
The Hebrew title for the fourth
book of the Torah is Bamidbar (rBdmB),
meaning either “in the wilderness” or “in the
desert” (1:1). Another Jewish designation in
antiquity derived from 1:1 was V’ydeber (rBdyw)
or “and He spoke,” known to early Church figures
such as Jerome and Epiphanaus (IDB,
3:567; EXP, 2:662). Other titles included
omesh happikkudim or “the ‘fifth’ of the
census,” indicating that this text composed
one-fifth of the Torah (Harrison, 614; IDBSup,
631; ABD, 4:1146). The Septuagint
translations applied the Greek name Arithmoi
(ARIQMOI)
to the text, derived from “according to the
number of their names” (1:26, LXE) “This Greek
name reflects an earlier Hebrew name for the
book, well-attested in classical rabbinic
sources, from a period when books of the Torah
were named thematically rather than after one of
their initial words” (Jewish Study Bible,
p 281), and was followed as Numeri in the
Latin Vulgate. Many evangelical Christians have
suggested that Bamidbar is a better
title, as it avoids the controversy of the
debates surrounding Biblical numbering and
instead focuses on the events that took place (NBCR,
168; ISBE, 3:561).
The Book of Numbers may be easily
divided into three broad sections: (1) Israel at
Sinai, preparing to depart for the Promised Land
(1:1-10:10); (2) Israel at Kadesh, delayed
because of their rebellion (13:1-20:13); (3)
Israel at the plains of Moab, anticipating
conquest of the Promised Land (22:2-32:42).
Numbers probably covers the broadest scope of
the Torah, as it completes the 38-year journey
of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness.
Important features appearing in
Numbers include God delivering the instructions
on how the Tabernacle was to be transported (chs.
1-10). Within this selection appears specific
regulations for the Levites (chs. 3-4, 7-8), the
banishment of those who are extremely impure
(5:1-4), and how to deal with a defiled Nazarite
(6:1-21). Further features detail the rebellion
of the Israelites and their refusal to fully
take the Land of Canaan (ch. 14), and the
condemnation of those who would have to die in
the wilderness because of their disbelief. Some
of the most important chapters in Numbers are ch.
6, which includes the giving of the Aaronic
Benediction, and ch. 11, the instructions
concerning how Israel was to keep Passover.
Throughout Numbers, we see that
God demonstrates a strong willingness to live
with the Israelites, communicating to them
through Moses (7:89). The Lord is a guide for
the people (9:15-23), but Israel rebels against
Him (ch. 15), and God shows a desire not to
judge them at first (16:20-22). God demonstrates
a great deal of patience toward Israel, but
ultimately in the defining part of the text (chs.
13-14) He must raise up a new generation of
Israelites to replace the rebellious old
generation.
There is a renewed interest today
in both Judaism and Christianity to examine
Numbers for encouraging a strong faith in God.
We see the failure of Ancient Israel to obey or
trust in Him, yet God is not remiss in punishing
His own people, including Moses (ch. 20). God
tests His people with false prophets such as
Balaam (chs. 22-24), yet is able to issue a
blessing through him (chs. 23-24). The Lord
hates idolatry and sexual immorality (ch. 25).
Many evangelical Christians are keen to admit
that there has been a lack of interest among
ministers to appropriate these important themes
in preaching from Numbers, and desire to see
this change (EXP, 2:660). Ultimately, we
may consider Numbers to be a prime example of
God’s ongoing Heilsgeschichte or
salvation history (Ibid., 2:657).
Some substantial historical
issues are presented in Numbers with the census
of Israel’s population, particularly in 1:46:
“all the numbered men were 603,550.” Many
conservative scholars take this number at face
value, and extrapolate that there were as many
as 2-3 million involved in the Exodus. Other
conservatives have suggested that the Pentateuch
uses terms such as “thousands” or “hundreds”
more loosely than it would be used today, and
offer some alternative views. They suggest that
“a total population of two to three
million…hardly seems appropriate” (ISBE,
3:565). While reducing Israel’s population, a
lesser view still asserts that God’s promises to
Abraham to multiply his seed were being
fulfilled. The default position regarding
Numbers 1:46 adhered to by many seems to be that
the 600,000 mentioned in the Exodus was more or
less the exact population (EXP,
2:686-691).
Those who believe that the
numbering of 603,550 in Numbers 1:46 is
something else will claim that the Hebrew term
elef (@la)
or “thousand,” can also mean “squad” when
considering its Ugaritic and other Semitic
cognates (Harrison, 632-633). This would
possibly mean that what is being referred to is
60 squads of 550, placing Israel’s fighting
force at around 35,000 (NIDB, 713; EXP,
2:682-683). If this were to refer to the entire
population, this would have difficulties as
22,273 firstborn males are specifically
described in 3:43. Another alternative to
consider is that the term elef was easily
confused with alluf (@WLa)
or “captain” in ancient times, so the 62,700
fighting men of Dan mentioned (1:39) would
really equate to being 60 captains and 2,700 men
(NBCR, 169).
If the census in Numbers is not
as “exact” as we may want it to be, then the
obvious conclusion drawn is that there may have
not been “millions” of Israelites involved in
the Exodus from Egypt. Many conservatives do
adhere to an exact literal numbering,
concluding, “if they fanned out with their
flocks over a wide area, they could sustain
themselves as did the large Nabatean kingdom in
the same area in Roman times” (NIDB, 714;
cf. EXP, 2:680-681). In response to this,
other conservative theologians may assert, “It
is hard to imagine the difficulties attendant
upon sustaining two to three million people
living in the wilderness for forty years: food,
sanitation, living space, morale” (ISBE,
3:565).
If we do see some kind of
representative census in Numbers, then it would
suggest that rather than being 2-3 million
Israelites involved in the Exodus, that there
were likely only several hundred thousand, but
no less than 100,000. Harrison makes the
imperative point, “An understanding of the
contemporary situation with reference to the
population of Canaan is instructive in this
respect, for it is evident from sources such as
the Tell el-Amarna tablets, as well as from the
excavation of Canaanite cities of the thirteenth
century B.C., that the overall population of the
Promised Land was itself well below three
million people” (Harrison, 632). Considering
that the Torah indicates that the population of
the Israelites was less than that of the
Canaanites (Exodus 23:29; Deuteronomy 7:7, 17,
22), then we can safely assume that a different
numbering system was used in Numbers than how we
would conduct a census in the Twenty-First
Century.
The Book of Numbers and its
various accountings divide theologians among
three distinct groups: (1) those who think that
the number totals cannot be trusted and are over
exaggerated; (2) those who think that the
numbers are not as exact as they would have to
be today, and are possibly representative in
some places, but are certainly not as low as one
thousand representing “one”; (3) those who think
that the numbers are exact, with no exception.
Admittedly, many get confused and prefer to
assert that we cannot know for certain how the
Israelites took a tally of their population
groups (Archaeological Study Bible, p
197).
If one falls into a conservative
handling of the text, then the options that we
have at our disposal are #2 and #3, as we would
choose to consider the Israelites at the very
least to number in the several hundred
thousands. But ultimately, there may be no
satisfactory answer to these questions with the
current extant data we have on the Ancient Near
East. It should not cause us to think that a
miniscule amount of people were involved in the
Exodus. These views do, however, challenge many
Messianics who have been taught that there are
only “exact numbers” in Scripture, and things
may not be as “exact” as they may want them to
be considering their ancient context.
Regarding the composition of
Numbers, conservatives do assert principal
Mosaic authorship, based on statements that
indicate Moses’ writing activity (33:1-2), also
based on the strong assumption of the literary
unity of the Torah (ISBE, 3:562; EXP,
2:663-668). In this, we see that there are
varied commandments given to Moses and Aaron
(1:1; 3:44; 6:1; 8:1, et. al.). “According to
the book the original impetus for the recording
of much of the material was from Moses. It
indicates numerous times that Moses received
instructions from God” (ISBE, 3:562).
However, we should not conclude exclusive Mosaic
authorship of Numbers. While Moses recorded the
names of the various places Israel journeyed
(33:2), Numbers is likely some combination of
Mosaic and scribal writing (Harrison, 617).
There are some signs of
redactions in Numbers and additions by Israel’s
historians. Conservatives will often assert that
Numbers “is essentially Mosaic but includes
source material and glosses” (Dillard and
Longman, 84). Perhaps the most significant
example of a post-Mosaic addition to the Torah
appears in 12:3, “Now the man Moses was very
humble, more than any man who was on the face of
the earth.” Conservatives have always pointed
out that if Moses were indeed the most humble
human being who ever lived—he could have never
written this about himself! Harrison summarizes,
“In light of what is known about
processes of scribal revision in Egypt and
certain other areas of the ancient Near East,
there appears to be no difficulty whether in
assuming that the reference in Numbers 12:3
concerning the modesty of Moses constitutes an
addition by a later hand, quite possibly either
that of Joshua or Samuel” (Harrison, 616).
Another redaction may include the
mention of the “Book of the Wars of the
Lord”
(21:14), “a genuine Pentateuchal source”
(Ibid.), or a later source that a scribe added
information from. Even though all conservatives
strongly assert principal Mosaic involvement in
the composition of Numbers, other textual
additions would have included the census lists
(Ibid., 618-619), or possibly other slight
additions during the time of the Israelite
monarchy or under the authorization of Ezra the
Priest after the Babylonian exile (NBCR,
168; ISBE, 3:562). The general dating of
Numbers would be tied to one’s timing of the
Exodus, which for conservatives would fall
between the Fifteenth or Thirteenth Centuries
B.C.E. (see
Exodus
FAQ for a summary of the dating issues).
Admittedly, thinking that anybody but Moses was
involved in the composition of Numbers is
difficult for many Messianics to acknowledge,
even though it seems quite certain.
Affirming the antiquity of the
Book of Numbers, conservative scholars such as
Harrison and Kitchen point out that the
arrangement of the Israelites around the
Tabernacle in Numbers 2:2 confirms to the
strategic layout of the Egyptian army during the
reign of Ramses II (Harrison, 622-623).
Certainly, if Moses had been a member of the
Egyptian royal house, and as Stephen attests, “a
man of power in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22), he
could have learned Egyptian military strategy
and incorporated it in his leading Israel.
Furthermore, we see that the use of silver
trumpets (10:1) were common in Egyptian
ceremonies of the Thirteenth Century (Ibid.,
623).
In stark contrast to conservative
theologians that affirm prime Mosaic involvement
in the composition of Numbers, liberal
theologians would argue for the final form of
the text existing only after the Jewish exile to
Babylon in 587 B.C.E., and possibly even that it
foreshadows the return of the Jews to the Land
of Israel in 539 B.C.E. Liberals commonly argue
that the story depicted in Numbers would have
strong significance for the exiles returning
from Babylon, but strongly doubt its
historicity. IDB indicates, “It is the
large amount of purely statistical material
incorporated in Numbers which makes much of it
seem tedious to the modern reader…Some of it
seems purely idealistic and unhistorical”
(3:570). Liberals will frequently claim that the
events in Numbers seem too strange to have
actually occurred, such as Balaam’s donkey
talking (ch. 22), and instead frequently suggest
that all that is necessary is some kind of
literary explanation for the journeys of Israel.
Any kind of unity in Numbers is regarded as
being entirely “artificial” (Ibid., 3:568).
In the liberal scheme of Numbers’
composition, the bulk of the material is
attributed to the P or so-called Priestly
writer, with incorporated additions by J and E (IDB,
3:568; NBCR, pp 168-169; IDBSup,
631-632; ISBE, 3:562-563; ABD;
4:1148-1150; Jewish Study Bible, p 281),
and likely also D (IDB, 3:567; see
Genesis
FAQ entry for a summarization of the JEDP
documentary hypothesis). While conservatives
frequently respond to liberal critiques with
literary explanations of Numbers’ supposed
discrepancies, liberals are right to point out
that there are source materials present in the
text. The Book of Numbers cannot be read with
any naiveté (EXP, 2:663), and even a
conservative reading requires a fair bit of
critical examination. Even though we might
disagree with liberal presuppositions
surrounding Numbers, liberals will validly point
out that its “OT story is intended to be read as
history and not as myth. The ancient Hebrew mind
was not mythopoeic” (IDB, 3:571),
affirming some kind of theological integrity for
the book.
From a textual point of view, the
Hebrew Masoretic Text of Numbers is fairly
secure, with few disputations or major variances
from the Samaritan Pentateuch or Greek
Septuagint. This does not mean that the SP and
LXX do not reflect some interpretations of
commandments, but these are relatively minor.
The text of Numbers has not been preserved as
well as Leviticus (Harrison, 634), likely
because of the large accountings of people. But
if there are any major differences in the
accountings of people, they are ancient problems
that go back too far in history to fix, and
answers to these problems must be reconciled
historically. “The very large numbers in the two
census lists (Num 1-4; 26) do not betray
corruption of numbers. Thus those who resort to
the solution of the problem of the large numbers
by suggesting textual corruption have to assume
that such problems are very ancient” (EXP,
2:661).
The message that Numbers
communicates to us today is primarily that God
is merciful, yet He is also just. “Of all of
God’s attributes, it is on his hesed that
Moses bases his plea that God not destroy Israel
(14:18-20). The word hesed stands for
God’s constancy, his fidelity to his covenant
with Israel” (ABD, 4:1151). The Lord does
not leave Israel in the wilderness, but does
wait for a proper generation to be raised up
that can accomplish His tasks. He provides food
for His people with the manna (ch. 11), but also
strikes Miriam, Moses’ sister, with leprosy (ch.
12), and punishes Moses for striking the rock (ch.
20).
Throughout Numbers, we see God
demonstrating His presence, discipline, and
holiness (NBCR, 170). The Book of Numbers
“forms an essential link in that
forward-directedness from Adam to Jesus” (EXP,
2:657). A challenge that anyone who really wants
to study Numbers often faces is that he or she
must have great patience. Allen points out, “In
a day marked by pop art, quick fixes, and fast
foods, the Book of Numbers is particularly
troublesome. It simply does not appeal to the
person who is unwilling to invest time and
energy in the study of Scripture” (Ibid.,
2:658), and we certainly see the lack of
patience in the Israelites’ behavior in Numbers.
At the end of Numbers, the people of Israel are
ready and prepared to enter into the Promised
Land. “It is on this note of expectant hope that
the book ends. Note that the hope never turns
into certainty. That is, the hope of the second
generation is an untried hope. This generation
too will face severe threats to its faith (see
Joshua), and it remains to be seen how they will
respond” (Dillard and Longman, 89). To an
extent, every generation of Believers should
place themselves into the situation of Numbers
(Ibid., 90).
The current Messianic handling of
Numbers is not that dissimilar from its handling
of Leviticus. Like Leviticus, many of the
commandments in Numbers cannot be presently
observed without a working Tabernacle or Temple.
But whereas Leviticus comprises mostly a code of
conduct, Numbers does ask us some serious
questions about the relationship to God and His
people. When we see Moses strike the rock
against God’s explicit command, there are
consequences that he must face (20:11-12). A few
Messianics, who may have made Moses into some
kind of demagogue, are confronted with the
reality that he was human and that he did sin.
Perhaps more significant for the
emerging Messianic movement is the fact that the
Book of Numbers challenges us to become a
self-critical movement that is not afraid to
admit some of its problems. Certainly if we
cannot identify with some of the grumbling
attitudes of the Ancient Israelites, then are we
to admit that we are instead “perfect”? Surely
not. Furthermore, when we consider the numerical
accounts in the text, we need to be willing to
admit that there are things in the Torah that
are not as “black and white” as we may want
them, such as knowing how many people were
exactly involved in the Exodus. We have to
remember that there was probably a different
numbering system in place in 1400-1200 B.C.E.
that is largely foreign to our Twenty-First
Century computer mindset.
With these things said, there is
a large need for today’s Messianic community to
engage more with conservative-critical
scholarship of Numbers that considers the
historical framework of the Ancient Near East.
Unfortunately, as with too much of the Tanach,
sectors of the Messianic movement often give
credence to ultra Orthodox and Chassidic Jewish
views of Numbers, at the expense of its
legitimate historicity. With the message of
Numbers in view, will it take a long time for a
generation of Messianic Believers to be raised
up to be used effectively for the Lord? We may
not know. But it does teach us that we are to
endure through whatever trials may take place.
As it concerns our studies of Numbers, it should
include how we react properly to criticisms of
the text, and whether or not we can involve
ourselves with the larger theological
conversations going on.
Bibliography
Allen, Ronald B. “Numbers,” in EXP,
2:657-1008.
Carpenter, E.E. “Numbers, Book of,” in ISBE,
3:561-567.
Dentan, R.C. “Numbers, Book of,” in IDB,
3:567-571.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Numbers,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 83-90.
Fox, Nili S. “Numbers,” in Jewish Study Bible,
pp 281-355.
Harris, R. Laird. “Numbers, Book of,” in NIDB,
pp 713-714.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Numbers,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
614-634.
Levine, B.A. “Numbers, Book of,” in IDBSup,
pp 631-635.
Milgrom, Jacob. “Numbers, Book of,” in ABD,
4:1146-1155.
Olson, Dennis T. “Numbers,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 189-240.
Thompson, J.A. “Numbers,” in NBCR, pp
168-200.
posted 14 November, 2006 |
