The Angel of His Face

“In all their affliction he was afflicted, And the Angel of His Face saved them…(Isaiah 63:9)

     Continuing the theme of my last post, I want to expound on some things that became apparent to me from the investigation into the Messiah in the Old Testament.  This article continues my supposition that the “Angel of the Yahweh” mentioned in the Tanach is YHWH Himself and a Pre-incarnate Messiah.  (see my last post for details “The Defense of Christina Deity.”)  While researching this Angel, I stumbled across the above-quoted verse.  I was captivated by the phrase, “of His Face.”  Since we’ve been discussing the pros vs. cons of the Peshat approach to scriptures (used mainly by the Karaite Jews), I thought a literal examination of this verse would be in order.

     The Hebrew for face is mnp( (panim) which is literally means “face”.  No spiritual/theological gymnastics are required to determine its meaning.  The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament states, “The face identifies the person and reflects the attitude and sentiments of the person.  As such, panim can be a substitute for the self, or the feelings of the self.” (1)  This was exactly what I was thinking, that this Angel (or messenger in Hebrew) is here literally (Peshatlly if you will) identified with Yahweh Himself.  I thought, perhaps, I was reading into it, so I searched for some additional commentary on it.  Keil and Delitasch write, “This mediatorial angel is called the “the angel of His face,” as being the representative of God, for the “face of God” is His self-revealing presence.  The genitive wynp, therefore, it’s not to be taken objectively in the sense of the “angels who sees His face,” but as explanatory, “the angel who is His face, or in whom His face is manifested.” (2)  Notice the “w” on the end of the word.  It is called a pronominal suffix and the literal translation of it is “His.”  The grammar (syntax) of the Hebrew (literally, plainly, Peshat) is written with “possession” in mind and this tells us that this Messenger represents or is His Face.  There is one final witness I would like to call that bears witness of this translation.

     A group of Rabbis translated the Tanach into Greek a few hundred years before the time of Jesus.  How did they interpret the verse?  The literal translation form the Greek is “not an ambassador, nor a messenger (angel), but Himself saved them.’ (Greek: ou presbus, oude aggelos, all autos eswsen autos.)  Their understanding of the verse is the same as the supposition that is but forth here.

     To conclude, we have the Hebrew text itself (syntax), the commentary of theologians, and the translation of ancient rabbis which all proclaim that this Angel is Yahweh Himself.  Notice how the first part of the verse begins, “In all their afflictions, He was afflicted.”  This sounds much like the character of Messiah and much like the character of Jesus.  This Angel was a pre-incarnate Savior of Israel and of the Gentiles.

Endnotes

1. 1.       R.L. Harris, Editor; Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, Associate Editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, page 727.
2. 2.      C.F. Keil, F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Mass, volume 7, page 599-600.

The Trinity in Isaiah

“Come near to Me:  Hear this, not from the beginning in secret have I spoken.  From the time of its Being, there I was.  And now, Lord Yahweh has sent Me and His Spirit.” (Isaiah 48:16)

     The above quoted verse is a transliteration of the Hebrew of Isaiah 48:16.  (I will spare you the gory details of the syntax, which too many of my friends, will be much appreciated.  My wife included.)  I am writing about this to continue on the theme of the last few post regarding Christian Deity from the Old Testament.  I mention the syntax and exegesis (translation and exact meaning of the text) because I’ve been using a “Peshat” approach to prove the existence of the Trinity from the Tanach (Old Testament).  Additionally, I’ve quoted the transliteration above because I believe that most English translations get it wrong.  They will write something like “Come near me and listen to this:  From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret at the time it happens, I am there.  And now, the Sovereign LORD has sent me with His Spirit.” (New International Version)  It is my opinion that this translation misses the essence of the text.  Mainly, that God is identifying His Triune Nature in this verse.  God is speaking in the verse.  He speaks of three distinct beings.  First, the speaker, second, the Lord Yahweh, and lastly, His Spirit.  Additionally, this speaker states, “From the time of its Being”, the word in Hebrew for Being is the same word from which “Yahweh” is formulated.  The speaker is identifying His eternal nature and thus, identifies Himself as Yahweh.  But, let’s not just take my word for it, let’s hear from the theologians.

     Keil and Delitzsch write, “Up to this point Jehovah is speaking; but who is it that now proceeds to say, “And now—namely, now that the redemption of Israel is about to appear (וְעַתָּה being here, as in many other instances, e.g., Isa. 33:10, the turning-point of salvation)—now that the Lord Jehovah sent me and His Spirit?” The majority of the commentators assume that the prophet comes forward here in his own person, behind Him whom he has introduced, and interrupts Him. But although it is perfectly true, that in all prophecy, from Deuteronomy onwards, words of Jehovah through the prophet and words of the prophet of Jehovah alternate in constant, and often harsh transitions, and that our prophet has this mark of divine inspiration in common with all the other prophets (cf., Isa. 62:5, 6), it must also be borne in mind, that hitherto he has not spoken once objectively of himself, except quite indirectly (vid., Isa. 40:6; 44:26), to say nothing of actually coming forward in his own person. Whether this takes place further on, more especially in Isa. 61, we will leave for the present; but here, since the prophet has not spoken in his own person before, whereas, on the other hand, these words are followed in Isa. 49:1ff. by an address concerning himself from that servant of Jehovah who announces himself as the restorer of Israel and light of the Gentiles, and who cannot therefore be ether Israel as a nation or the author of these prophecies, nothing is more natural than to suppose that the words, “And now hath the Lord,” etc., form a prelude to the words of the One unequalled servant of Jehovah concerning Himself which occur in Isa. 49. The surprisingly mysterious way in which the words of Jehovah suddenly pass into those of His messenger, which is only comparable to Zech. 2:12ff., 4:9 (where the speaker is also not the prophet, but a divine messenger exalted above him), can only be explained in this manner. And in no other way can we explain the וְעַתָּה, which means that, after Jehovah has prepared the way for the redemption of Israel by the raising up of Cyrus, in accordance with prophecy, and by his success in arms, He has sent him, the speaker in this case, to carry out, in a mediatorial capacity, the redemption thus prepared, and that not by force of arms, but in the power of the Spirit of God (Isa. 42:1; cf., Zech. 4:6). Consequently the Spirit is not spoken of here as joining in the sending (as Umbreit and Stier suppose, after Jerome and the Targum: the Septuagint is indefinite, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ); nor do we ever find the Spirit mentioned in such co-ordination as this (see, on the other hand, Zech. 7:12, per spiritum suum ). The meaning is, that it is also sent, i.e., sent in and with the servant of Jehovah, who is speaking here. To convey this meaning, there was no necessity to write either ‏שָׁלַח אֹתִי וְרוּחוֹ‎ or ‏שׁלחני וְאֶת־רוחו‎, since the expression is just the same as that in Isa. 29:7, ‏צֹבֶיהָ וּמְצֹדָתָהּ; and the Vav may be regarded as the Vav of companionship (Mitschaft, lit., with-ship, as the Arabs call it; see at Isa. 42:5). (1)  Notice this last part, the Vav of companionship.  In Hebrew this vav is attached to the beginning of a word and is almost always translated “and” and almost never “with”.  Thus, the trinity is defined in the verse.

 

     What is the sense of all this?  Basically, the text speaks of three individuals.  Lord YHWH, and the messenger who steps forward to speak, a pre-incarnate Messiah, and the Sprit which linguistically is connected by companionship and, as such, represents a separate being in the text.  The trinity is here clearly (Peshatly) defined in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  The speaker clearly identifies His co-eternal existence with Lord Yahweh (Hebrew is Adonai YHWH) and the Spirit.  This is strikingly similar to what Jesus says about Himself to a group of Jews.  He states, “Before Abraham was, I am.”  Jesus is clearly making a claim to Deity and His message is clearly understood by the Jews.  They pick up stones to stone Him.

 

Endnotes

 R.L. Harris, Editor; Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, Associate Editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, page 465

The Keeping of Torah Positions Us for Revelation

“Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast of restraint, but blessed Is he who keeps the law. (Proverbs 29:18 ESV)

    This is one of those verses that just “leapt” off the page at me.  It is so ripe with meaning that a brief discussion of it is in order.  God is called “The Living God” and as such, desires a dynamic and individual relationship with all of us.  There is to be an “ebb and flow” between us and the spiritual realm.  Without this relationship, things don’t seem to go well for us humans.  We are the agents of God in the physical realm.  We were created in His Image and Likeness and we are to be everything in this realm that He is in the spiritual realm.  We are His representatives and co-laborers.  We are commissioned by Him, to loose His Will on earth as His Will exists in heaven.  This demands a dynamic relationship between us and Him.  This is “prophetic vision”.  That God will reveals His will to us in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in and it is then our job to release His spiritual power into that circumstance to bring heaven on earth. This keeps us grounded as human beings.  It gives us focus, destiny, and purpose and, when this is lacking, people tend to cast off restraint.  Without this prophetic mission, human beings tend to become very human indeed.  We search for fulfillment in things that were never meant to be fulfilling.  Sin is the main dish of this diet.   However, there seems to be a lifestyle that we can adopt that will position us to receive prophetic revelation.

The keeping of the commandments of God demonstrates our great love for Him.  If we are keeping commandments for any other reason other than an expression of our love for Him, then we are either self-righteous or embracing works based theology.  Neither, of which, is capable of producing spiritual life.  But, when we keep the Torah out of a love for Him, we position ourselves to receive prophetic revelation.

The Law has a restraining effect upon the lust of the eyes, the world, and the flesh.  This restraining effect positions us to receive spiritual revelation and keeps us grounded in Him.   It is the prophetic vision of that God shows us about our lives that keeps us grounded and the restraining of the flesh by the keeping of Torah positions us for spiritual release.

The Defense of Christian Deity

Recently, a reader of my post, The Defense of New Testament Prophecy, wrote a comment.  He wrote:

 Perhaps the problem with your group is that a “Torah-observant Christian” is an oxymoron. For an observant reader of scripture reads:

Numbers 23:19: YHWH is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor the son of man, that He should repent.

Psalms 146:3: Do not rely on princes in or in the son of man, for he holds no salvation.

Hoshea 11:9. I will not execute the kindling of My anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not a man.

1 Sam15: 28-29 And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you, today; and has given it to your fellow who is better than you. And also, the Strength of Israel will neither lie nor repent, for He is not a man to repent.”

Perhaps a Torah observant reader would conclude that these verses are incompatible with the notion of a Christian Deity.

     These comments, from a Karaite Jew, really demonstrate the point of the above-mentioned article.  Mainly, that a Peshat (plain/literal) interpretation of scripture has tremendous pitfalls.  This comment also demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of Christian Deity.  The concept of Christian Deity is much deeper than Jesus, the man.  It represents YWHW as Father, Son, and Spirit.  That all three are equally YWHW, that all three are one (Hebrew “echad”) and all three are well documented in Torah, even using a Peshat mode of interpretation of the text.  This is a great mystery.  As Avram Yehoshua writes, “The problem that some have with Jesus ‘being God’ is that most confuses the noun-title God with a name like John or Ted.  So, in Heaven, there can only be on John (God), but God is not a name.  It is a designation, the One having it being deity.  In a sense, ‘God” could be the last name of Deity; the family name:  Papa God, Yeshua the Son (God), and the Holy Spirit (God). All share the God-ness or deity.  We have no problem with an earthly family having all its members with the same last name…They, too, share the name nature (human) and are one family.” (1)  Yes, they can be different but be “one”.  The Hebrew word “echad” denotes this particular concept.  According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament it means, “to be united…and stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness.” (2) This concept is, perhaps, demonstrated the most in what contemporary Judaism calls the “Sh’ma.”  In Deuteronomy chapter six it states, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is one.”  The word is “echad” and illustrates the point that God is diverse but still united.   The purpose of this post is to demonstrate the concept of the Trinity, not from the entire Tanach (in which it is also well documented) but from the Torah alone.

    Our first evidence comes from the book of Exodus (twmv) and it states, “HaShem (YWHW) would speak to Moses face to face, as a man would speak with his fellow…” (33:11 Stone Edition Tanach, I’m using a Jewish translation to demonstrate no Christian bias from the text) However, we see an apparent contradiction in a different verse later in the same chapter.  Moses, requesting to behold the glory of YHWH is told, “You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see My face and live.” (33:20) (The Hebrew word for face is the same in both verses.)  How can both these exist?  Simply, it is the Father whose face cannot be beheld by humans and live.  It is a different aspect of YHWH than what Moses met with face to face in the tabernacle.  This is the Pre-incarnate Messiah!  There is additional evidence of this. 

     When Moses beholds the “glory” of God from the rock, this is what the Torah says, “Hashem  (YWHW) descended in a cloud and stood with him there, and He called out with the Name Hashem (YWHW).  Hashem (YWHW) passed before him and proclaimed…” (34:5-6) How can YWHW descend in a cloud and stand next to Moses and proclaim the name of the YWHW as YWHW passes by?  Plainly, there is more than one aspect of YWHW.  There is the Father who passes by, the Son who descends in the cloud, and the Spirit is the cloud (The Shekinah).

    In Exodus ((twmv), the angel of the YWHW appears to Moses in the burning bush.  Who is this angel that speaks in the first person on behalf of YWHW?  It is this angel that tells Moses to go to Egypt to deliver “My People”.  It is this angel who tells Moses that “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob…”  It is this angel that tells Moses that his name is YWHW.  The text clearly identifies YWHW with this angel.  Who is this angel?  This is the Messiah before his incarnation into humanity.  I’m not the only one who has come to this conclusion.  The Talmudic Sages saw the same reference to Messiah here as well.  They state, “Three things were created on the basis of the name of the Holy One:  the Righteous, the Messiah, and Jerusalem.” (3)  Also, Rabbis Shmuel Ben Naham (ca 260 ad) and Abba Bar Kahan (ca 300 ad) came to the conclusion that “this is the name of the Messiah.” (4)  According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “This angel is spoken of as ‘the angel of the Lord’, and ‘the angel of the presence or face) of the Lord.’  The following passages contain references to this angel:  Gen 16:7 the angel and Hagar; Gen,18  Abraham intercedes with the angel for Sodom; Gen 22:1 the angel interposes to prevent the sacrifice of Isaac; Gen 24:7,  Abraham sends Eliezer and promises him the ange’ls protection; Gen 31:1 the angel who appears to Jacob and says, “I am the God of Bethel’; Gen 32:24  Jacob wrestles with the angel and says, ‘I have seen God face to face’ ; Gen 48:15 Jacob speaks of God and the angel as identical; Ex 3 the angel appears to Moses in the burning bush; Ex 13:21; 14:19 God or the angel lead Israel out of Egypt; Ex 23:20  the people are commanded to obey the angel; Ex 32:34-33:17  Moses pleads the presence of God with His people.” (5) This angel is the pre-incarnate Messiah!  I say this because the Hebrew word for angel (מלאך mal’lach) can be translated a “messenger or representative” and not just angel.  We can clearly see that this representative of Yahweh was in fact, Yahweh Himself.  Additionally, it was necessary for this angel or pre-incarnate God to become a man.

     It began in the beginning.  Immediately after Adam and Eve sin and eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the mission of Messiah is identified.  In Genesis chapter three, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers, he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:15)  It is the ‘seed’ of a woman that will crush the head of the enemy (HaSatan).  Thus, it is imperative that Messiah would become a human being.  Jesus was not just a man, as the comments from my Karaite friend seem to suggest, He was God who became a man because the seed of a woman would crush the enemy (death and the devil).  This is not just my opinion, it is also noted in the Jerusalem Targums.  It reads, “Finally, in the days of Messiah-King, he will be wounded in His Heel.” (6)  In order for mankind to be redeemed from the curse, it required the intervention of a man.  The seed of a woman would be the Messiah, it was necessary for this aspect of Yahweh to become “a man.”

  The activities of the Spirit are well documented as well.  It is the Spirit that “hovers over” in the beginning of creation (Bereshit Gen 1:2) It is the Spirit that “will not contend” with sinful humanity (6:3).  In Exodus, (twmv), it is the Spirit of God (ruach elohim) that fills Uri and Bezalel and empowers them to construct the tabernacle. (Ex 37:1-2)  It is also the Spirit of God that comes upon Balaam and orders the prophetic blessings rather than curses.  The activities of the Spirit are all activities of YWHW.  Thus, the Spirit is an aspect of YWHW as well.

     In conclusion, it is well documented in the Torah that YWHW acts through three distinct beings.  That of the Father, the Creator who no human can behold and live.  That of the Son, the pre-incarnate angel of YWHW who speaks in the first person for YWHW and delivers Israel from Egypt.  That also of the Spirit, who gives divine power to accomplish the will of YWHW and to speak prophetic blessings of Israel.  This is the concept of Christian deity; it is more than just “a man.”  Rather, Christian deity exemplifies all of the activities of YWHW and recognizes the many aspects of YWHW as all co-equal and one.

 

 

 

 

Endnotes

1. 1.      Yehoshua, Avram, Yeshua:  God the Son, www.seedofabraham.net.
2. 2.      R.L. harris, Editor; Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, Associate Editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, page 30.
3. 3.       Masekhet Baba Bathra 75b.
4. 4.      Ibid.
5. 5.      Bromiley, Geoffrey, Editor; The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,   Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, volume one; 1979, page, 125.
6. 6.      As quoted in Risto Santala, The Messiah in the Old Testament  in the Light of the Rabbinical Writings, Keren Ahvah Meshihit, Jerusalem Israel, 1992, page 38.

The Defense of New Testament Prophetic Writings

      In recent years, many of the prophecies concerning Messiah in the New Testament have been called into questions.  Many object to the prophecies as being too figurative or even twisted from the Old Testament writings. Many Torah-observant Christians have been incited away from Christianity because of this perspective.  Particularly the Jewish sect of Karaite Judaism has influenced torah-observant Christians to leave the Messiah.  Reason being, their approach and methodology of scripture interpretation.

 

     “The Karaites are a Jewish sect which does not recognize the authority of the post-Biblical tradition incorporated in the Talmud and in the latter rabbinic works.” (1)  The Karaites reject that the Talmud/ mishnah/ targums of the orthodox community are inspired by God.  They believe solely in the inspiration of the Old Testament (Tanach).  Their approach to biblical interpretation is as follows: 

 

“Karaites (Karaim/Qaraim) are followers of the Hebrew Scriptures (Miqra/Mikra). We use Peshat (Plain Meaning) to interpret the Miqra. This does not mean we are strictly literalist but are contextualist. We study and interpret the scripture based upon the context in the scripture, the historic context and a language context. Not all Karaites interpret the Miqra exactly the same but we are dedicated to the following of YHVH and him alone. There is no other Elohim (God) but him.” (2)

 

     Their approach, a Peshat or literal interpretation of scripture, is one of the four methods which are used by the rabbis to interpret scripture.  In essence, the Karaite approach, as well as the approach of modern scholarship, utilizes only one of the four methods commonly used during the time of the writing of the New Testament for biblical interpretation.  (More on this later).  This particular mode, the Peshat, is what modern scholars call a historical-critical exegesis.  Exegesis means that they are drawing the meaning of a text out of the text itself by literally translating the language and then placing it within its historic framework. This is the most common approach of modern scholarship.  Personally, this is my own favorite approach to scripture.  However, I’m forced to admit that this method is not comprehensive and can be very short-sighted. Although this is a great method for textual examination, it’s not comprehensive enough to cover all the aspects of the spiritual gamut.  Why?  Risto Santala, author of The Messiah in the Old Testament, explains, “Mental and spiritual concepts must, by their very nature, described figuratively.” (3). This figurative approach is what we see God using with many of the prophets of the Old Testament itself.  It is also the approach of many of the New Testament writers.  Let me give you an example of how an angelic messenger deploys this method.

 

     In Zechariah chapter four, the prophet is having a conversation with an angel.  The angel says to Zechariah, “What do you see?”  Zechariah responds, “I see a solid gold lamp stand with a bowl at the top and seven lights on it, with seven channels to the lights.  Also there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.  I asked the angel who talked with me, ‘What are these, my lord.’”(Zechariah 4:2-4)  The angel seems surprised that Zechariah would ask such a question.  To the spiritual being, the interpretation of this vision (now a passage of scripture) is very clear, but it is not so clear to the prophet.  Things in the spiritual realm do not always fit into the mode of modern scholarship or the Karaite approach to biblical interpretation.  The angel responds, “Do you not know what these are?” Then he will explain, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel:  Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty.” (Zechariah 4:6).  It appears that the angel has twisted the vision to explain something that is not “literally” present. The angel is privileged to certain information that makes little sense to the human intellect but makes perfect sense in the realm of the spirit.  Hence, the Peshat approach to scripture can be short-sighted.  I will allow that it has a tremendous place in biblical interpretation.  Perhaps even a place at the foundation, but it is not the end all and be all of biblical interpretation.  There are spiritual principles that simply cannot be explained by using a historical-critical syntaxical exegesis.  The full gamut of spirituality will require more than just the use of our brains. 

 

     As noted above, the Karaites and modern scholarship use a method of interpretation known as Peshat or “simple.”  The ancient rabbis, however, recognized a need for something more comprehensive than historic-critical methods of interpretation and develop a different approach.  The developed a system of biblical interpretation which is called  sdrp, (PaRDeS) an acronym for the four modes of interpretation.   Dr. David Stern gives us an explanation of what these different approached to scripture can mean to us:

 

1. 1.       Peshat (simple)—the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by “grammatical-historical exegesis” which looks to the grammar of the language and the historical setting as background for deciding what a passage means.  Modern scholars often consider grammatical-historical exegesis the only valid way to deal with a text.  (As we have demonstrated this cannot always be the case)
2. 2.      Remez (hint)—wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hint at a truth not conveyed by the Peshat.  The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.  (Passover and the Messiah for example.  There is not explicit statement connecting the two but the clues are self-evident)
3. 3.      Drash or midrash (search)—an allegorical or homiletically application of a text.  This is a spercies of eisegesis (reading one’s own thoughts into a text) as opposed to exegesis, which is extracting form the text what it actually says.  The implied presupposition is that the words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, which God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all.  (The entire concept of Talmud and midrash comes from this interpretation.  Where the orthodox ere, as the Karaites have pointed out, is that the orthodox have elevated a method of interpretation to the level of scripture itself.  This is a mistake.)
4. 4.      Sod (secret)—a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at by operating on the numerical values of the Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters, and the like.  For example, two words, the numerical equivalents of whose letters add up to the same amount, are good candidates for revealing a secret through what Arthur Koestler in his book on the inventive mind called “biosociation of ideas.  The implied presupposition is that God invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even the individual letters. (4 parenthetical notes are mine for emphasis and clarification)

    

     The word PaRDeS literally means garden or orchard.  The supposition underlying this mode of biblical interpretation is that God, in His love for humanity, expresses ideas to us through a wide variety of methodologies, not just intellectually.  Many struggle with this concept of interpretation because it has a subjective ring to it.  Their objection is noted and valid.  We must remember that these are approaches to biblical interpretation and that interpretation, in and of itself, cannot replace what is inspired and written.  (Again, this seems to be the error of orthodox Judaism in its elevation of the oral-torah as inspired.)

 

     In the defense of the New Testament, we must evaluate the text according to its historic context (both scholars and Karaites should agree with this because it is based upon a historic contextual model).  What we will find, is that all four of these methods of PaRDeS existed at the time of the writing of the New Testament and were commonly used in Jewish circles for biblical interpretation.  Therefore, when evaluating the New Testament application of the prophecies concerning Messiah, we must consider these methods.  To reject the methods of PaRDeS is to reject a historical critical approach to the New Testament because the New Testament writers deployed these methods many of the passages where they found Messianic fulfillment in the life of Jesus.  Let’s look at an example.

 

     “And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet:  Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)  Matthew writes this as the fulfillment of a prophecy written in Hosea 11:1.  Well, let’s take a look at it.  It states, “When Israel was a child, I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son.” This fulfillment makes absolutely no sense from a historical-critical model.  There is absolutely no mention of anything related to Messiah in this chapter.  Therefore, the Karaites dismiss it as being messianic and believe that Matthew was twisting the scriptures.  Is this the case?  I think not.  Again, Dr. Stern, “What then, is Mattityahu doing here?  Some allege he is misusing Scripture, twisting the meaning of what Hosea wrote from its context in order to apply it to Yeshua.  Such an accusation stands only if Mattityahu is dealing with the peshat.    For there is no question that the peshat of Hosea 11:1 applies to the nation of Israel and not to Yeshua.  Some think Mattityahu is using the drash approach, making a midrash in which he read the Messiah into a verse dealing with Israel.  Many rabbis used the same procedure; Matthew’s readers would not have found it objectionable.  Nevertheless, I believe Mattityahu is not doing eisegesis but is giving us a remez, a hint of a very deep truth.  Israel is called God’s son as far back as Exodus 4:22.   The Messiah is presented as God’s son a few verses earlier in Matthew, reflecting a Tanach passages such as Isaiah 9:5-6-7, Psalm 2:7 and Provervbs 30:4.  Thus the Son equals the son; the Messiah is equated with, is one with, the nation of Israel.  This is the deep truth that Matthew is hinting at by calling Yeshua’s flight to Egypt a “fulfillment” of Hosea 11:1.” (5)  It would be easy to see how someone with only a short-sided methodology would reject this as a fulfillment of the prophecy.  Many other examples could be used here, both from the Talmudic passages discussing Messiah, as well as, other references of fulfilled prophecies from the New Testament.

 

     As Dr. Stern noted, none of Matthews’s original readers would have taken objection to this application/interpretation of scripture.  They would have considered it a common approach to biblical interpretation (according to the PaRDeS method of biblical interpretation.)  Hence, in order to give the New Testament a fair assessment, it must be examined under the light of its historical context which has a PaRDeS approach to scriptural interpretation at its core.  When seen in this light, the prophecies of the New Testament can be fully explained inside of their historical approach to scripture.

 

    

Endnotes

1. http://www.karaites.org/history.html.
2. 2.       Hazzan Yochanan Zaqantov, http://www.karaitejudaism.org.
3. 3.       Santala, Risto,  The Messiah in the Old Testament in the Light of Rabinical Writings, Keren Ahvah Meshihit, Jerusalem Israel, 1992, page 43.
4. 4.       Stern, David, Jewish New Testament Commentary,  Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992, page 12.
5. 5.       Ibid

The Church Under Marcion’s Shadow, An Investigation Into his Prologues

       Marcion was born in 100 AD  in Sinope in Asia Minor.  He was raised in the apostolic faith and his father was a leader in the church.  Marcion devoted himself to studying scripture and later came to the conclusion that only Paul saw the message of Jesus with purity.  “Marcion came to Rome about A.D. 140, and there founded a sect which persisted for many years.  His distinctive doctrine was that the Old Testament was inferior to the New and had been rendered obsolete by Christ.  Marcion stressed the contrast between the two testaments so far as to say that the god revealed in the one was quite a different being from the God revealed in the other.  The righteous God, the Creator, Israel’s Jehovah, revealed in the Old Testament was different and inferior deity to the good God revealed by Jesus under the name ‘Father’ this, Marcion thought, was rendered sufficiently obvious by the fact that it was the worshippers of the righteous God of the Old Testament who sent the Revealer of the good God to His death.  Marcion, therefore, repudiated the authority of the Old Testament, and defined the Christian canon as consisting of one Gospel and a collection of ten Pauline epistles.  Paul, to Marcion’s way of thinking, was the only real apostle of Christ, who had remained true to His mind and revelation.” (1)  His theology was a blend of Gnosticism and Christianity.

Marcion was convinced that all the early apostles, including Peter, got the message of Jesus all wrong and only Paul had retained the true gospel.  To Marcion, the false apostles of the New Testament were actually Peter, John, James, and Apollos.  The one true apostle, Paul, had to follow after them and correct their teaching.  (Marcion’s basis for this was primarily the book of Galatians)  Marcion set out to develop his own “canon” of scripture that supported his views.  He rejected all the gospels and apostolic writing except for Luke and the writing of Paul.   In regards to Luke, Marcion edited out all references that support the Old Testament.  In July of 144,the church out rightly rejected Marcion but he continued to have influence for a number of years.  That influence is still within the church today and it is the theology that the Old Testament “has been done away with.”  This is evident in the Marcionite prologues to the epistles that the church retained from ancient origin.

     A prologue is a short summary (a type of twitter if you will) statement that Marcion placed at the beginnings of each of his books.  It gives a short synopsis of what the book was about.  For example, Marcion’s prologue to the epistle to the Romans reads, “The Romans are in the regions of Italy. They had been reached by false apostles and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ they were led away into the law and the prophets. The apostle calls them back to the true evangelical faith, writing to them from Corinth.”  The anti-old testament theology is, of course, evident in this prologue.  These prologues exist in a number of copies of the Latin Vulgate, including the codex Fuldenesis of 546 AD.  “The codex Fuldensis, now in the Landesbibliothek of Fulda was written between AD 541 and 546 at Capua by order of Victor, the bishop of that see, and was corrected by him personally.” (2)  Please take note that the bishops of the see himself, Victor, edited the copy of this Vulgate.  This means that Victor included the prologues as part of his theology.  This demonstrates that the anti-nominal viewpoint was already deeply entrenched in the church by this time frame.  However, there is further evidence that points to an original that is deeper.  Notice that in the prologue to the Romans, the writer has to tell his readers that “The Romans are in the regions of Italy” certainly, as Adolf von Harnack points out, no western theologian would’ve written this.  Hence, the original was probably in the Greek language.
The church just adopted them into their canon.  Bruce Metzger writes, “Later the Catholic Church took over these Prologues practically unaltered.” (3) They have an ancient root that has continued throughout the centuries.  Again Metzger, “For centuries they have been a regular part of the Latin New Testament, and were taken over in pre-Reformation vernacular versions of the Bible.” (4)  Hence, the Marcionite theology that the Old Testament has been “done away with” successfully infiltrated the Catholic church and the subsequent churches/denominations that have been established since the Reformation.  Now, it is just so old that no one recognizes it as a heresy.  It has become the norm.

     Ironically, it was a Benedictine scholar named Donatien De Bruyne that discovered the origin of these prologues.  His work won almost immediate acceptance by the scholars of his day.  The one question that remains unanswered is “why?”  Why would the Catholic Church adopt the prologues of a notorious heretic as Marcion?  As far as I know, nobody knows.  Any suggestions, at this point, would be merely conjecture and I will refrain from that.  Suffice it to say, that the theology that the Old Testament has been done away with has a definite root in the writings of an early church heretic.

   Here are the remainders of the Prologues:

Prologue to the epistle to the Romans:

The Romans are in the regions of Italy. They had been reached by false apostles and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ they were led away into the law and the prophets. The apostle calls them back to the true evangelical faith, writing to them from Corinth.

Prologue to the epistle to the Galatians:

The Galatians are Greeks. They at first accepted the word of truth from the apostle, but after his departure they were tempted by false apostles to be converted to the law and circumcision. The apostle calls them back to the faith of truth, writing to them from Ephesus.

Prologue to the epistle to Titus:

He warns and instructs Titus concerning the constitution of the presbytery and concerning spiritual conversation and heretics to be avoided who believe in the Jewish scriptures.

 

Endnotes

1. 1.       Bruce, F.F. “The Books and The Parchments”, Revel Books, Old Tappan New Jersey, 1963, page 79.
2. 2.      Metzger, Bruce, Ehrman, Bart, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2005, page 108.
3. 3.      Metzger, Bruce, Flack, Elmer, and others, The Text, Canon, and Principal Versions of the Bible, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1956, page 24.
4. 4.      Metzger, Bruce, The Canon of the New Testament, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1987, page 96.

Chapter Six: Theologically Motivated Alterations to the Text

     Dr. Ehrman attempts to prove that early scribes altered the New Testament text in order to fit their own theology.  He writes, “The New Testament itself emerged out of these conflicts over God (or gods), as one group of believers acquired more converts than all the others and decided which books should be included in the canon of scripture,  During the second and third centuries, however, there was no agreed upon canon and no agreed upon theology. Instead, there was a wide range of diversity: diverse groups asserting diverse theologies based on diverse written texts, all claiming to be written by apostle of Jesus.” (1)  Basically, Dr. Ehrman would have us believe that “proto-orthodox” scribes are the ones that fashioned the New Testament to fit their own ideologies.  This is preposterous and frankly, it requires more faith to believe Ehrman’s thesis than it does to believe that the New Testament established itself in history.  Bruce Metzger’s book, “The Canon of the New Testament” is regarded by scholars, including Dr. Ehrman, and laypersons alike to be the authority on how the New Testament came into being.  In it, Dr, Metzger writes, “the church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church.  If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history.” (2)  These are strong words from a man who is regarded internationally as the greatest of all New Testament textual critics of our time.  According to him, Ehrman has come into serious conflict with history.  Agreed.  Nevertheless, let us press on to consider what Ehrman has to say.

     Ehrman will begin by reiterating that early manuscripts were not solidified and that they can’t really be trusted.  Much of this we have already debunked in the first few chapters of the book.  However, here we will add some things.  Metzger writes, “The Christian community soon discovered how laborious it was to try to find specific passages in their sacred books when they were written in roll form.  Early in the second century (or perhaps even at the close of the first century), the codex or leaf form of book, came into use in the Church.  A codex was made by folding one or more sheets of papyrus in the middle and sewing them together, Christians found that this for had a number of advantages over the roll:  1)  it permitted all four Gospels or all the Epistles of Paul to be bound intone book, a format that was impossible so long as the roll was used; 2)  it facilitated the consultation of proof texts; and 3) it was better adapted to receiving writing on both sides of the page, thus keeping the cost of production down.” (3)  Ehrman is not willing to admit that this is more organization than he wants his readers of Misquoting Jesus to know, so he doesn’t mention it.  However, Ehrman himself knows this because he co-wrote this book with Bruce Metzger.  Hence, he doesn’t present an unbiased opinion in Misquoting Jesus because if he did, the premise behind Misquoting Jesus would fall, particularly in this section.

     The basic thesis behind the remainder of the book is a repackaged form of Ehrman’s book, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.”  This thesis is that there were competing ideas of what Christianity was, and, when the orthodox had obtained the major following by winning more converts, they altered the text to fit their theology.  As we have already stated, this supposition is a stretch.  Perhaps a brief synopsis of how the New Testament came into being would be in order because lots of this information Ehrman glosses over. Then, he will present a few passages from the gospels to support his thesis.  But, we should be wise to review all the history.

     Eusebius quotes a church father named Papias in his history.  We have already seen this in the section on the “Defense of the Marcan Appendix.”  Papias tells us that Mark recorded the teachings of Peter, some have suggested memorized (4) and then recorded them down at the request of the church. Many suggest that this was very early and that Mark is the earliest of the gospels, even as early as 50’s AD.  It is apparent that Mark was a primary source for Luke and Matthew, as previously noted 600 some verses of Mark are reproduced in Matthew and Luke.  This gives them a date of between 60-80 AD.  Additionally, Eusebius tells that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, which would also give a date before 70AD and the fall of the temple.  John was the last gospel composed, near the end of the apostles life, and most scholars date it around 90-100 AD.  Early manuscript evidence for gospels being placed together points to about AD 125.  P 4, P64, P67, are very early second century manuscripts that contain all four gospels.  This is significant because it points to a widespread distributed codex (a collection of all four gospels) within a hundred years of the crucifixion.  It is also significant because all four gospels would’ve been recognized as having authority early in the development of the church.  Additionally, the letters of Paul and Acts are included in these manuscripts.  Additionally, this tells us that a Pauline corpus was developed very early as well.  Most agree that all of Paul’s letter were written before late 60’s AD before his martyrdom. Thus, within a few short years, the Pauline corpus was formulated and widely circulated among the church.  Please keep in mind that all of this took place very early in the church before the mid second century.  Thus, as Bruce Metzger has already pointed out and FF Bruce will reiterate, “People frequently speak and write as if the authority with which the books of the Bible are invested in the minds of Christians is the result of their having been included in the sacred list.  But the historical fact is the other way about; they were and are included in the list because they were acknowledged as authoritative…Both logically and historically, authority precedes canonicity…We are not dealing so much with the recognition of the Biblical oracles a authoritative as with the formation of a canon of those writings which had already the stamp of authority upon them.” (5)  Ehrman will argue that the manuscripts were “in-flux” and wouldn’t be finalized until after proto-orthodox scribes pushing a theological position would alter the text.  We will demonstrate how this is fanciful logic.

     The fact that centuries ago, not much unlike today, a vast array of Christian theologies existed doesn’t necessarily mean that the bulk of the text was corrupted to solidify a particular sects core beliefs. It seems more likely that the church Fathers including Tertullian, Ireaneus, and Justin developed their theologies from what was written rather than from writing them themselves.  Meaning, they developed their teachings from the apostolic writings, which we have already demonstrated, to have been widely recognized as having authority.  So, let us press into Ehrman’s position.

Anti-adoptionist Changes to the Text

     Ehrman present two different ideas concerning exactly when Jesus became the “Son of God.”  There is a school of thought (Both in ancient history and kept alive today by the Jehovah Witness and the Mormons) that Jesus was not “born divine.”  That, at His baptism, the Father “adopted Him” as His Son and that’s when he became divine with the subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Thus, Christ was never a pre-incarnate being but was flesh and blood and just a man until His baptism by John.  The premise is that because of His good life and works, the Father was so well pleased in Him to adopt Him as His Son.  Thus, the Mormon theology is developed, “As man is, God was, and as God is, man can become.”  There is a plethora of scriptures that debunk this theology and I won’t full discuss them here as Ehrman doesn’t mention them.  I will list them for the perusal of the reader and then we will discuss Ehrman’s arguments of the textual variants that he supposed are evidence of proto-orthodox scribes editing out adoptionist theology.  Here they are:  John 1:1-4; Col1:16; Eph 3:19; Phil 2:5-11, and Hebrews 1:1-4.  The Christology of these passages is not really disputed and many of them(Particularly Philippians 2:5-11 may be very old oral tradition that found its way into the text of scripture which gives it a very early date, before the development of the Pauline corpus, around 30-40 AD) are very archaic.  Setting these five witnesses aside, let’s consider Ehrman’s argument.

     Ehrman begins by making two different arguments where Joseph is referred to as the “father” of Jesus.  Older manuscript support the reading as “father” but later scribes changed the reading and replaced father with Joseph. Their motive was to clarify, perhaps, that Joseph was not the real father.  What does this change really tell us about the divinity of Christ?  Nothing!  Even if father is left in the text, Luke has painstakingly established the virgin birth of Messiah in his first chapter.  Additionally, Joseph would not have been referred to, in Jewish culture, as the “step-father.”  He would have been considered the “father” of the baby.  This is the way that God set it up according to Luke.  This same argument can be made for the incident where Jesus is left in Jerusalem and his “parents” find Him in the Temple.  Of course, Ehrman leaves out the text where Jesus responds, “Did you not know that I would be in My Father House?” (Luke 2:49)  Even if the reading was “his mother and father were looking for Him”, in light of what we have already said, it wouldn’t matter if the reading was “his parents” or “his mother and father.”

     Another interesting variant that Ehrman brings up is the account of the voice from heaven at Jesus baptism.  The common reading of “in whom I am will pleased” may very well be a later interpolation, and an older variant is “Today, I have begotten you.”  His evidence that the original is the latter is threefold.  First, it exist in an old Greek manuscript and in some Latin ones, Secondly, it is quoted by server early church fathers, and lastly, it is the most unlikely reading.  Would this reading make the adoptionist viewpoint a biblical possibility?  Not likely. Ehrman himself explains, “Luke probably did not mean that to be interpreted adoptionistically, since, after all, he had already narrated an account of Jesus’ virgin birth ( In chapters 1-2) But later Christian reading Luke 3:22 may have been take aback by its potential implications as it seems open to an adoptionistic interpretation.” (6)  So, if the older reading is correct, what does this change?  Nothing!  It could even been interpreted as a prophetic fulfillment of Psalm 2, which is a very Messianic Psalm.   So, did proto-orthodox scribes change this to push their theological agenda?  Even if they did, “the original” wouldn’t support adoptionist theology and there is a ton of other scriptures that could be cited against it as well.

I Timothy 3:16

“God (Who) was manifested in the flesh,

Justified in the Spirit

Seen by angels

Preached among the Gentiles

Believed on in the world,

Received up in glory”

 

     Ehrman here revisits a point that we touched on earlier but didn’t full develop.  This passage, which may represent a pre-biblical piece of oral tradition/hymn, has a variant in the first line.  I have included what the “original” probably says in parenthesis, mainly, “Who.”  Ehrman describes how an early textual critic named JJ Wettstein examined the Codex Alexandrinus and discovered a variant that eventually led him away from the faith.  Ehrman writes, “Wettstein examined the Codex Alexandrinus, no in the British Library, and determined that in I Timothy 3:16, where later manuscripts speak of Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh,” this early manuscript originally spoke, instead of Christ “who was made manifest in the flesh.”  The change is very slight in Greek—it is the difference between a theta and an omicron, which look very much alike (QE vs. OE).” (7)  So, let’s suppose that the original reading is “Who” which is, in all probability, the original.  What does this mean?  Well, to begin with it is an ancient hymn or piece of oral tradition that Paul relates to Timothy. This scribal variant from “God” to “Who” takes nothing away from the divinity of Christ.  In fact, it agrees with John 1:1 where the “Word” becomes flesh.  The fact that the “Who” had to be “manifested in the flesh” tends to led us to a pre-incarnate condition of Christ.  Again, this variant changes nothing of our Christology.  The variant may have been introduced by a zealous scribe who, despite his ideological desires to solidify the incarnation, mistakenly changed the text to suit that agenda.  However, the original doesn’t really effect the presentation of Christ as pre-incarnate in the bulk of the New Testament.

John 1:18:  The Unique God verses the Unique Son

“No One has seen God at any time.  The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.” (John 1:18 NKJV)

     The variant we will look at in this verse deals with the phrase “Only-begotten-son.”  To begin with, the Greek phrase is, “monogens Qeos.” To begin with the word, “monogens” is perhaps better translated as “unique.”  The literal translation would be “a single of its kind.”  So, we can say that “unique” is a possible translation but “one of a kind” is probably more accurate.  Even Ehrman will state that the reading, “the Unique God” is the one found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.  However, he makes a good point about the internal evidence.  He says tha the phrase is never really repeated throughout the gospel of John while the phrase, “the unique Son” is found in John’s gospel.  Ehrman will postulate that the “Unique God” rendering could’ve been a variant started with the Alexandrian scribes and then continued.  This is possible.  Even if it is, then the reading will be “The Unique Son” which again changes nothing of our Christology. (8) Even if we can acquiesce to the thesis that Ehrman is correct with the reading, it, yet again, demonstrates nothing of adversity to the Christ of the New Testament.

Anti-Docetic Changes of the Text

     Docetism is “An early teaching, regarded as heretical, according to which Christ’s incarnation (i.e. taking human form) was only a matter of appearance (Gk dokeo “seem”).  Thus His suffering, death, and resurrection were aspects of the human Jesus’ life in which the divine Christ did not participate (That nature having withdrawn prior to these events). (9)  We must reiterate here that many antidocetic doctrines are abundant in many undisputed places of scripture.  We will, again, not dive into them as Ehrman doesn’t touch on them either.  I will list them here for the reader’s perusal as well as for the reader’s edification that antidocetic viewpoints do not rise or fall on the textual variants that Ehrman will describe.  The biblical doctrine against this teaching predates any “proto-orthodox” scribes.  Please see John 1:1-14; I John 1:1-7. I John 4:2, 2 John 7.

     Ehrman will, yet again, state the thesis that “proto-orthodox” scribes will alter the New Testament to fit their theology.  We will argue that this is absurd.  We will see that the oral traditions and doctrines of the apostles were recorded in scripture and then the church father developed their theology from them and not vice versa.  In fact, we will demonstrate that it was the heretics that altered the scriptures to fit their own doctrines.  Therefore, it is of no coincidence that Ehrman’s textual variants arise from one gospel, that of Luke, because it was also the favorite of the early church heretic Marcion.

     Ehrman will return to an argument that he developed in the last chapter and one that we have previously answered.  However, since he brings it up here, we will answer his additions.  He takes us back to Luke 22:43-44.  He writes, “Why, though, did scribes add them to the account?  We are now in a position to answer that question.  It is notable that these verses are alluded to three times by proto-orthodox authors of the mid to late second century (Just Martyr, Irenaues of Gaul, and Hippolytus of Rome); and what is more intriguing still, each time they are mentioned it is in order to counter the view that Jesus was not a real human being.  That is, the deep anguish that Jesus experiences according to these verses was taken to show that he really was a human being that he really could suffer like the rest of us.  Thus, for example, the early Christian apologist Just, after observing that “his sweat fell down like drops of blood while he was praying,” claims that this showed “that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such suffering for our sakes,” so that we “: may mot say that he, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to him and inflicted on him.  In other words, Just and his proto-orthodox colleagues understood that the verses showed in graphic form that Jesus did not merely “appear” to be human: he really was human, in every way.  It seems likely, then, that since, as we have seen these verses were not originally part of the gospel of Luke, they were added for an antidocetic purpose, because they portrayed so well the real humanity of Jesus.” (10)  As we have previously listed, there were plenty of other scriptures that Justin could’ve used to demonstrate the same thing.  The fact that Justin and all the other church fathers point to the scriptures as a basis for their doctrine tells us how they viewed the documents.  Additionally, the documents in question were already codified into the “Gospels” by this time as we have previously demonstrated.  It takes more faith to believe that a “proto-orthodox” coup co-opted all the manuscripts and changed them to match their theology.  It takes less faith to believe the testimony of history that testifies that the documents became the basis from which the church drew her doctrine and that it was the heretics that changed them to meet their theologies.  Marcion, is a case in point.

     Marcion was born in 100 AD. (at such a time the New Testament was written and already being codified) in Sinope in Asia Minor.  He was raised in the apostolic faith and his father was a leader in the church.  Marcion devoted himself to studying scripture and later came to the conclusion that only Paul saw the message of Jesus with purity.  “Marcion came to Rome about A.D. 140, and there founded a sect which persisted for many years.  His distinctive doctrine was that the Old Testament was inferior to the New and had been rendered obsolete by Christ.  Marcion stressed the contrast between the two testaments so far as to say that the god revealed in the one was quite a different being from the God revealed in the other.  The righteous God, the Creator, Israel’s Jehovah, revealed in the Old Testament was different and inferior deity to the good God revealed by Jesus under the name ‘Father’ this, Marcion thought, was rendered sufficiently obvious by the fact that it was the worshippers of the righteous God of the Old Testament who sent the Revealer of the good God to His death.  Marcion, therefore, repudiated the authority of the Old Testament, and defined the Christian canon as consisting of one Gospel and a collection of ten Pauline epistles.  Paul, to Marcion’s way of thinking, was the only real apostle of Christ, who had remained true to His mind and revelation.” (11)  Marcion was the very first to organize a canon of scripture.  He rejected all the gospels except for Luke and all other apostolic epistles except for Paul’s.  Marcion would apparently edit many of them to support his theories.  Hence, was it the proto-orthodox scribes who changed the text or was it the heretic Marcion?  It is interesting that Marcion recognized the authority of the gospels and the epistles and then tweaked them to his own theology.  This is evident because Marcion includes nothing from John who writes volumes of stuff against anti-docetic teachings, perhaps unbeknownst to John.  Marcion did use Luke and it is no coincidence that all of Ehrman’s proto-orthodox changes come from that gospels.  Hence, it point stands that perhaps some scribes did alter the text to prevent someone from repeating the same heresy of Marcion.  However, this doesn’t mean that anti-docetic doctrine only existed from these alterations.  AS I have already argued, the gospel of John was written and viewed as authoritative before Marcion was even born.  John writes gospels and letters contain much against Marcion theology.  Hence, anti-docetic doctrine existed prior to any scribal changes to the gospel of Luke.  So, even if Ehrman is correct, his thesis about proto-orthodox developing doctrine from their textual changes sadly crumbles.  Nevertheless, we will review his variants.

Luke 22:17-19

“And taking a cup, giving thanks, He said, Take this and divide it among yourselves,  For I say to you that in no way will I drink from the produce of the vine until the kingdom of God has come.”

     Ehrman takes the position that thee verses as are present in mot translations, are not original.  However, there is some evidence that the long and more common reading/ending is more preferred, in this instant, as original.  Bruce Metzger writes, “Considerations in favor of the originality of the longer text include the following: (a) Then external evidence supporting the shorter reading represents only part of the Western type of text, whereas the other representatives of  the Western text join with witnesses belonging to all the other ancient text-types in support of the longer reading. (b) it is easier to suppose that the Bezan editor, puzzled by the sequence of cup-bread-cup, eliminated the second mention of the cup without being concerned about the inverted order of institution thus produced, than that the editor of the longer version, to rectify the inverted order, brought in from Paul the second mention of the cup, while letting the first mention stand.  (c) The rise of the shorter version can be accounted for in terms of the theory of disciplina arcane i.e. in order to protect the Bucharest from profanation, one or more copies of the Gospel according to Luke, prepared for circulation among non-Christian readers, omitted the sacramental formula after the beginning words…Kenyon and Legg, who prefer the longer form of the text, explain the origin of the other readings as follows”  ‘The whole difficulty arose, in our opinion, from a misunderstanding of the longer version.  The first cup given to the disciples to divide among themselves should be taken in connection with the previous verse (ver 16) as referring to the eating of the Passover with them at the reunion in Heaven.  This is fooled by the institution of the Sacrament, to be repeated continually on earth in memory of Him.  This gives an intelligible meaning to the whole, while at the same time it is easy to see that it would occasion difficulties of interpretation, which would give rise to the attempts at revise that appear in various forms of the shorter versions.’” (12)  This explanation seems to make much more sense than a “proto-orthodox” element that modified all the text.

Luke 24:12

“But rising up, Peter ran to the tomb, and stooping down he saw the linen lying alone. An d he went away wondering to himself at what had happened.”

 

     Ehrman writes, “There are excellent reasons for thinking that this verse was not originally part of Luke’s Gospel.  It contains a large number of stylistic features found nowhere else in Luke, including most of the key words of the text, for example, ‘stooping down’ and ‘linen cloths’ (a different word was sued for Jesus’ burial cloths earlier in the account.)  Moreover, it is hard to see why someone would want to remove this verse, if it actually formed part of the Gospel (again, there is no homoeoteleuton, etc., to account for an accidental omission).” (13)  However, the Executive committee of the United Bible Societies of the Greek new Testament write, “Although verse 12 is sometimes thought to be an interpolation, derived from Jn 20.3,5,6,10, a majority of the Committee regarded the passage as a natural antecedent to ver.24, and was inclined to explain the similarity with the verses in John as due to the likelihood that both evangelist had drawn upon a common tradition.” (14)  Hence, there is no reason to jump to any major theological decision regarding this verse.

Luke 24:51-52

“Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that he was parted from them and carried up into heaven.  And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”

     Ehrman writes, “it is interesting to note, however, that in some of our earliest witnesses-including the Alexandrian manuscript Codex Sinaiticus-there is an addition to the text.  After it indicates that ‘he was removed from them,’ in these manuscripts it states, ‘and he was taken up into heaven.’  This is a significant addition because it stresses the physicality of Jesus’ departure at this ascension rather than the bland ‘he was removed’.  In part, this is an intriguing variant because the same author, Luke, in hi second volume, the book of Acts, again narrates Jesus’ ascension into heaven but explicitly states that it took place ‘forty days’ after the resurrection (Acts 1:1-11)  This makes it difficult to believe that Luke wrote the phrase in question in Luke 24:51—since surely he would not think Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of his resurrection if he indicates at the beginning of his second volume that he ascended forty days later.” (15) Suffice it to say, that we could continue to quote scholars who would favor this longer ending. (16)  There is also a theological reason that supports two different ascensions.  The first is the fulfillment of the feast of first fruits (17) and the second is the actual ascension into heaven that marked the end of His ministry and the beginning of the era of the Holy Spirit.

 

Anti-separationist Alterations to the Text

     Ehrman begins this section by giving us an explanation regarding separationism and Gnosticism.  It is a good one, so for those unfamiliar with the terms, we will quote it here.  He writes, “We might call this a ‘separationist’ Christology because it divided Jesus Christ into two:  the man Jesus (who was completely human) and the divine Christ (Who was completely divine).  According to most proponents’ of this view, the man Jesus was temporarily indwelt by the divine being, Christ, enabling him to perform his miracles and deliver his teachings; but before Jesus’ death, the Christ abandoned him, forcing him to face his crucifixion alone.  The separationist Christology was most commonly advocated by groups of Christians that scholars have called Gnostic.  The term Gnosticism comes from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis.  It is applied to a wide range of groups of early Christians who stressed the importance of secret knowledge for salvation.  According to most of these groups, the material world we live in was not the creation of the one true God.  It came about as a result of a disaster in the divine realm, in which one of the (many) divine beings was from some mysterious reasons excluded from the heavenly places; as a result of her fall from divinity the material world came to be created by a lesser deity, who captured her and imprisoned her in human bodies here on earth.  Some human beings thus have a spark of the divine within, the, and they need to learn the truth of who they are, where they came from, how they got here, and how they can return.  Learning this truth will lead to their salvation.  This truth consists of secret teachings, mysterious ‘knowledge’ (gnosis) which can only be imparted by a divine being from the heavenly realm.” (18) The starting place for Ehrman’s thesis is that Gnosticism and orthodox Christinaity “grew up” together and that orthodox Christianity won the most converts and subsequently, changed the text to meet their agenda and beliefs.  However, Gnosticism did not originate with apostolic teaching but was a later heretical development.  Bruce Metzger points out, “it was not until the mid-second century that the real showdown between the two took place.” (19)  Thus, we see that early NT documents were already widely circulated by this time period.  An orthodox corruption simply is not possible looking that the history.  Nevertheless, we will examine the variants Dr. Ehrman points out.

     The first variant Ehrman discusses is Hebrews 2:9.  This is a verse that we have already considered so it won’t be dealt with here.  Suffice it to say that both readings have spiritual benefit for the Christian and a “Gnostic” or “Anti-Gnostic” agenda need not be the case with this variant.  Again, as with the adoptionist position, a plethora of scripture exist that debunk Gnosticism and none of them are seriously questioned by Ehrman.  John seemed to make it his ambition to debunk Gnosticism (John 1:1-4 and I John 1:1-4)  Ehrman never discuses any of these text.  Thus, even if Ehrman is correct and all the variants we are about to dissect could be proven to support Gnostic viewpoints, there would still remain a largely amount of scripture that debunks it.

Mark 15:34

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.”

     Ehrman begins his argument with, “We have solid evidence to suggest that some Gnostics took this last saying of Jesus literally, to indicate that it was at this point that the divine Christ departed from Jesus (since divinity cannot experience mortality and death).  The evidence comes from Gnostic documents that reflect on the significance of this moment in Jesus’ life.  Thus, for example, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, which some have suspected of having a separationist Christology quotes the words in a slightly different from, “My power, O power, you have left me!”  Even more striking is the Gnostic texts known as the Gospel of Phillip in which the verse is quoted and then given a separationist interpretation:  ‘My God, my God, why Lord have you forsaken me?’ For it was on the cross that he said these words, for it was there that he was divided.  Proto-orthodox Christians knew of both these Gospels and their interpretations of this climactic moment of Jesus crucifixion.”  (20) 

     To begin with, most scholars would agree that the Gnostic gospels were not composed until, the earliest in the mid-second century, and the latest in the third or the fourth century.  Mark, as we have already written, began with oral tradition and then was written down before the late 70’s of the first century.  So, which is more likely, that scribes changed Mark to debunk Phillip or Peter, or the writers of the Gnostic gospels tweaked the original of mark to fit their own agenda.  This seems must more plausible than Ehrman’s thesis.  Secondly, Ehrman cites “one” Greek manuscript that quotes a variant.  This means that the other 5,000 or so manuscripts agree with the original wording of Mark which is a quote from Psalm 22:1.  According to Ehrman, these proto orthodox scribes were so driven to alter the text in order to prevent any Gnostic ideas from entering into the text and in their fiery zeal they went out and changed one manuscript!  There is also a few latin manuscripts that contain the variant also.  Meaning, that of the 10,000 or so manuscripts of Latin, a few posses this variant and somehow, this proves an orthodox corruption of scripture?  This just doesn’t seem plausible.

I John 4:2-3

“By this you know the Spirit of God.  Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.  This is the spirit of the anti-Christ.”

Dr. Ehrman writes, but there is an interesting textual variant that occurs in the second half of the passage.  Instead of referring to the one ‘that does not confess Jesus,’ several witnesses refer instead to the one ‘that looses Jesus.’  What does that mean –looses Jesus—and why did this textual variant make its way into some manuscripts?  To start with, I should stress that it is not in very many7 manuscripts.  In fact, among the Greek witnesses, it occurs only in the margin of one tenth-century manuscript (Ms. 1739).  But this, as we have seen, is a remarkable manuscript because it appears to have been copied from one of the fourth century, and its marginal notes record the names of church father who had different readings for certain parts of the text.  In this particular instance, the marginal note indicates that the reading ‘looses Jesus’ was known to several late second and early third century church fathers, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origin.  Moreover, it appears in the Latin Vulgate.  Among other things, this shows that the variant was popular during the time in which proto-orthodox Christians were debating with Gnostics over matters of Christology.” (21)  Let me see if I understand this correctly, a tenth century copy of a fourth century manuscript has a marginal note that changes the reading?  Yes, this is correct.  And this is supposed to prove an orthodox corruption of the scripture?  Not likely.

Endnotes

1.  Ehrman, Bart, Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper Collins Pub, New York, NY, 2005, page 153.
2. Metzger, Bruce, The Canon of the New Testament, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1987, page 287.
3. Metzger, Bruce, Ehrman, Bart, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2005, page 12-13.
4. 4.      See Berger Gerhardssen, “Memory and Manuscript” Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998.
5. 5.      Bruce, F.F. “The Books and The Parchments”, Revel Books, Old Tappan New jersey, 1963, page 95-96.
6. 6.      Ehrman, MJ, page 160.
7. 7.      Ibid, page 157.
8. 8.      Metzger and the Committee on the Greek New Testament will argue for the “Unique God” to be the original reading.  I have not included their arguments here for brevities sake.  However, the interested reader is referred to, Metzger, Bruce, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” second Edition, United Bible Societies, USA, page 169-170.  Also for a dissection of Ehrman Greek syntax and exegesis, see Komoazewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, “Re-inventing Jesus, What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You.” Kregel Publications, 2006, page 290-292 in the endnotes section #24.
9. 9.      Myers, Allen, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987.
10. 10.  Ehrman, MJ, page 165.
11. 11.  Bruce, F.F. TBATP, page 79.
12. 12.  Metzger, Bruce, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” second Edition, United Bible Societies, USA, page 149-150.
13. 13.  Ehrman, MJ, page 168.
14. 14.  Metzger, ATCOTGNT., page 157-158.
15. 15.  Ehrman, MJ, page 169.
16. 16.  See Metzger, ATCOTGNT, page 162-163.
17. 17.  see my article entitled,  Jesus and First Sheaf, on my blog www.spiritualenrichment.wordpress.com.
18. 18.  Ehrman, MJ, page 170-171.
19. 19.  Metzger, TCONT, page 76.
20. 20.  Ehrman, MJ, page 172-173.
21. 21.  Ibid, page 174.

Do Not Judge the Things of the Sabbath

“So, let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths” (Col 2:16 NKJV)

     As a torah-observant Christian, this verse is often thrown at me as theological justification for ignoring the Feast Days of the Old Testament that were commanded by God.  It is also used to make the case that the Old Testament has been “done away with.”  Obviously, these statements don’t exactly sit well with me because many of these feast days were commanded by God to be “statutes forever.”  This seems to suggest that they were meant to be continued. (It is my opinion that the commandments of God didn’t just vanish with the resurrection of Messiah)  This premise tells me that God’s intention, from the giving of the torah (or instruction), has been for us, His people, to continue to observe these holy days.  (And not, subsequently, replace them with ones of pagan origin) However, in all fairness and on the surface, the above-quoted verse seems to really enforce this idea of the “doing away” with the torah.  Even among sabbaterians, this verse has caused some confusion.  I recently read one commentary which states, “Paul’s warning may mean that Christians should not be drawn into keeping ceremonial events—festivals, new moons, and ceremonial Sabbaths as described in the OT.” (1)  This explanation is simply not tenable.  Why?  Because the very first mentioned “feast” in the Old Testament is the weekly seventh day Sabbath. (see Leviticus 23)  Hence, this interpretation by seventh day advocates actually bespeaks against their own observance of the Sabbath.  Something else must be at the heart of this verse.  I believe that there is something else to this verse and it has to do with the interpretation of the Greek.  To begin with, the translation in the NKJV doesn’t get all the meaning of the Greek text.  So, we must dive deeper into the language of the New Testament.

     The verse in Greek reads: 

Mh oun tis umas krinetw en bresei h en posei h en merei eorths h noumhnias h sabbatwn.

     Perhaps a little syntaxical exegetical dissection will shed some light on why this verse is grossly mistranslated.  To begin with, the verse is written in the imperative mood. (The etw on the end of the verb krinetw tells us the mood)  In Greek, this is the mood of commands.  The Mh at the beginning is a negative particle and the verse will begin like this, “Therefore, no one is to judge you.”  The “let” is generally always added by translators when translating the third person imperative but it doesn’t exist in the Greek and oftentimes softens the sense of the Greek command.  What follows this is a string of future third person verbs (as evidenced by the sei on the endings of them) which are translated with the English “ing” on the end of them and are eating and drinking (en bresei h en posei.)  The phrase “merei eorths” is basically a direct translation from Hebrew and means “any particular feast day.”  The word eorths is used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) for the Hebrew word “gj” pronounced “chag” meaning feast day or festival day.  What is interesting about the use here in the Greek is the ending “ths” which will indicate the genitive case of the noun.  This is where the breakthrough will come for us.  In fact, the next two nouns of the verse will also be written in the genitive case, they are the words for new moons and Sabbath. (The ias and the twn ending indicate the genitive case for these nouns in their respective declensions.)  This makes a tremendous impact on how the verse is translated and on how the author intended the verse to be interpreted by the Colossians.

     The genitive case is the case of “possession” or “ownership.”  The expression “The people of God” would be written, in Greek, in the genitive case.  This is making a statement about both the people and about God and their relationship but mainly, that God has possession of the people, they are His.  Let’s now apply this to the verse in question.  The feast days, new moons, and the Sabbaths are in the genitive case which tells us that they have the possession.  So, we must add a “things” to the verse to clarify what the text is saying.  For example, the best English translation of the verse might be, “Therefore, no one is to judge you in eating and in drinking or in any particular things of a feast day and a thing of a new moon or in the things of the Sabbath.” (italics indicates that it is not in the Greek but is added in the English for clarification of what the Greek is saying)  You see, the genitive is almost always translated with “of” in front of it and this gives an entirely different meaning to what the verse is saying.  What Paul is saying is not that all those things are relegated to the past and done away with; on the contrary, he is telling us that we have freedom to observe and keep these holy days as our own conscience is clear before God.  This is the freedom in Christ that Paul is incessantly talking about in his epistles.  He is always telling us that it is not any man’s place to tell another man how they ought to keep the Sabbath.  This was a constant source of tension between the religious leaders of the time and Jesus.  They had constant debate about Sabbath observance and Messiah position was that it is not the business of another man to judge what another man does on the Sabbath as long as that man’s conscience is clear before God.  This verse has nothing to do with getting rid of the statues and commandments that were given by God in the Torah.  It is a point of clarification.  In Colosse, religious teachers were attempting to tell the believers that they had to obey torah in a specific way or they were sinning (Hence, in the beginning of chapter two Paul is talking about the commandments and doctrines of men.  He never mentions the commandments and doctrines of God.)  Paul is saying that it is not their place to tell someone how to keep a particular commandment.  This agrees with the teachings of Jesus on the matter (see my article entitled, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”) Rather than announcing that this verse does away with the law, it actually, when read in the Greek and translated correctly, demonstrates that not only were New Testament gentile believers observing Torah but that they had a freedom to keep the “instruction” as each man conscience led him to before God, who ultimately, will judge him and not his fellows.

      This seems to make much more sense to me.  We know that Jesus kept the instruction (or torah), as did all of the apostles, including Paul.  Hence, this interpretation of the Greek, which is what the Greek actually says, makes much more sense of the entire letter than anything else that I’ve read.

 

Endnotes

1. 1.       Dybdhal, Jon, (General Editor),  Andrews Study Bible, Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, MI, 2010.

Hanuka in History: A Fearless and Thorough Examination of The Feast of the Dedication

      The Feast of Dedication, in Hebrew Hanukkah, is rooted in both prophecy and history.  The amazing thing about the roots of this feast is the prophetic fulfillments found in the history of the intertestamental period.  In order to study the events of Hanukkah for their real impact, one must first refer to the prophecies that were given in the book of Daniel and compare what is found there with the historical writings of the time period between Old and New Testaments.  Let us examine the prophecies and the history found in the 8^th and 11^th chapter of Daniel and identifies their immediate fulfillment in the saga of Hanukkah.

 

                     Daniel Chapter 8 (1-22):  A ram, a goat, and four horns?

 

     The eight chapter of Daniel opens with Daniel having a vision in the third year of Baltshazar (the son of the great Babylonian king Nebuchanezzer, this year is either 550 or 547) (1).  In this vision Daniel sees a ram with 2 horns conquering and doing mighty things that no one can oppose.  Suddenly, a goat, with one large horn, charges upon the ram and destroys it.  The one large horn of the goat is broken and four smaller horns take its place.  The angel Gabriel is sent to explain the vision to Daniel.  Gabriel relates to Daniel that the ram with two horns would be the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians.  Then, the kingdom of Greece, represented by the one horned goat, would swiftly conquer the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. Interestingly enough, this was also prophesied in the 5^th chapter of Daniel to Belthsazar (Daniel 5:30-31). However, the kingdom shall not stand, and four kings will arise in the place of the one king but their kingdoms will not have as much power.  The Intervarsity Press Bible Background Commentary gives a brief yet thorough explanation of the actual historical fulfillment of these prophecies related in chapter 8:1-22.  “The king represented by the large ram is undisputed:  Alexander the Great, whose Greek army swept away the Persian Empire between 335 and 331 B.C.  When Alexander died suddenly in 323 at the age of 33, the two who could claim ancestral rights to the kingdom (his illegitimate half-brother, Phillip Arrideus, and the son of Alexander and Roxane, Alexander IV, born two months after his father’s death) were installed as figureheads while the operation of the kingdom was entrusted to three experienced officers, Antipater (viceroy of Macedon), Predicts (head of the armies) and Craterus (in charge of the treasury and advisor to Arrideus).  By 321 these three regents had sufficiently antagonized one another that a battle was instigated by a fourth player, Ptolemy, who had been given a position of authority in Egypt, Craterus was killed in battle, and Perdiccas was assassinated in a mutiny by several of his generals, one of whom was Seleucus.  Meanwhile Antipater took the lead and placed a friend Antigonus, in Perdicca’s position.  In 319 Antipater died an old man, and despite his appointment of another, within two years his son, Cassander, had gained control of Macedonia and most of the territory of Greece.  In the summer of 317, those opposing Cassander executed Phillip Arriedus, Alexander IV and his mother Roxane were place under house arrest and effectively deposed, though they were not executed until 310.  The three who ruled were now Cassander in the west, Ptolemy in Egypt and Antigonus in the east.  As Antigonus sought to solidify his control of the east, he attempted to dominate Seleucus (now governor of Babylon), who in 325 exposed Antigonus’s schemes for power to the other leaders, Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus, leaving Seleucus isolated but in control of Babylonia.  By 309 Ptolemy decided to move against Antigonus but pushed too far and ended up in 306 under the attack of Antigonus and his son, Demetrius.  Antigonus’s invasion of Egypt failed and at 305, Ptolemy, along with Cassander, Seleucus and Lysimachus (Most likely to be identified as the four horns), declared themselves the successors kings to Alexander.  Yet it was still four more years until Antigonus was killed in the Battle of Ipsus, 301.  Cassander died only three years later (298) and Demetrius continued to cause trouble, but the division of the empire into four parts presents the fallout of this twenty year succession struggle.” (2)  In the book of Daniel, the kingdom of the south will be Ptolomies and the kingdom of the north will be Seleucids.  Ptolomy would gain control of Israel. Israel would suffer greatly over the next few hundred years sitting between the Ptolomies and the Seleucids.

 

          

 

                  Daniel chapter 11:1-35  Ptolemy versus Seleucid

 

     Regarding Ptolemy, he had been a boyhood companion of Alexander’s.  Both had studied philosophy under Aristotle together and Ptolemy became a distinguished leader in Alexander’s army with many successful campaigns.  After the death of Alexander, he withdrew to the easily defendable province of Egypt to set up his royal line that would last fifteen years and end with the famous Cleopatra (3). Under Ptolemy, the Jews were heavily taxed but were allowed, nevertheless, to carry on their culture.  It is interesting, however, how Ptolemy gained control of Jerusalem.  Josephus writes, “He (Ptolemy) also seized upon Jerusalem, and for that end made use of deceit and treachery; for as he came into the city on a Sabbath day, as if he would offer sacrifice, he, without any trouble, gained the city; while the Jews did not oppose him for they did not suspect him to be their enemy; and he gained it thus, because they were free from suspicion of him, and because on that day they were at rest and quietness; and when he had gained it, he reigned over it in a cruel manner.” (4).

 

          What is interesting about the relations between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies over the next few years, is the exact revelation of events that are related in the 11^th chapter of Daniel. Let us examine these until they lead up to the reign of Antiochus Epiphanies, the 11^th Seleucid king and prototype of the antichrist.  His reign will set of the events of Hanukkah, but it is important to set the stage, as the prophecies in Daniel have been revealed. (all scripture quotes will be taken from NKJV unless otherwise specified).

 

Daniel 11:2:  “…Behold three more kings will arise in Persian, and the fourth shall be far richer than them all, by his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.”

 

            Cambyses (530-522), Pseudosmerdis or Gaumata (522) and Darius I (522-486).  Xerses I (486-465), who attempted to conquer Greece in 480.  This is also the Xerxes of the time of Esther. (5)  His riches were proverbial both in scripture and in Greek history.  Xerxes reached his greatest climax and greatest power around 480 B.C.  He tested this strength with the invasion of Greece.  When Alexander comes to power, he will avenge the wrongs done to Greece on the Persians (6)

 

Daniel 11:3-4:   “Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.  And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not among his posterity nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be uprooted, even for other besides these.

 

     The mighty king is Alexander the Great (336-323), as stated previously from the visions of chapter 8.

 

Daniel 11:5 “Also, the king of the South shall become strong, as well as one of his princes; and he shall gain power over him and have dominion, His dominion shall be a great dominion.”

 

     The king of the south is Ptolemy I Soter (323-285) and “One of his princes” refers to Seleucus Nicator (311-280 B.C.) (7).

 

Daniel 11:6: “And at the end of some years they shall join forces, for the daughter of the king of the south shall go to the king of the North to make an agreement; but she shall not retain the power of her authority, and neither he nor his authority shall stand; but she shall be given up, with those who brought her, and with him who begot her, and with him who strengthened her in those times.

 

     Bernice, the daughter of Ptolmy II Philadelphia (285-246) of Egypt.  Antiochus II Theos (261-246) of Syria.  A peaceful treaty cemented by the marriage of Bernice to Antiochus.   However, Antiochus’s former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Berenice and Antiochus put to death.  Berenice’s father, Ptolemy, died at about the same time. (8)

 

Daniel 11:7-9 ”But from a branch of her roots one shall arise in his place, who shall come with an army, enter the fortress of the king of the North, and deal with them and prevail.  And he shall also carry their gods captive to Egypt, with their princes and their precious articles of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North.  Also, the king of the North shall come to the kingdom of the king of the South, but shall return to his own land.”

 

     The branch of her roots refers to the brother of Bernice Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221 B.C.) who conquered the king of the north Seleucus Callinicus (246-226 B.C.) of Syria.  Ptolemy III returned to Egypt with great booty and outlived Seleucus by six years.  Seleucus attempted an attack on Egypt but returned to Syria without accomplishing his purpose. (9)

 

Daniel 11: 10 “However, his sons shall stir up strife, and assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come and overwhelm and pass through; then he shall return to his fortress and sir up strife.”

 

     His sons, the sons of Seleucus II, refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus (226-223) and Antiochus III (the Great) (223-187), the fortress makes reference to Ptolmies fortress at Raphia (10).

 

Daniel 11:11:  “And the king of the South shall be moved with rage, and go out and fight, with him, with the king of the North, who shall muster a great multitude; but the multitude will be given into the hand of his enemy.

 

     At Raphia, Ptolemy IV Philpator (king of the South) defeated (king of the north) Antiochus III the great in 217. (11).

 

Daniel 11:12:  “When he has taken away the multitude, his heart will be lifted up, and he will cast down tens of thousands, but he will not prevail.”

 

     This historian Polybius records that Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantryman at Raphia.

 

Daniel 11:13  “”For the king of the North will return and muster a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come at the end of some years with a great army and much equipment. 

 

    Antiochus III assembled a great army and attacked Egypt in 201 B.C. (12).

 

Daniel 11:14 “Now in those times many shall rise up against the king of the south.  Also, violent men of your people shall exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall.”

 

     Philip V of Macedonia helped Antiochus fight against the king of the South Ptoloemy V. of Egypt.  Many Jews assisted Antiochus with his efforts, the rebellion was crushed by Scopas in 200. (13)  Josephus records that the land of Judah suffered greatly both when Antiochus and his son Epiphanies, was successful and when he was beaten (14).

 

Daniel 11:15: “So the king of the North shall come and build a siege mound, and take a fortified city, and the forces of the South shall not withstand him.  Even his choice troops shall have no strength to resist.

 

     Antiochus returns and defeats the fortified city of Sidon in 198 B.C. (15).

 

Daniel 11:16 “But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and no one shall stand against him.  He shall stand in the Glorious Land with destruction in his power.”

 

     It is at this time, that control of Israel (Glorious land) passed from the Ptolomies (Egypt, king of the South) to the Seleucids (Babylonia and Syria, king of the north).

 

Daniel 11:17 “ He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do.  And he shall give him the daughter of women to destroy it, but she shall not stand with him or be for him.

 

     Antiochus III’s daughter was given in marriage to Ptolemy V Epiphanies in Egypt in order to destroy or undermine Egypt, but Cleopatra I sided with her husband over her father in 194 B.C. (16)  Josephus records the even thusly, “After this Antiochus made a friendship and a league with Ptolemy, and gave him his daughter Cleopatra to wife, and yielded up to him Celesyria, and Judea, and Phoenicia, by way of dowry. (17), as a result heavy taxation was laid upon these lands.

 

Daniel 11:18-19 “After this he shall turn his face to the coastlands, and shall take many.  But a ruler shall bring the reproach against them to an end; and with the reproach removed, he shall turn back on him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fortress of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

 

     Antiochus III undertook a vigorous campaign into Asia Minor and the Aegean region.  A ruler, the Roman Lucius Cornelius Scipio defeated Antiochus.  Having lost all that he had gained, Antiochus returned to his own land where he was defeated and killed while trying to plunder a temple (18).

 

Daniel 11:20:  “  There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle.

 

     Selecious IV Philopater (187-175) son and successor of Antiochus the Great.  His finance minister, Heliodorus devises a successful conspiracy against him (19), his reign would only last 11 years (20).  As mentioned previously, the glorious land refers to Israel.

 

Daniel 11:21 “And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue.”

 

Selecius younger brother, Antiochus Epiphanies (175-164) seized the power while the rightful heir to the throne, the son of Seleucus (later to become Demetrius II) was still very young (21).

 

Daniel 11: 22-23 “With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant.  And after the league is made with him, he shall act deceitfully, for  he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people.”

 

     “With the force of a flood” probably refers to the Egyptians. Either the high priest Onias III who was murdered in 170 B.C. by Menelaus, or if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated  “ confederate prince” Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-146) of Egypt. (22).  IVP commentary relates, “Onias III was detained by Antiochus, and in the interim Jason,  his brother, conspired to usurp his position.  He  paid a considerable sum to Antiochus and offered to be cooperative in the hellenization of Judea (promotion of Greek culture at the expense of Jewish practices). II Maccabees states,” But after the death of Selecus, when Antiochus, called Epiphanies, took the kingdom, Jason the brother of Onias, labored underhand to be high priest promising unto the king by intercession three hundred and threescore talents of silver, and of another revenue eighty talents, beside this more, if he might have license to set him up a place for exercise, and for the training up of youth in the fashions of the heathen, and to write of them of Jerusalem by the name of Antiochians.  Which when the king had granted, and he had gotten into his hand the rule, he forthwith brought his own nation to the Greekish fashion.“ (23). Three years later Menelaus, with the probable support of the Tobiads, paid a larger sum and, the precedent having been established, was awarded the office over Jason (24).  II Maccabees 4:34-35 states, ”Wherefore Menelaus, taking Andronicus apart, prayed him to get Onias into his hands; who being persuaded thereunto, and coming to Onias in deceit, gave him his right hand with oaths; and though he were suspected by him, yet persuaded him to come forth of the sanctuary; whom forthwith he shut up without regard to justice. For the which cause not only the Jews, but many also of other nations, took great indignation, and were much grieved for the unjust murder of the man,” (25).

 

Daniel 11:24 “He shall enter peaceably even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers; he shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise plans against the strongholds, but only for a time.”

 

     One of the interesting characteristics about this prototype of the antichrist is noted by the Nelson Study Bible, it relates of this verse, ”Antiochus took from the rich and gave to the poor.” (26) A very “Robin-Hood” noble act that would make him popular in the eyes of the poor.

 

Daniel 11:25-27: ”He shall stir up his power and courage against the king of the South with a great army.  And the king of the South shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army, but he shall not stand, for they shall devise plans against him.  Yes, those who eat of the portions of his delicacies shall destroy him, his army shall be swept away, and many will fall down slain.  Both of these kings hearts shall be bent on evil, they shall speak lies at the same table; but it shall not prosper, for the end will still be at the appointed time.

 

     Josephus relates these events as such, ”Now Antiochus, upon the agreeable situation of the affairs of his kingdom, resolved to make an expedition against Egypt both because he had a desire to gain it, and because he condemned the some of Ptolemy, as now weak, and not yet of the abilities to manage affairs of such consequence; so he came with great forces to Pelusium and circumvented Ptolemy Philmeter by treachery, and seized upon Egypt.  He then came to places about Memphis; and when he had taken them, he made haste to Alexandria, in hopes of taking it by siege, and of subduing Ptolemy, who reigned there.  But he was driven not only from Alexandria, but out of Egypt, by the declarations of the Romans, who charged him to let that country alone.” (27)  The trusted counselors of Ptolemy would betray him and both kings resorted to deceit and betrayal in working out truce arrangements (28).

 

Daniel 11:28-31  “While returning to his own land, with great riches, his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant; so he shall do damage and return to his own land. At the appointed time he shall return and go toward the south; but it shall not be like the former or the latter, for the ships from Cyprus shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage.  So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.  And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation.”

 

     Antiochus would attempt a second invasion into Egypt that was not nearly as successful as his first.  This time, Ptolemy was prepared and had hired mercenaries from Greece.  Rome again intervenes on behalf of Ptolemy and the ambassador Popilius Loenas, (with a fleet of Roman ships from Cyprus) meets with him in Alexandria.  At the meeting, Antiochus told the ambassador that he would think about the Roman position.  Subsequently, the ambassador drew a circle around Antiochus and told him that He must have an answer to give the senate before Antiochus leaves this circle. (29)  Antiochus submitted to Rome to withdraw from the region.  On his return from Egypt, Antiochus would defile and plunder the Temple in Jerusalem.  He would further forbade Jewish worship and command that the Greek style of worship would be the only religion of his kingdom.  Josephus records these events, “Now it came to pass after two years in the hundred and forty fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that month which is called by us Casleu…that the king (Antiochus) came up to Jerusalem, and , pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery:  at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination…and in order to plunder it s wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made.  So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar (of incense), and table (of showbread), and the altar (of burnt offerings); and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet.  He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the hews into great lamentation, for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law…And when the king had built an idol altar upon God’s altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country.  He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars, in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction.  He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded.” (30)  The writer of I Maccabees relates a similar tale, “And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, and entered proudly into the sanctuary and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off.  He took also the silver and the gold, and the precious vessels:  also he took the hidden treasure which he found…Moreover, king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be on people and every one should leave his laws, so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king.  Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the Sabbath. (31).  Antiochus’s move to centralize the religion of his kingdom, under penalty of death, was an unprecedented move in world history.  As Moshe Pearlman notes,  ”By his declaration of war on the Jewish religion, with the explicit aim of stamping out Judaism, Antiochus IV Epiphanes became the first leader in history to engage in religious persecution.  Not that oppression was unknown in his age or in previous epochs of cruelty.  But heretofore the grounds- if indeed there were any, beyond mindless hate and sheer sadism- were said to be political or military.  Now, for the first time, the target was specifically religious.” (32).  This will become an important factor in the application of Hanukkah to future events as Antiochus is a prototype of Antichrist.

 

Daniel 11:32  “Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery, but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits. 

 

   As was mentioned previously, there were those in Israel who believed that the Jews should conform with the demands of Antiochus.  Jason and Meneleaus having taken the false idea from Greek philosophy that the main object of religion is to maintain political and social order, and that all religions are good enough to keep the masses in check, these had cast off circumcision and true worship of Yahveh for Greek customs. (33) “But the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits”, more will come on this verse in the next section.  The fulfillment in this verse will be found in the actions of the Hasmoneans who will become known as the Maccabeans or Maccabees. 

 

Daniel 11:33-35 “And those of the people who understand shall instruct many; yet for many days they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plundering.  Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue. And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.”

 

      Much of this will be discussed in the next chapter; however, to get a feel for the intensity of their persecution, a couple of exploits will be noted here from II Maccabees and Josephus.  Josephus writes,” And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king’s commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced; but the best men, and those of the noblest should, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which accounted everyday underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified while they were still alive and breathed:  they also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised as, the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses.  And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed; and those with whom they were found miserably perished also.” (34)  The reader is reminded here that circumcision of ones son, according to Torah, takes place on the eighth day of life.  II Maccabees confirms similar horrors, the reader is advised to read II Maccabees for further details.  One such tale in II Maccabees is worthy of  mentioning.   First the death of an aged scribe named Eleazor.  He was compelled, by the kings edict to “eat swine’s flesh” and when he had spit it out stating, “I would rather die than commit such an abomination”, he was whipped to death.  Prior to his death, when he was ready to die he groaned “It is manifest unto Yahveh, that hath holy knowledge, that whereas I might have been delivered from death, I now endure sore pains in body by being beaten:  but in soul am well content to suffer these things, because I fear Him.” (35).  Thusly he died. 

 

Daniel 11:36  “Then the king shall do according to his own will:  he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.”

 

The word Epiphanies means “god manifest”.  Antiochus did assume some divine honors and identified himself with Jupiter Olympus. (36) The exaltation of self and self will has always been Satanically empowered. A final note on the persecutions endured by the Jews during these times.  There has been throughout Jewish history a chastening of Yahveh to motivate the people back to Him.  Yahveh’s wrath is driven out of His great love (Hebrew Hesed) for His people.   The writer of II Maccabees make a point that I believe is worthy of quotation  “Now I beseech those that read this book, that they be not discouraged for these calamities, but that they judge those punishments not to be for destruction, but for a chastening of our nation.  For it is a token of His great goodness, when wicked doers are not suffered any longer time, but forthwith punished.” (37)

 

 

       Can we have a “little help” with some “great exploits” down here please!!

 

     In the midst of the political/social/religious milieu that we have been describing lived a man, a priest, by the name of Mattathias.  Mattathias lived around Jerusalem, in Modin, with his five sons and when they had seen the events take place at the Temple, they tore their clothes, put on sackcloth, and went about in mourning.  Mattathias was a prominent man in the community and the kings officers sought him out to persuade him to forsake Yahveh and worship as the Greeks. The ruler believed that if Mattathias would worship as the Greeks that he would influence several hundred others worship accordingly.  He promised Mattathias riches of silver and gold, both to him and his sons, and he invited him to come to the alter first, and make the first sacrifice.  Mattathias answered, ”Though all the nations that are under the king’s dominion obey him, and fall away every one from the religion of their fathers, and give consent to his commandments:  yet will I and my sons and my brethren walk in the covenant of our fathers.  God forbid that we should forsake the law and the ordinances.  We will not hearken to the king’s words, to go from our religion, either on the right hand, or the left,” (38).   Well, about this time, a Jew, who was not as resolute as Mattathias came forward and consented to offer the first sacrifice.  Mattathias was filled with righteous indignation rose up and killed the Jew.  Then, the sons of Mattathias rose up and killed all of the kings officials.  Incidentally, the writer of Maccabees compares the actions of Mattathias with those of Phinehas in Numbers 25.  Mattathias then goes through all of his country calling the righteous to flee to the desert and mountains with him to fight against the King and his decrees.  A changing of policy regarding the Sabbath was one of the first orders of business. Previously, Jews would not fight on the Sabbath and many were slain while at rest and refusing to fight.  After on such occasion, Mattathias and his comrades decided, “Whosever shall come to make battle with us on the Sabbath day, we will fight against him:  neither will we die all, as our brethren that were murdered in the secret places.” (39).  What we read about these “great exploits” that the Hasmoneans carried out, is that they are somewhat reminiscent of the wars that are waged in the Tanach (Old Testament), “Then Mattathias and his friends went round about and pulled down the altars: and what children soever they found within the coast of Israel u circumcised, those they circumcised valiantly.  They pursued also after the proud men, and the work prospered in their hand.  So they recovered the law out of the hand of the Gentiles, and out of the hand of kings, neither suffered they the sinner to triumph.” (40).  Mattathias would not see the end of the righteous war that began with his act of zeal.  Before his death, he called his sons to him and exhorts and blesses them.  His final words to them are worthy of record, again they reflect  the patriarchs of old, “Now when the time drew near that Mattathias should die, he said unto his sons, Now have pride and rebuke gotten strength, and the time of destruction, and the wrath of indignation: now therefore my sons, be ye zealous for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers.  Call to remembrance what acts our father did in their time; so shall ye receive great honor and an everlasting name.  Was not it imputed unto him for righteousness?  Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and was made lord of Egypt; fervent obtained the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.  Jesus for fulfilling the word was made a judge in Israel.  Caleb for bearing witness before the congregation received the heritage of the land.  David for being merciful possessed the throne of an everlasting kingdom.  Elias for being zealous and fervent for the law was taken up to heaven.  Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, by believing were saved out of the flame.  Daniel for his innocence was delivered from the mouth of the lions.  And thus consider ye throughout all ages that none put their trust in Him shall be overcome.  Fear not then the words of a sinful man:  for his glory shall be dung and worms.  Today he shall be lifted up, and tomorrow he shall not be found, because he is returned into this dust, and his thought is come to nothing.  Wherefore, ye my sons, be valiant, and shew yourselves men in the behalf of the law:  for by it shall ye obtain glory.  And behold, I know that your brother Simon  is a man of council, give ear unto him always: he shall be a father unto you.   As for Judas Maccabeus, he has been mighty and strong even from his youth up:  let him be your captain, and fight the battle of the people.  Take also unto you all those that observe the law, and avenge ye the wrong of your people.  Recompense fully the heathen, and take heed to the commandments of the law.  So he blessed them, and was gathered to his fathers.” (41).

 

     By the time of the passing of Mattathias, Judas, his son, had already obtained a reputation as a great warrior and had been given the name “Maccabeus” which in Hebrew means “the Hammerer”.  He carried on the heritage that was given him by his father and carried out many “great exploits” and was honored among the people of the land,  “Then his son Judas, called Maccabeus, rose up in his stead.  And all his brethren helped him, and so did all they that held with this father, and they fought with cheerfulness the battle of Israel.  So he gat his people great honor, and put on a breastplate as a giant, and girt his warlike harness about him, and he made battles, protecting the host with his sword.  In hi acts he was like a lion, and like a lion’s whelp roaring for his prey.  For he pursued the wicked, and sought them out, and burnt up those that vexed this people.  Wherefore they wicked shrunk from fear of him, and all the workers of iniquity were troubled, because salvation prospered in his hand.” (42).  Now, as well as Israel was doing, Antiochus was not going to put out with rebellion, thus, he prepares to respond.

 

     Antiochus was very upset about the happenings and the rebellion against his decrees in Israel.  Therefore, he set out to invade the entire country and to squelch the rebellion.  “Now when King Antiochus heard these things, he was full of indignation:  wherefore he sent and gathered together all the forces of his realm, even a very strong army.  He opened also his treasure, and gave his soldiers pay for a year, commanding them to be ready whensoever he should need them.  Nevertheless, when he saw that the money of his treasure failed, and that the tributes in the country were small, because of the dissension and plague, which he had brought upon the land in taking away the  laws which had been of old time; he feared that he should be able to bear the charges any longer, nor to have such gifts to give so liberally as he did before; for he had abounded above the kings that were before him.  Wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind, he determined to go into Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money.  So he left Lysias, a nobleman, and one of the blood royal, to oversee the affairs of the king from the Euphrates unto the borders of Egypt; and to bring up his son Antiochus, until he came again.  Moreover, he delivered unto him the half of his forces, and the elephants, and gave him charge of all things that he would have done, as also concerning them that dwelt in Judah and Jerusalem:  to wit, that he should send an army against them, to destroy and root out the strength of Israel and the remnant of Jerusalem, and to take away their memorial from that place; and that he should place strangers in all their quarters, and divide their land by lot.  So the king took the half of the forces that remained, and departed from Antioch, his royal city, the hundred forty and seventh year; and he passed the river Euphrates, and went through the high countries.” (43).

 

     When the Jews heard of the coming invasion, the lamented greatly and sought the God of their fathers.  Their response is a Godly response, “They fasted that day, and put on sackcloth, and cast ashes upon their heads and rent their clothes, and laid open the book of the law, wherein the heathen had sought to paint the likeness of their images.  They brought also the priest’s garments, and the first-rate, and the tithes; and the Nazarites they stirred up, who had accomplished their days.  Then cried they with a loud voice toward heaven, saying.  What shall we do with these, and whither shall we carry them away?  For thy sanctuary is trodden down and profaned, and thy priests are in heaviness, and brought low.  And lo, the heathen are assembled together against us to destroy us:  what things they imagine against us, thou knowest.  How shall we be able to stand against the, except thou, O God, be our help?  Then they sounded with trumpets, and cried with a loud voice.” (44).

 

     One consistent factor with Judas Maccabeus is that he waged war according to Torah.  There are three areas where this is reflected.  The organization of his forces, his speeches toward his men, and his prayers before battle.  In relation to his organization, it is recorded, ”Judas ordained captains over the people even captains over thousands, and over hundreds, and over fifties, and over tens.  But as for such as were building houses, or had betrothed wives , or were planting vineyards, or were fearful, those he commanded that they should return, every man to his own house, according to the law.” (45)  This commandment is recorded in Deuteronomy 20:1-9, “When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid for the LORD your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt is with you.  When you are approaching the battle, the priest shall come near and speak to the people.  He shall say to them, “Hear O Israel, you are approaching the battle against you enemies today.  Do not be fainthearted.  Do not be afraid, or panic, or tremble before them, for the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.  The officers also shall speak to the people, saying, ”Who is the man that has built a new house and has not dedicated it?  Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would dedicate it.  Who is the man that has planted a vineyard and has not begun to use its fruit?  Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man begin to use its fruit.  And who is the man that is engaged to a woman and has not married her?  Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her.  Then the officers shall speak further to the people and say, “Who is the man that is afraid and fainthearted?  Let him depart and return to his house, so that he might not make his brother hears melt like his heart (NASB).  Furthermore, when Judas would make speeches to his men, it was always reflected that Yahveh was the one who would fight the battle and bring about the victory, ”Then said Judas to the men that were with him, Fear ye not their multitude, neither be ye afraid of their assault.  Remember how our father were delivered in the Red Sea, when Pharaoh pursued them with an army.  Now therefore, let us cry unto heaven, if peradventure the LORD will have mercy upon us, and remember the covenant of our fathers, and destroy this host before our face this day:  that so all the heathen may know that there is one who delivered and sayeth Israel.” (46)  Also, his leading by Torah and his own godliness are seen in his prayers prior to battle, “And when he saw the mighty army, he prayed and said, Blessed art thou, O Savior of Israel, who didst quell the violence of the mighty man by the hand of thy servant David, and gavest the host of strangers into the hands of Jonathan the son of Saul, and his armor-bearer; shut up this army in the hand of thy people Israel, and let them be confounded in their power and horsemen;  make them to be of no courage, and cause the boldness of their strength to fall away, and let them quake at their destruction:  cast them down with the sword of them that love thee, and let all those that know thy name praise thee with thanksgiving.” (47)  The results of this godly man leading the people of Israel was victory against a more numerous host reflective of some of the great victories recorded in the Old Testament, “Now when Lysias saw his army put to flight, and the manliness of Judas’ soldiers, and how they were ready either to live or die valiantly, he went into Antiochia…” (48) 

 

     While Lysias would eventually come attack the Jews again and be defeated, this immediate victory for the Jews gave them a reprieve where they could go up to Jerusalem and repair and re-dedicate the Temple, and this, is what they did.  “Then said Judas to his brethren, behold, our enemies are discomfited, let us go up to cleanse and dedicate the sanctuary.  Upon this all the host assembled themselves together and went up into mount Zion.  And when they saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in the courts as in a forest, or in one of the mountains, yea, and the priests chambers pulled down, the rent their clothes, and make great lamentation, and cost ashes upon their heads, and fell down flat to the ground upon their faces, and blew an alarm with the trumpets, and cried toward heaven.  Then Judas appointed certain men to fight against those that were in the fortress, until he had cleansed the sanctuary.  So he chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law, who cleansed the sanctuary , and bare out the defiled stones into an unclean place. And when as they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt offerings, which was profaned, they thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to he because the heathen had defiled it; wherefore, they pulled it down, and laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place until there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them.  Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former; and made up the sanctuary, and the things that we within the temple, and hallowed the courts,  They made also new holy vessels,. And into the temple they brought the candlestick, and the altar of incense, and the table.  And upon the altar they burned incense, and the lamps that were upon the candlestick they lighted, that they might give light in the temple.  Furthermore the set the loaves upon the table, and spread out the veils, and finished all the works which they had begun to make.  Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month which s is called the month of Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighty year, they rose up betimes in the morning and offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of burnt offerings which they had made.  At what time and day the heathen had profaned it, even in that was it dedicated with sons, and  citherens, and harps, and cymbals,  Then all the people fell upon their faces, worshipping and praising the God of heaven, who had given the good success.  And so they kept the dedication of the altar eight days, and offered burnt offerings with gladness, and sacrificed the sacrifice of deliverance and praise.  They decked also the forefront of the temple with crowns of gold and with shields; and the gates and the chambers they renewed, and hanged doors upon them.  Thus was there great gladness among the people, for that the reproach of the heathen was put away.” (49)  Happy Hanukkah!!  This is the reason the festival, holiday, was instituted.  A joyous time where God had proofed himself to be living among His people and if they will live according to his standards, He will act on their behalf.  They celebrated the festival for eight days.  No particular reason is ever disclosed however, many believe that when Moses dedicated the tabernacle in the wilderness, it was four eight days, so the Jews acted on Moses’ example.  Another possibility, is that the Jews had just commerated the Feast of the Tabernacles for eight days in the fall.  Perhaps this too, was a consideration for the length of the Feast of the Dedication. II Maccabees adds an interesting twist to the story that is worthy of mention, “Now upon the same day that the strangers profaned the temple, on the very same day it was cleansed again, even the five and twentieth day of the same month, which is Casleu.” (50).  This event is of prophetic importance as Josephus relates, “Now, it so fell out, that these things were done on the very same day on which their divine worship had fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use, after three years time; for so it was that the temple was made desolate by Antiochus, and so continued for three years.  This desolation happened to the temple in the hundred forty and fifth year, and the 25^th of the month…but it was rededicated anew, on the same day, the twenty fifth of the month of Apelleus, in the hundred forty-eighth  year and on the hundred and fifty fourth Olympiad.  And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel which was give four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship (for some time).” (51)  The prophecy that Josephus is referring to can be found in Daniel 8:11-14, “It (the little horn represented by Antiochus)  even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host, and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down.  And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform it will and prosper.  Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, “How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while transgression cause horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host o be trampled? He said to me, For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.” (NASB) (italics mine).  Roughly a three year time period.  Thus we can discern that the events that have taken place for Hanukkah were an ordained time period.  This immediate fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy gives validity to scripture, and makes Hanukkah a time for us to remember that Yahveh is true and His Word is true.  A final word on the accuracy of the prophecies in the book of Daniel as they relate to history.  The prophesies are so accurate that many liberal scholars have attempted to make a case for dating the book of Daniel after the time of Antiochus.   The logic of this assumption rests on the fact that there is no way that Daniel could have possibly known all that information unless it was written after the events.  One quote here should suffice to sum up this position, ”Because of the detailed nature of apocalyptic timetables, the dating of at least the last chapter of Daniel can be established precisely.  Scholars consider the predictions in this book as in other apocalypses, to be prophecies after the fact purportedly written down centuries earlier and kept secret in order to give credence to other predictions about the end of history.” (52).  The real ironic and disheartening fact about this quote, as related to this subject matter, is that it was taken from a Jewish Study Bible.  This position completely negates the possibility that the Living God communicates to His people through His written Word as well as His prophets.  Furthermore, it makes the men who wrote them look like liars.  It is an attempt to undermine the inspiration of scripture.  While a scholarly case could possibly be made, both Jew and Christian, would be committing spiritual suicide if this position is accepted as fact. It would subsequently negate the gifts of the Holy Spirit and God’s ability to speak to His people.  Hence, it must be  rejected.  However, it does make a statement to how powerful the Word of God is to the fact that what scripture states, will come to pass.  It is a proof of the inspiration of scripture, that Daniel wrote all these things hundreds of years before their occurrence.

 

            I’m a Christian, what did Jesus do about Hanukkah?

 

     John 10:22-23 states. “At that time, the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem, it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon.” (NASB).  Avram Yehoshua has a worthy comment on this verse,” Some might not think too much of this verse.  But we need to stop and realize that Yeshua’s main area or territory of ministering was one hundred miles north around the Sea of Galilee.  The only times we see Him in Jerusalem is at the Feasts of Israel…We have to stop and ask, ‘Why was Yeshua in Jerusalem at Hanukkah?’  Why would he leave the relatively warmer climate of the Sea of Galilee area, for the mountainous, windy, cold and rainy city of Jerusalem in the middle of the winter?  He was there to make a point.  It’s good to celebrate Hanukkah!! (53).  His presence itself makes a statement about what Yeshua believed about Hanukkah.  It was a holiday, a time to gather with fellow Jews and call to remembrance the fact that Yahveh acts in defense of His people.  What is of further interest, are the events that transpire while Yeshua is at Temple on Hanukkah.

 

John 10:24–42 record an exchange between the Jews and Yeshua.  When Antiochus Epiphanies (god manifest) desecrated the Temple, Judas Maccabees (a prototype of Messiah) restored true and holy worship to the Temple.  Of course, during the time of Yeshua, these events would be discussed and celebrated.  The people might have even been looking toward the time when the real Messiah would deliver them from their present Roman domination.  So, here was Yeshua, walking in the temple, they had heard His words and seen His works during the Feast of the Tabernacles (see John chapter 7), this drives them again to question His Messiahship.  Unfortunately, the Jews didn’t believe Him and picked up stones to stone Him.  Avram Yehoshua writes about the significance of these events, “With Yeshua, God the Son, coming into the Temple, we have the living God Manifest, just the opposite of the perversion of the statue of the King of Syria proclaiming himself to be God.  Unfortunately, there were Jews there that wanted to stone Yeshua because He was telling them that He was one with God.  These Jews were more like the Jews in the days of the Maccabees that bowed down to the false image and ate pig (the sign of allegiance and friendship to Antiochus)(See the story of Eleazor listed on page 6).  Yeshua told those Jews that they weren’t His sheep.  But later we see other Jews that did believe that Yeshua was the Messiah.  Yeshua’s Hanuka is quite a significant event.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it parallels the reason for Hanuka.  The Maccabees fought so they could worship the One True God.  With the appearance of Yeshua, we see the One True God (John 14:1-11) (54) (italics mine).  Yeshua also mentions earlier in the tenth chapter, that He has “other sheep in other folds” (John 10:16) referring to the Gentiles that would be “grafted in” (Romans 11) to the vine of Israel.  Hence, the lessons learned at this Yeshua’s Hanukkah reflect an application to all of the followers of the true God of Israel.

 

 

I’m a Christian. Am I supposed to get something out of this? (Lessons learned from Hanukkah)

 

     King Solomon wrote in the Ecclesiastes 1:9, “That which has been is what will be, That which is done, is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.” This statement calls to mind the importance of studying history because similar events are going to occur in the future.  This is one of the greatest applications of Hanuka.  There are three main lessons to glean from the events surrounding Hanuka. The three are, a model for end-times, a preserved remnant, and a time of rededication of the temple of God.  First, in Antiochus alone, we have a  model of end-times and what to look for, to judge the times and the seasons.  Antiochus was an arrogant leader who made himself to be god, claiming divine status.  He was self-willed and self-exalted and he persecuted, with viciousness, anyone who would not confirm to his doctrine. He was a political leader and one who sought to have control over an expanded empire.  A man of power, both politically and religiously.  Secondly, the true worshippers of Yahveh will be revealed when that worship is made illegal and punishable by death.  Many, in that day, will turn away from God and “eat swine’s flesh”  to covenant with the Antichrist.  In fact, Isaiah writes, “I was sought by those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek Me.  I said, ‘Here I am, here I am. To a nation that was not called by My name.  I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in a way that is not good, according to their own thoughts, A people who provoke Me to anger continually to My face, who sacrifice in gardens and burn incense on altars of brick, who sit among the graves and spend the night in the tombs, who eat swine’s flesh and the broth of abominable things is in their vessels.  (65:1-4) (italics added for emphasis).  This means that those who share in the demonic worship of the Anti-Christ will covenant with Satan.  This is also evident in Numbers 25 when Israel began participating with the demonic worship of Baal, the were “joined” to him.  Such will be the times in the days when true worship of God is made illegal.  Many will turn away from the God of Yisrael and His Messiah, and eats swine’s flesh, much like the Jews during Hanukkah, the Jews during the days of Yeshua, and perhaps, many in the church in the future.

 

     Lastly, and most importantly, Hanukkah is a time of self-examination and re-dedication of the Temple of God.  In Messiah, we, our bodies, are the Temple.  The Spirit of God is made manifest inside of us and is given as a deposit of things to come.  During Hanukkah, this is the time to cleanse all the idols of selfishness with confession, to dedicate with the anointing of the Holy Spirit, to resolve to maintain the commandments of Yahveh with a refreshed zeal, and to offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving with praise and worship, sacrificing the bulls of our lips (Hosea 14:2).

 

Conclusion

 

     Hanukkah is not a holy day as commanded in scripture, it is a holiday and a festive time.  Hanukkah should be remembered by every Christian as a time of reflection on God’s mighty acts on behalf of His people.  It is a great time to study the book of Daniel and realize that all that the Lord has spoken will come to pass.  It is a great time to read Maccabees and consider that Yahveh acts for His followers, not only those written in the pages of scripture but “all who call on the name of Yahveh”.  It is a time to consider that some day, the persecution will flame back up and a new Antiochus will rise to power.  Hanukkah is a time to dedicate ourselves to Yeshua and resolve to live according to His holy standards regardless of the consequences.  Yeshua prepared us for this by telling us not to fear men who could destroy the body, but to fear God, who after He has destroyed the body, will destroy the soul of men.  The power of the antichrist over us is but for a limited time.  Let us now, at Hanukkah, and forever, stand firm in the following of the true God.  Hanukkah is a time to confess and repent of sin, rededicate oneself to god by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and resolve to follow Him and His way of life, regardless of the consequences.  Let us hold fast to the testimony of Yeshua and the keeping of His commandments.

     Many  today will commemorate the holiday with the lighting of candles or oil lamps.  Avram Yehoshua uses eight oil lamps, many will just light candles, and some will light the Hanukah Menorah.  Dr David Stern describes the lighting of the Menorah and it significance, “Hanukkah is celebrated using a special Hanukkah menorah with nine lights.  One uses a match to light the shammash (servant), and it is then employed to light one candle the first night, too the second, and so on until the eight night all eight lights and the shammash are burning brightly.  For Messianic Jews the imagery is rich: Yeshua, the Light of the world came as a servant to give light to everyone, so that we might be lights to others.” (54)  If you have a congregation, many can gather either every night or every other night during the eight days, and read and study, have food and fellowship, watch an edifying movie, and enjoy each others company.  There are no scriptural mandates as how to celebrate the holiday; hence, one is at liberty to decide the traditions for the day.  However, it is celebrated, the point is, that we remember Yeshua who has delivered us from the chains of our own slavery.

 

 

                                        Bibliography

 

1.  Chavalas, Mark W., Matthews, Victor H., Walton, John H.,  The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament.,  InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois,   page:  742.

2.  Ibid- page :743.

3.  Toombs, Lawrence, Westminster Guides to the Bible:  The Threshold of Christianity.  The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, Penn;  page:  23. 

4.  Whiston, William, The Works of Josephus, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, MA;  Page:  308.

5.  Barker, Kenneth (General Editor), New American Standard Study Bible,  Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI; Page:  1244.

6.  Jamieson, Rober, Fausset, A.R., Brown, David.  A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments.,  Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Mass, page:  444.

7.  Radmacher Earl D. (General Editor), The Nelson Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN,  page:  1440.

8.  Barker, page:  1244.

9.  Radmacher, page:  1440.

10. Barker, page:  1244.

11.  Radmacher, page:  1440.

12.  Ibid.

13.  Barker, page:  1245.

14.  Whiston,  page:  316.

15. Radmacher, page:   1440.

16.  Ibid.

17.  Whiston, page:  322.

18.  Radmacher, page:  1441.

19. Barker, page:  1245.

20.  Radmacher, page: 1443.

21.  Barker, page:  1245.

22.  Radmacher, page:  1441.

23.  Brenton, Sir Lancelot C.L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha:  Greek and English,  Hendrickson Publishers,   Peabody Mass.,  page:  189.

24. Chavalas  page:  749.

25.  Brenton, page:  190.

26.  Radmacher, page:  1441

27.  Whiston, page:  323.

28.  Radmacher, page:  1441.

29. Jamieson, page:  448 .

30.  Whiston, page:  324.

31.  Brenton, page:  140-141.

32.  Pearlman, Moshe,  The Maccabees.  Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.  New York, page:  48.

33.  Jamieson, page:  448.

34.  Whiston, page:  324.

35.  Brenton, page:  194.

36.  Jamieson, page:  450.

37.  Brenton, page:  193.

38.  Ibid, page:  144

39.  Ibid

40.  Ibid, page:  143-144.

41.  Ibid

42.  Ibid

43.  Ibd, page:  146.

44.   Ibid, page:  147

45.  Ibid.

46.  Ibid.

47.  Ibid, page 148.

48.  Ibid page 148-149.

49.  Ibid, page:  149

50  Ibid, page:  201

51.  Whiston, page:  328.

52.  Berlin, Adele, Brettler, Marc Zvi, The Jewish Study Bible,  Oxford University Press, New York, page:  1641.

53.  Yehoshua, Avram, Hanuka Should We or Shouldn’t We?  Seed of Abraham ministries, www.seedofabraham.net.  Page:  1-2.

54.  Ibid, page:  2.

55.  Stern, David, Jewish New Testament Commentary, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.  Clarksville, Maryland. Page:  187.

Jesus and First Sheaf Fulfilment

     The Holy days in Israel, or the holy convocations, all give us a prophetic glimpse into the life of Messiah and the mission that He would fulfill.  It is universally accepted that Jesus was the Passover lamb, slain for the sins of the world, and in this, He fulfilled the prophetic picture painted by Torah regarding the Passover Lamb.  Israel was saved by the blood of the Passover lamb and not by the keeping of Torah.  Additionally, all the feast days of have a prophetic picture, and when discussion the resurrection of Jesus the festival of First Sheaf should be examined.  It is the writer’s opinion that the day of the celebration of first fruits will lead us to the day that Jesus was raised and scripture will elaborate on His fulfillment of the day.

      To begin with, let us determine exactly what the festival was in ancient Israel and to do this, let us examine Leviticus 23 to ascertain what the prophetic picture would look like when Messiah incarnated.

 Leviticus 23:9-14):  “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the  first fruits of your harvest to the priest,  He shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, and to be accepted on your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.  And you shall offer on that day, when you wave the shear, a male lamb of the first year, without blemish, as a burnt offering to the LORD.  Its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, and offering mad by fire to the LORDS, for a sweet aroma and its drink offering shall be of wine, one fourth of a hin.  You shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God, it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

     Avram Yehoshua can shed some light on the procedure that takes place in the temple.  “On the Sunday of First Sheaf, the High Priest would be presented with an omer of very finely crushed barley.  He would scoop up a handful of the grain, place some incense on it (symbolic of the prayers of the High Priest for Israel, and Israel’s prayers also,), wave it before Yahveh (a symbol of dedication, this first part of the crop representing all the harvest), bless Yahveh, and cast it upon the Fire of the Altar.  As the first sheaf was dedicated to Yahveh, it made the rest of the harvest acceptable to Israel for their use.” (1) 

      In order for the harvest to be used and to be successful before the LORD, the first sheaf or first fruits had to be waved before the alter in the temple.  “The waving by the High Priest of the finely crushed barely grain, the first sheaf, would picture Yeshua being totally dedicated to Yahveh.  The incense on that quantity that was to be thrown into the fire of the altar (a handful), pictures the prayers of Yeshua as our High Priest, for His people Israel, engulfed in the ‘Fire of the Holy Spirit.  The High Priest, thanking Yahveh for the harvest, thanking Yahveh for His Faithfulness to Israel would picture Yeshua as our High Priest, thanking His Father for giving unto Israel their Messiah, their Savior, their King.  The grain that was not thrown onto the fire of the Altar, the priests would eat,  This pictures the Body of Yeshua being given to His priests, as Food for us (John 6:53).  Yahveh has been found faithful to His word.  He has provided everything that Israel needs; from literal food to the Bread or Matza or Food of Heaven.” (2). 

      The Bible states that Jesus is our High Priest (Hebrews chapter 4 and 9), and as such, He did ascend to present an offering to Yahveh to fulfill the prophetic picture painted for us in the day of First Sheaf.  The question does remain, what did He present?  As Yehoshua mentioned earlier, He presented Himself, but the High Priest on this day was supposed to wave before Yahveh, the harvest of the land, the land that Yahveh had given to the people, His people, Israel.  It is the opinion of this writer that Jesus presented before Yahveh, Jewish saints that were sleeping. Scripture tells us that Jesus would descend into Sheol and preach the gospel to the ones sleeping in the holding area (I Peter 3:20 4:6).  Jesus himself testifies to this fact in John 5:25-29, that the dead will “hear the voice of the Son-of-Man.,” and many will respond to it.  Also, Isaiah prophesies in chapter 26 verse 19 that the dead will be raised.  Matthew relates in 27:51-54 that after the earthquake, the graves were opened and the bodies of the saints could be seen.  It is my opinion that these bodies remained in view while Messiah was in the tomb, as the Sabbath had begun after the earthquake and time would not have been available to fix all the tombs, then, after three days, or after the Sabbath, the righteous saints that slept, arose and were seen in the streets of Jerusalem after the resurrection of Jesus.  These are the first fruits, the first sheaf, that Jesus, The First-Fruits would present before Yahveh in order for the harvest of the world to begin, as Israel would soon be opened to Gentiles, to come to salvation just as the Jews had come to faith, this scenario fulfills the Day of First Sheaf.  Additionally, this gives us another prophetic glimpse at what will take place in Jerusalem with the two witnesses of Revelation (Rev 11:11).

     A final note on the day of First sheaf as it relates to the topic at hand.  First Sheaf is kept, except under some extenuating circumstances, on the Sunday after the Sabbath during the Feast of Passover. (Both the Sadducees and Pharisees agreed on this, this in and of itself, is almost miracoulous)  Further evidence that Jesus rose on Sunday can be found in the dating of the days.  In order for Jesus to fulfill three days in the tomb, He must be raised on Sunday.  The timeline goes like this, Thurs 14^th Aviv, at twilight, Jesus celebrates Passover, on the 15^th of Aviv, this year was on Preparation day (Friday) Jesus is crucified, dies, and is buried  thus beginning is first day in the tomb.  (Keep in mind that He must rise to fulfill first sheaf as he has already fulfilled Passover).  16^th of Aviv, is the Sabbath, the disciples keep the commandment, the Pharisees worry and go to Pilate, Jesus completes his second day in the tomb and rests on Sabbath, or perhaps preaches in Sheol (as was his custom to preach on Sabbath).  17^th Aviv, at the close of day 2 and on day 3, Jesus, the first fruits, the High Priest, rises on this day, this Sunday, early in the morning, to fulfill this feast and receives from Sheol, the wave offering of saints, that have responded to Him, and He ascends into heaven to present them before Yahveh as both High Priest, and Fulfillment of First fruits.   In all this, Jesus fulfills all the righteous requirements of Scripture and proves himself both King and Priest.

 Endnotes

 1)  Yehoshua, Avram, First Sheaf, The Seed of Abraham ministries, Ramat Gan, Israel,    www.seedofabraham.net   

2.  Ibid