The timing of Shavu’ot

Question:

I am having a hard time understanding when to count the omer and when Shavu’ot lands this year. Can you explain it to me in simple terms?

Thanks,
Michelle

Shalom Michelle,

Thanks for your question about Shavu’ot and the counting of the omer.
There are multiple interpretations of this passage that resulted in
disagreements about the calendar.

Passover is a seven-day holiday, and all seven of those days are holy
and part of the festival. However, the first and last days have
increased holiness and certain types of activities are prohibited.
They can be considered holiday sabbaths. This year, the first holiday
sabbath fell on April 20 (beginning the previous evening). The last
day was April 26.*

In the interpretation of Leviticus 23:15 that was predominant in the
days of the apostles as well as today, when it says “the day after the
sabbath” it is not talking about the weekly sabbath (Saturday), but
the first holiday sabbath: the first day of Passover. That means we
should begin counting on the next day, the second day of Passover.
This year, the second day of Passover was Monday, April 21 (although
it began the previous evening at sunset).

The term translated “sabbath” is also used in Hebrew to mean “week.”
Thus, we are to count seven weeks, beginning with the second day of
Passover. Being fifty days away, Shavu’ot will always fall on the same
day of the week as the second day of Passover.

This year, the fiftieth day from April 21 is June 9. So Shavu’ot is
June 9, but begins on the previous evening at sunset.

Today is Monday, April 28. When the sun goes down tonight, the 9th day
of the omer will begin.

Here is a rundown of the seven weeks. Remember, each day begins on the
previous evening:

Days 1-7 of the omer: April 21 to April 27
Days 8-14 of the omer: April 28 to May 4
Days 15-21 of the omer: May 5 to May 11
Days 21-28 of the omer: May 12 to May 18
Days 29-35 of the omer: May 19 to May 25
Days 36-42 of the omer: May 26 to June 1
Days 43-49 of the omer: June 2 to June 8
Shavu’ot (day 50): June 9

I hope this clears it up for you.

* Note: in the diaspora, all of the holiday sabbaths (excluding Yom Kippur) are doubled because in ancient times it was difficult to know when the holidays would begin. That means that the work restrictions are observed on the first, second, seventh and eighth days of Passover.

Levi (age 2 1/2) sings Psalm 121 (Shir Lama’alot)

Paul and Conversion

I received this comment on one of my posts, and I thought it deserved a substantial response. Rather than responding to the comment with another comment, I have posted it here, because I think it is an important topic.

I came across this article while Google searching for information on the contrasting and similar views of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. While the article is not exactly what I was looking for, it did inform me of some things about the Pharisees of which I was not aware and I thank you for that. It is obvious that you took a lot of time and effort to research this article and many others which I briefly viewed on this site.

I do have a big question about your overall beliefs in general. At first, I must admit, I was willing to just go on with my research and say nothing, not wanting to offend others that do not share my beliefs on such matters. But after several restless nights, I feel moved to ask you about New Testament teachings that obviously refute the need for those of us who put our faith in Yeshua for righteousness (Romans 3:21-22), and feel compelled to continue in the futility of strict adherence to the Written Law and/or the Oral Law.

Please don’t misunderstand, I love God’s Law and believe it is pure and perfect. But like Paul wrote to the Church at Galatia, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery,” (Gal 5:1) I believe the Law was given for a purpose and that purpose has been completed. How do you and your assembly deal with the Epistle to the Galatians? How do you interpret many of the verses in that Epistle such as:

(3:23-25) - But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

and

(5:18) - But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

Of coarse there are many other passages in which the New Testament says the Law “is powerless) and other things, but I just felt that it was important for me to ask you these questions. I mean no harm, nor do I wish to put you down or criticize you. I’m sure you must have struggled with these passages before, but I’m just curious as to how you can justify them in the light of the Messiah’s bondage breaking freedom?

Peace
Lorne

Thank you, Lorne, for your questions. I appreciate your graciousness and sensitivity.

Polemical issues are easy to take personally, and you did an amazing job of expressing in writing your concern inoffensively. Please interpret my explanation cordially and also without offense.

You have the real advantage of the entire body of orthodox Christian interpretation on your side. I acknowledge my views as being outside the pale of commonly accepted Christian belief.

I am well familiar with the book of Galatians and the other passages you cited. I used to hold the same interpretations of them that you expressed.

Discrepancy

One important issue with the passages you cited is the discrepancy with the rest of Scripture:

Moses warned Israel that if anyone tells them to neglect the commandments of the Law, the person is a false prophet sent by God to test them. (See my article on this for details.) Did God give them this command, and then send Paul to tell them that they are free from the Law? We are left with few options:

1. Paul was the false prophet God warned about
2. God is forgetful/malicious/incoherent (Heaven forbid)
3. The conventional interpretation of Galatians, etc. is mistaken

Moses made clear that the future redemption of Israel would be accompanied by renewed observance of the Law (Deuteronomy 30:8).

The Prophets warned Israel not to stray from the Law. When they did, they encountered severe punishment including loss of life (Isaiah 5:24; 42:24, Jeremiah 6:19, etc.). They repeated the promise of redemption accompanied by observance (Isaiah 2:3; 66:23, Zechariah 14:16; Ezekiel 36:27; 37:24).

The Psalms constantly extol the virtues of the Law, not merely as a tool to point to Christ, but an eternal handbook of righteous life. Not only is the Law pure and perfect, but it “endures forever.”

Jesus gave no indication that observance of the Law should end. Instead, he plainly said: “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” (Matthew 5:19). Will Paul be called great or least?

In Acts, James and the elders glorified God that there were thousands of believers who were “zealous for the Law” (21:20). Paul had been accused of “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs,” (21:21) so they instructed him to provide nazarite offerings for some of the believers present in Jerusalem, so that “all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law,” (21:24).

The epistles of James, Peter and John repeatedly uphold observance of the Law and make no mention of it having outlived its usefulness.

James explains:

“But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does,” (1:25).

The “perfect” law, as you explained, is the Law of Moses. The “law of liberty” is none other than James’ loving term for the Law of Moses, since James indicates that the “law of liberty” contains the commandments “Do not commit adultery” and “Do not murder,” (2:11-12).

Peter points out that Paul’s letters are “hard to understand,” (2 Peter 3:16) and the error is committed by those who are “unprincipled” (v. 17). The word translated “unprincipled” is άθεσμος athesmos, literally, “against law/custom.”

The epistles of John explain:

“By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:3-6)

It hardly needs to be mentioned that “the manner [Jesus] walked” was in full and perfect obedience to the commandments in the Law of Moses. It furthermore states:

“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness,” (1 John 3:4) indicating to us that breaking the commandments of the Law is the very definition of sin. If a follower of Christ is free to break the Law, then they are, by definition, free to sin. But to the contrary,

“You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous,” (vv. 5-7).

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome,” (1 John 5:2-3).

Even the book of Revelation identifies the children of the woman as those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus,” (12:17) and the saints as those who “who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus,” (14:12).

The discrepancy reaches even into Paul’s own writings:

“For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” (Romans 2:13)

“So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?” (Romans 2:26-27)

“Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Romans 3:31)

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

When compared against the whole of Scripture, the passages that appear to diminish the importance of observance of the Law stick out like a very sore thumb. It becomes even more apparent when we try to gain the worldview of the original recipients of these texts and read it in the cultural context of first century Judaism.

Paul the Heretic?

Can Paul so casually cast off the foundational revelation of God as a relic of a bygone era? I would submit to you that the thousands of years of history and theology that have transpired since then have desensitized us to how scandalous that is. If this was Paul’s message, then it was not just a new covenant or a new era he was describing, but a new bible, a new religion, and a new god. Here, then, are our choices:

1. The religion of Moses and Jesus is true, but what Paul wrote is false.
2. The religion of Moses and Jesus is false, but what Paul wrote is true.
3. The conventional reading of Paul is a tragic misinterpretation.

I know many people who chose either options 1 or 2, but I remain convinced of option 3.

Is it possible that Paul could be so misunderstood? Some hints, as previously mentioned, give us clues:

In Acts 21, people mistakenly believed that Paul taught against the Law of Moses and Jewish custom. Paul refutes that misconception in cooperation with James and the elders.

2 Peter 3 explains that Paul’s letters are “hard to understand” and the true error is to be “against law/custom.”

Yes, I submit that it is easy for Paul to be misunderstood, and according to these passages, if we understand Paul as teaching people not to observe the Law of Moses and Jewish custom, then we are indeed misunderstanding him.

So what does Paul mean?

I suggest that the central issue in all of the letters of Paul is the same, and it is not observance of law or custom, per se. It is the same issue that is pivotal in the book of Acts: the inclusion of Gentiles in the Kingdom of God.

We take for granted that Gentiles can come to God and be acceptable to Him without first converting to become legally Jewish. We are so used to that idea, we can’t imagine it any other way. In the apostolic era, that was a contentious issue and a hard thing for some people to accept. Yeshua is the Messiah of Judaism. The Messiah of the Jewish people. If people want to follow him, they must first convert and become like him: Jewish. That was the prevailing opinion of many believers in the apostolic community. After Peter’s experience in the middle of the book of Acts, they learned that Gentiles could remain Gentiles and still enter the Kingdom. Nonetheless, this idea was so shocking to many people (including even Peter at first) that it remained a topic of fierce debate. This is the issue of Paul’s letters as well as the book of Acts.

People were going to the Galatian community and teaching them that they absolutely must convert and become legally Jewish to be included in God’s Kingdom. Paul’s letter to them intended to dispel that belief. That much seems clear from the surrounding context with no re-interpretation necessary.

For one thing, Paul uses the terms “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” repeatedly. One might be tempted to interpret these literally as a clinical procedure, but it makes more sense to see these as technical terms for “being/becoming Jewish” versus “remaining Gentile.” In fact, this is often how the term is used in rabbinic writings.

An amazing thing occurs when we expand Paul’s jargon further by understanding “law” as often being a technical term for legal Jewish status. “Works of the law” could be understood as “conversion to become Jewish.” “Under law” could mean “legally Jewish”–it works well in almost every case, although Galatians 5:14 5:18 is notably problematic. (Note also the variant 1 Corinthians 9:20.)

Although this linguistic equivalence is not crystal clear, the general idea is fairly solid. It unifies Paul’s message both internally and externally.

Reading Paul in this light results in a very interesting result. What Paul was dealing with (especially in Romans) were people who believed as Gentiles, they could legally convert to become Jewish and then automatically escape God’s wrath — without actually transforming their lives in obedience to God’s commandments. Paul informed them that by becoming Jewish, they accepted upon themselves the additional liability of the special responsibilities of the Jewish people. As a result, they only brought upon themselves greater and more swift judgment.

I realize that this explanation, albeit lengthy, is not comprehensive. I hope that it provokes further prayerful study and thought.

The Real Issue: “Jesus” vs. Judaism?

Reposted from Ateret Yeshua.

Some people are confused by the suggestion that it is possible to accept the norms and standards of modern-day, normative Orthodox Judaism while maintaining devotion to the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth. There are numerous factors that lead to this confusion, but one is the perception that our master Yeshua’s teachings fundamentally stand in conflict with Judaism.

Defining Repentance

Most people can accept the statement that our master Yeshua came with a message of repentance. The disagreement comes when we try to settle on a definition of the term “repent.” Most people interpret repentance to mean some type of change in behavior or attitudes. In order to clarify our master Yeshua’s message, our first goal should be to pin down what behaviors and attitudes he felt were negative and what positive behaviors and attitudes he felt should replace them.

Among Christians, it is commonly believed that Jewish doctrine and practice were among the things that Jesus spoke against. This included both observance of the Mosaic law as well as Rabbinic or Pharisaic customs and traditions. According to this belief, repentance means (at least in part), denial of Judaism and acceptance of Christianity as a new and distinct religion.

This definition of repentance can easily be refuted on numerous levels: 1) it is anachronistic, as Christianity did not exist as a distinct religion at that time; 2) it can be shown to stand in direct conflict with his explicit teachings; and 3) the terms repent and repentance already had a meaning with which his audience would already have been familiar.

In Judaism, repentance (known in Hebrew as teshuvah, which literally means “turning” or “returning”) is a well-defined concept that denotes:

• cessation of behaviors that violate the Torah (Law of Moses),
• sincere regret and confession to God, and
• resolve to improve one’s observance of the Torah and its commandments.

Yet if our master Yeshua’s primary message was “repent” in the sense outlined above, we are left with an important question: what was it in the Torah that he wanted them to do? Was he instructing people to keep more kosher? In that era, people kept kosher fairly well. Did he intend for them to observe the Sabbath more stringently? In those days, people were quite stringent in their Sabbath observance. So when he said “repent,” which behaviors did he want them to cease, and which commandments did he want them to adopt more fully?

One Conflict

One way we might uncover the answer to this question is to examine one account of such conflict.

In Mark 7, for example, certain members of the Pharisaic party from Jerusalem criticized our master Yeshua’s disciples for not observing the ritual of netilat yadayim (a ritual hand washing) before eating. Our master Yeshua responds by criticizing the Pharisees for setting aside the commandment of God for the sake of traditions of men. He continues by criticizing their dedication of resources for sacred use (korban) when it should be used to care for elderly parents. Later, he makes the cryptic statement that it is not what goes into a man that “defiles” him, but what comes out. When asked to explain, he teaches that what go in are various types of food, but what come out are evil thoughts, behaviors and words.

This account raises several questions:

• Why did our master Yeshua’s disciples not observe this ritual?
• Why were the disciples singled out for criticism but not our master himself?
• Is there significance to the fact that the critics were from the Pharisaic party or Jerusalem?
• What commandment of God did he accuse them of violating?
• Did he take issue with the practice of netilat yadayim or with their criticism?
• What does korban and caring for parents have to do with this issue?
• What does he mean that food does not “defile” a man?
• What do evil thoughts, behaviors and words (and particularly the specific ones he lists) have to do with netilat yadayim and how does bringing this up support his point?

The answers to these questions are not explicit. A person will arrive at a different conclusion as to the meaning of this teaching based on the paradigm one already holds. Let’s examine this account in light of some of the most common perspectives.

1. Judaism vs. Christianity

According to this view, Jesus came to teach people to stop practicing the Torah and began a new system of relating to God. Thus, the interpretation of Mark 7 is that “the Law of Moses including washings and dietary laws (kashrut) no longer applies.” What he wanted people to do was stop practicing Judaism and become Christians.

This is the predominant view among Christians. It is very problematic, because a teaching that commandments in the Torah are canceled would disqualify him from being the Messiah by definition. This is because the Torah identifies any person who encourages people to disregard commandments as a false teacher deserving of punishment. It would also be severe hypocrisy to accuse them of setting aside the law of God and then immediately turn around and say, “the dietary laws no longer apply.” This view cannot be taken seriously if we are to maintain that he is a true teacher or good person, let alone the messiah.

2. Karaism vs. Rabbinic Judaism

This perspective teaches that Yeshua came telling people to obey the Torah, but not the rabbinic oral law. He came to speak against the rabbis making up rules and fences and traditions and told people to follow the written Scriptures only. According to this view, since the laws about washing hands before eating were not written in the Bible, he was condemning them for making up new laws, which they were not allowed to do. (One sect that claims to follow the written Torah only is known as Karaism, with which many Messianics identify.)

However, this view also has many problems. First, it is anachronistic, and it applies the Protestant Reformation sentiment of sola scriptura to ancient Judaism. Furthermore, Yeshua was a rabbi and his teachings often supported and were based on Jewish tradition. He may be regularly found observing traditions and customs. Almost all of his words echo those of well-known and accepted Jewish teachers. Plus, the Torah has built into itself a system of authority whereby leaders among the Jewish people were commanded to make rulings and determinations of Jewish law where the Torah was not explicit. The Karaite view is not tenable.

3. One Tradition vs. Another

Some hold the view that Yeshua, as a rabbi, had his own rabbinic interpretation, halachah and customs that he taught his disciples. He taught his disciples to follow his halachah and customs based on his more clear and true understanding of the Torah. One could explain that the Judean Pharisaic tradition was to wash hands before eating, but Yeshua’s Galilean custom was not. One strength of this view is that it identifies Yeshua’s context among many of the heroes of Judaism: the ancient Chasidim, an early sect that included those such as Chanina ben Dosa and Choni Hame’agel.

While the Pharisees from Jerusalem had the right to make halachah, they could not contradict the written Torah, it is reasoned. They must have contradicted the Torah with their halachah, otherwise, why would he accuse them of setting aside the commandment? So what was the commandment they violated? One explanation might be that by eating common ordinary food in a state of ritual purity as if it was Temple-sanctified, they blurred the distinction between holy and common, thus violating Leviticus 10:10.

The conclusion of this view is that Yeshua wanted people to be followers of his Galilean Chasidic brand of Rabbinic halachah.

However, even this view has problems. For one, Leviticus 10:10 is never brought up in that discourse, nor even once in his recorded teachings. Throughout his recorded teachings, in fact, there are maybe two or three points of halachah that could be derived, and the rest of his teachings are not halachic at all, but more generally ethical. Furthermore, it does not seem right that the messiah would come and his great message to the world was “stop washing your hands before you eat.” The overall message of Yeshua does not seem to be to persuade people to follow the halachah of the ancient Galilean Chasidim.

A Universally Applicable Perspective

We need a theory of interpretation that works across the board and takes his entire message into account. We need one that meshes with all of his other ethical teachings.

In Matthew 9 the story is recorded where our master Yeshua was eating and tax collectors and “sinners” were at his table with him. The Pharisees were appalled by this, and asked, “why is your teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?”

It is important to note that the problem with eating with a sinner—better understood as am ha’aretz, an ignoramus—was not that the person sinned. The problem was that they did not know how or care to observe the laws of ritual purity that Pharisees had developed. The Pharisees chose only to eat in a state of ritual purity, which disallowed them from inviting common, ordinary citizens to eat together with them. This is what disturbed them about our master Yeshua.

Our master responded by quoting the verse, “I desire compassion and not sacrifice,” which at face value seems unrelated. But it is notable that he also applied this verse to the Sabbath. He used this verse to explain in classic rabbinic logic that concern for human well being was more important than the Temple services, and the Temple services were more important than the Sabbath. Therefore, human well being even superseded Sabbath observance.

This, however, was not a Sabbath or Temple related issue. However, the ritual purity laws that they voluntarily observed mimicked the laws of the priests in the Temple. These observances made it impossible for them to show compassion to other humans. Compassion for humans was even more important than the actual Temple laws, let alone voluntary and innovative application of purity laws to non-priests such as these Pharisees.

Consequently, his problem was not that ritual hand washing blurred the distinction between clean and unclean. He was not trying to promote or refute any kind of halachah. He did not challenge the authority structure or halachic norms of Judaism whatsoever. His message was pure and simple: show compassion to people and stop hating people. He did not care if they washed their hands, so long as they showed kindness to people. It was fine if they wanted to be ritually pure, to the extent that it did not prevent them from showing love to fellow people.

This view enables us to answer many of our questions regarding Mark 7. Perhaps the reason our master Yeshua’s disciples were criticized was they had not yet been trained in this custom, coming from rural areas and being ammei ha’aretz themselves. Yeshua may or may not have observed this practice, but even so it was relatively new and apparently did not have universal acceptance at the time among all sects and parties within Judaism.

The commandment at stake here was “love your neighbor,” a fundamental principle in Judaism that comes directly from the Torah. Their public rebuke and humiliation of the disciples was inappropriate and violated this commandment.

In this view, the criticism of dedicating resources as korban which should be used to support elderly parents is directly related. Dedicating such resources is a Temple-related practice, and as he has taught, while the Temple is extremely holy and important, human well being is even more important than the Temple: “I desire compassion and not sacrifice.” The same principle of “love your neighbor” applies even more so in regards to one’s own parents.

While the idea that food does not “defile” a man sounds related to kosher law, it is in fact unrelated. The word for “defile” does not mean to make something ritually impure (like pig flesh), but to make it common or non-holy. In other words, these Pharisees prohibited themselves from eating with those who did not engage in their practices because they did not have the same level of kedushah or holiness. Our master Yeshua seems to argue that the kedushah achieved though hand washing and related rituals is irrelevant and artificial when accompanied by inethical behavior.

The implication of this is that our master Yeshua did not in any way challenge the religious authority or structure of Judaism, their right to have traditions and customs and interpret the Torah. What he challenged was hatred.

Birkat Hamazon

Just for fun, a recording of my 3-year-old daughter and I singing the Birkat Hamazon (the blessing after eating a meal). If you can listen carefully at certain points you can also hear my son who is not quite 2 yet.

A fun part is at 4:39 where my daughter asks Hashem to bless “my father, my teacher, the master of this house, my mother, my teacher, the lady of this house, them, their household, their offspring, and all that is theirs.”

Fantastic Torah Commentaries

I will be posting more of my own material soon, but in the meantime, I would like to share with you one of my favorite sources for commentary on the weekly sidrah:

P’shuto shel Mikra

This is a series of studies by a rabbi by the name of Yitzchak Etshalom. He certainly makes no claim to be “Messianic,” but his lessons on the parashah reveal an incredible amount of insight into the text that makes them very enlightening to read. He excels at combining remarkable scholarship and reason with deep reverence for the sanctity and inspiration of the text. Indeed, when I read his lessons I often come away feeling like the Torah is even more sacred than I had previously imagined.

I also appreciate the fact that he takes a very textual approach to commentary. He stays largely on the plain meaning of the text, which I am still trying to understand. He primarily employs down-to-earth rabbinic sources such as Ramban and Sforno, while showing respect and deference to the others.

The lessons you will find there are not “sermonettes,” they are real analyses of the text at hand. While they stick to the peshat level of interpretation, they are by no means elementary level studies.

I hope Rabbi Etshalom doesn’t mind such a glowing review from a “messy” like me…

Is the Sabbath for Disciples? (Part Two)

In my previous post, I began by explaining the three primary positions of Christians on the Sabbath, and I began by addressing the first position: that the Sabbath has changed to Sunday. (I am also addressing the related position or that the Sabbath should not be observed, but Christians are to observe a holy day on Sunday).

I began by addressing Acts 20:7, one primary proof text for Sunday observance, showing that when it is read from a Hebraic perspective, it actually supports the perspective that the early believers observed the Sabbath on the seventh day.

I will now continue by addressing more texts cited as proof that the apostolic community abandoned the Sabbath in favor of Sunday.

Set aside on the first day of the week

On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. (1 Corinthians 16:2)

First, let’s notice what is missing from this verse:

• There is no indication that this first day of the week should be observed as a sacred day. In fact, this type of dealing with money is something that would be prohibited on the Sabbath, and it is best left for a common weekday.
• There is not even an indication of a meeting on the first day of the week. Instead, it instructs each individual to set aside savings on that day.
• There is not the slightest indication that the believers did not or should not observe the seventh day as the Sabbath.

Next, notice that this money collection is for a specific, pragmatic purpose. Paul is gathering funds to bring back to the community of believers in Jerusalem. He directs this instruction specifically to the believers in Corinth and Galatia. There is no indication that this is intended as a spiritual principle that should be observed throughout the world or to the end of the age. This verse also fails miserably as a proof of Sunday observance.

The Lord’s Day

Sometimes this passage is also brought as proof:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet… (Revelation 1:10 NASB)

Notice that this verse does not explicitly mention Saturday or Sunday. Remember that modern day usage of the term “the Lord’s day” to mean Sunday came from this verse, so it is circular reasoning for us to say that this was Sunday just because it says, “the Lord’s day.” It could just as easily be referring to the seventh-day Sabbath. In fact, this passage does not even indicate whether the Lord’s day is a weekly, yearly or one-time event. Neither this nor any passage in the Bible connects the term “the Lord’s day” with the resurrection.

Speaking hypothetically, the term “the lord’s day” could even refer to a pagan or secular event, such as something in honor of Caesar. This might be supported by the fact that the term translated “lord’s” is technically not possessive (in the sense of “day of the lord”), it is an adjective. In other words, a more literal translation would be something to the effect of “the lordly day.” In the case that this was a pagan or secular event, John would actually be defying the lord’s day by being “in the Spirit” instead or partaking in its observances. Now, this is probably not the correct interpretation, but I am simply trying to show how ambiguous our text leaves the term.

The use of the term “the Lord’s day” in the Church Fathers and apocrypha is something that should be addressed. I will probably get into it at a later point, but for now I am sticking with biblical texts.

Even supposing this event had occurred on Sunday, the verse does not tell us that John was observing it as a weekly day of worship. Nor does it indicate that Sunday or the Lord’s day substituted for Sabbath observance. Furthermore, this verse contains no instructions for believers as to how to worship or keep the Sabbath. Again, this passage fails to provide a basis for supplanting the seventh-day Sabbath with Sunday.

In future posts, I will continue to demonstrate that Sunday has not replaced the seventh day Sabbath. After that, I will take on the remaining two positions: 1) that the Sabbath should be observed, but not on any particular day, and 2) that the Sabbath is not to be observed at all because it is a part of the Law that was put to an end in Christ.

More to come!

Is the Sabbath for Disciples? (Part One)

This is the first part of a series dedicated to the question of the Sabbath for disciples of Yeshua.

Mainstream Christianity is generally split about the proper attitude toward the instructions in the Bible regarding the Sabbath. These are the three main positions:

• The Sabbath must be honored. Sunday is the Sabbath day for Christians, so people should refrain from work and attend religious services on Sunday.
• The Sabbath should be honored, but not on any particular day. It is simply an important principle to set aside one day a week to devote to God.
• The Sabbath is a part of the law that was brought to an end by Christ. For Christians, Sabbath observance was only a type that foreshadowed our spiritual rest in Christ and eternity in heaven.

I would suggest that none of these positions entered the mind of the early believers or apostolic community. Allow me to explain.

Sunday is not the Sabbath

Technically, Catholic teaching is that the Sabbath day has not changed, but that the Sabbath is not to be observed by Christians. In addition, it is taught that Christians should worship on Sunday – for a different reason and in a different manner. However, other Christian groups do identify the Sabbath as Sunday.

Evidence for both of these positions is leveled from various New Testament passages. However, each of these passages is interpreted from the faulty paradigm of a community that has lost touch with Judaism.

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. (Acts 20:7 NASB)

The verse is easy to misunderstand if we allow our society’s current worldview and practice to contaminate the text. Let me rephrase this in a way that emphasizes the assumptions of the anachronistic traditional Christian perspective:

On Sunday morning, when we met together for Holy Communion, Paul began preaching to them, intending to leave on Monday, and he prolonged his sermon until midnight (Sunday night).

However, if we make it our goal to read this verse from the perspective of ancient Judaism, we are presented with a very different scenario.

On the first day of the week…

The Greek in this phrase is Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, the equivalent Hebrew being to the effect of בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּשַּׁבָּת. (It is interesting to note the use of the word Shabbat (Sabbath) as a synonym for “week,” a usage that continues in Hebrew even today.)

From a biblical perspective, the day begins and ends at sundown. Some examples:

God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5 NASB, emphasis mine)

It [i.e., the Day of Atonement] is to be a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your sabbath. (Leviticus 23:32 NASB, emphasis mine)

In the world of Judaism and the Bible, the first day of the week begins when the sun sets Saturday evening. In Jewish practice it is common to perform a ceremony at the closing of the Sabbath known as Havdalah to draw a clear distinction between the Sabbath and the first day of the week. On Saturday night, it is customary to continue to eat and study together. Perhaps this can be seen as an early version of the tradition of Melaveh Malkah. Thus, it is probable that this meeting occurred on Saturday night, not Sunday morning.

…when we were gathered together…

It sounds likely from this language that they were already gathered together by the time the first day of the week began. This supports the idea that this was a Saturday post-Sabbath meeting.

…to break bread…

There is no indication that this represents the Christian ritual known as the Eucharist, the Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper. The term “break bread” is a Hebraic idiom (לפרוס לחם, lifros lechem) that simply means “to eat a meal together.”

A statement in the Gemara expresses the opinion that one is required to eat at least a small meal after the close of the Sabbath.

One should always set his table on the termination of the Sabbath, even if he merely requires as much as an olive. Hot water after the termination of the Sabbath is soothing; fresh [warm] bread after the termination of the Sabbath is soothing. (b. Shabbat 119b, Soncino translation)

…intending to leave the next day…

Supposing this was occurring Saturday night, the “next day” would actually refer to Sunday. Paul intended to leave on Sunday because travel is forbidden on the Sabbath (cf. Matthew 24:20, Exodus 16:29) and difficult at night.

…his message…

While it is not exactly incorrect, the choice of the word “message” makes it sound like a church service, since it is common for Christians to refer to a pastor’s sermon as a “message.”

The Greek word is λόγος (logos), literally “word.” The equivalent Hebrew term is דבר (davar). During a meal, is traditional to have a person (particularly a learned man such as Paul) expound on the Scripture. This impromptu commentary is known as a דבר תורה (devar Torah).

…until midnight.

It is almost bizarre to imagine a preacher beginning a sermon on Sunday morning and continuing until midnight. On the other hand, it is entirely reasonable to see a Torah scholar wrapping up a commentary at that time if he only began to speak during a meal after sunset.

More thoughts on this passage

It is interesting to note that the young man Eutychus died and was resurrected at this time. If we see this as happening Saturday night, then his resurrection corresponds roughly with the resurrection of Yeshua, which happened sometime between Saturday night and Sunday morning while it was still dark (see John 20:1).

Reading Acts 20:7 from a Hebraic perspective actually reinforces the idea that the seventh-day Sabbath was important to the early believers.

Even if we ignore all of the proofs I mentioned above:

• There is no indication in this passage that the believers had not observed the Sabbath on the prior seventh day of the week.
• There is no indication that the first day of the week observance described in this passage was a weekly event.
• There is no instruction in this passage for believers not to observe the Sabbath.
• There is no instruction in this passage to observe Sunday as a day of worship.

Acts 20:7 fails miserably as a proof of a Sunday Sabbath.

More to come…

Let’s Be Fair to the Pharisees

What is a Pharisee? A bad guy, right?

If our Sunday School lessons were correct, then a Pharisee must be a hypocrite, a self-righteous, ostentatious, inhumane villain that is too busy being religious to be nice. It would make them blind, ignorant fools with made-up authority that they used to invent new laws and throw out old ones.

If Jesus movies are any indication, Pharisees had long scraggly beards, beady eyes, long crooked noses, pointy hats, wrung their hands together and wore black all the time. We are often taught that it was the Pharisees that conspired together to put Christ to death.

If these ideas haven’t been stated explicitly, they have been implied. The Pharisees have been the villains and scapegoats in church sermons throughout the centuries. Not only that, it is commonly intimated that the Jews today are exactly like the old-time Pharisees. Were they really that bad?

We misunderstand the Pharisees for a number of reasons.

The Gospels only mention conflicts

Imagine if someone from another culture and time were to attempt to write your biography, and the only information they had to work with was your family photo album. They would determine that you were constantly on vacation and never went to work or school. That’s because people don’t usually take pictures unless something out of the ordinary is happening.

A similar phenomenon occurs in the Gospels. Out of the years of Yeshua’s life on earth, only a few select stories are related about him. All we have are the most interesting and exciting things to have happened in that period of time. Conflict is interesting and exciting, so naturally we are presented with a disproportionate amount of it.

If Yeshua was invited to spend the Sabbath in a Pharisee’s home, and he offered an insightful commentary on the Torah, and everyone had a nice time and went home smiling, they didn’t write it down. It just wouldn’t have been notable enough to the people who recorded the Gospels.

It is therefore easy for us to make the mistake of generalizing the events in the Gospels, and considering them all to be typical events, when they were in fact written down because they were atypical. This leads people falsely to believe that Yeshua and they Pharisees to be bitter enemies, when they had run-ins once in a while.

Confusing Pharisees with Sadducees

It is not uncommon for people to confuse the Pharisees with the Sadducees. This problem is readily visible in Jesus movies, where they are often lumped together into one evil big-bearded group.

But in reality, the Pharisees and Sadducees were polar opposites in many ways. For example, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, angels and demons, and in a personal Messiah. The Sadducees did not believe in any of these things.

The Sadducees are known even in extra-biblical sources to have been corrupt sell-outs to Rome. Sadducees comprised much of the priesthood. Caiaphas was a Sadducee. It was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, that condemned Yeshua in a kangaroo court. It was they who delivered Yeshua into the hands of the Romans.

The Pharisees may have had their problems, but it was the Sadducees that were the true villains in the Gospels, and it is a serious historical error to confuse these two very different groups.

Ignoring pro-Pharisee passages

The erroneous concept that Pharisees are all evil is so ingrained that people often completely ignore or dismiss passages that present Pharisees in a positive light.

For example, it was the Pharisees who attempted to save Yeshua’s life by warning him to flee when Herod sought to kill him (Luke 13:31). The Pharisees commonly invited him to eat in their homes, which was no small honor.

Yeshua was speaking to the Pharisees when he told the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal son, after they criticized his outreach to sinners (Luke 15:2-3). In the parable of the lost sheep, the lost sheep represents prostitutes, tax collectors and similar type of sinners among the common folk. The clear implication is that the Pharisees are among the sheep that did not stray, whom he calls, “righteous persons who need no repentance,” (v. 7).

In the parable of the prodigal son, the older brother is jealous of the attention the younger receives when he repents. This older brother undoubtedly refers to the Pharisees. Notice what the father says about this older brother: “Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours,” (Luke 15:31).

A similar comparison is made in Yeshua’s statement, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners,” (Mark 2:16-17, cf. also Matthew 9:11-13). If those who are sick are the non-Pharisee “tax collectors and sinners,” then who are the healthy and the righteous to whom he refers?

John 9:16 indicates there were different opinions about him among the Pharisees, some rejecting him and some accepting him. We might also mention notable Pharisees among the believers, including Nicodemus, who admitted that Yeshua came from God (John 3:2), and stood up for him in front of other leaders (John 7:50-52). Gamaliel similarly stood up for the believers in the Council (Acts 5:34-39).

It appears that there were many believers among the Pharisees who retained their identity with the Pharisees after they became believers (Acts 15:5). This even included Paul (Acts 23:6, 26:5, Philippians 3:5).

Misunderstanding Jewish polemical style

Sometimes the conflicts that Yeshua had with the Pharisees and others are blown out of proportion because the Gospels do not give us a broad perspective on the political and religious climate. We sometimes come away with the perspective that Yeshua vs. the Jewish establishment was the only argument occurring at the time. But in reality, Yeshua was one voice among many who were arguing in heated and harsh terms. Consider this debate between a Sadducee and Pharisee recorded in the Gemara:

A sectarian said to Gebiha b. Pesisa, ‘Woe to you, ye wicked, who maintain that the dead will revive; if even the living die, shall the dead live!’ He replied, ‘Woe to you, ye wicked, who maintain that the dead will not revive: if what was not,[now] lives, - surely what has lived, will live again!’ ‘Thou hast called me wicked,’ said he, ‘If I stood up I could kick thee and strip thee of thy hump! ‘If thou couldst do that,’ he retorted, ‘thou wouldst be called a great doctor, and command large fees.’ (b. Sanhedrin 91a)

Testing a Messiah candidate is a good thing

We often find in the Gospels cases where Pharisees approach Yeshua in an effort to “test” or “trap” him. The Pharisees’ behavior is sometimes interpreted to mean that they were unfaithful, blinded to the truth and even conspiring together to do evil, a perspective that is influenced by historical anti-Semitism.

But is it really a bad thing that the Pharisees tried to test Yeshua? He was claiming to be the messiah! If someone made such a claim to you, would you want to test them, or would you blindly take their word for it? Testing someone who makes serious claims to be sent from God is the only right thing to do, especially if you are the spiritual leader of a community. The fact that the Pharisees tested Yeshua is evidence that they took him seriously, and were responsible leaders among the Jewish people. It is to their credit.

One who claims to be the messiah should expect to be challenged on that point, and should not be intimidated. And remarkably, we find that Yeshua passed their tests with flying colors, often leaving them with nothing left to say.

Our best friends are our worst enemies

Religious communities are unique in that the more similar two groups are, the more likely they are to fight, and the more heated the fighting will be.

A notorious fellow once came into a congregation that I attended, and he began to distribute literature to congregants criticizing the leadership, accusing them of false teaching. When he was taken aside by the elders, they asked him: “Who is closer to the truth, we or the people at the Lutheran church down the street?” “You are,” he admitted. “Then why don’t you go the Lutherans!?” they responded.

Even the relationship between the two early Pharisaic groups (the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai) became so strained at one point that it led to bloodshed.

We must see the arguments between Yeshua and the Pharisees as an in-house argument. He vociferously criticized them precisely because they were the good guys; they should have known better.

A Wicked Generation

None of this is meant to say that the Pharisees were without their problems. There were some Pharisees who were hypocritical. There were some that were arrogant or ostentatious. There were some who hated without cause, and some who managed to be inwardly corrupt while maintaining an outward appearance of godliness.

The Talmud itself catalogues the “plagues of the Pharisees” which bring destruction upon the world (see b. Sotah 22b), describing those with hypocrisy, false humility and self-righteous attitudes.

But the problem with the recipients of Yeshua’s criticism was not that they were Pharisees. In fact, had they actually carried out their own teachings, they could not have been accused of hypocrisy, as Yeshua said, “therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them,” (Matthew 23:3).

The generation prior to the destruction of the Temple was known for corruption. The Talmud (b. Yoma 9b) explains that even though people were stringent in their observance, the Temple was destroyed because of the sin of baseless hatred.

It was important to understand that the specific generation that saw Yeshua was uniquely corrupt. After the Temple was destroyed, Judaism went through many changes and improvements. Although the rabbis and sages that inherited the stewardship of the vineyard of Israel were the heirs of the first century Pharisees, the message of the Temple’s destruction was not lost on them. The primary goal of Orthodox Judaism since that time has been to promote true repentance and pure-hearted devotion to God. The Judaism that exists today cannot be characterized with the same faults that existed in the days of the Pharisees.

Everyone, whether they are Jewish or not, would do well to heed the warnings and admonishments that Yeshua spoke. However, Yeshua’s condemnation was primarily aimed at that particular generation. He repeatedly used the term “this generation” in his criticism. If we generalize his accusations to apply to all Jewish people everywhere throughout all time, then we twist his words and put anti-Semitism in his mouth, Heaven forbid. Ironically, we would then be committing the same sins of self-righteousness and baseless hatred that plagued that generation.

The Greatest Commandment

Our Master was asked, “Which is the greatest commandment in the Torah?” We read about this in Matthew 22, beginning in verse 34:

But when the Pharisees heard that Yeshua had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

In Mark 12:29 we learn that he began his quote by saying the Shema:

Yeshua answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

When we hear the conversation over the “greatest commandment,” we must hear it in the context of first century Judaism. Often in Rabbinic literature the topic is discussed: what is the k’lal gadol in the Torah? K’lal gadol means greatest governing principle.

Christians sometimes point to this passage to show how Yeshua’ teachings were different from Judaism. Sometimes it is brought out to show that Yeshua replaced the Torah with a new law of love. However, due to the lack of cultural context, they miss the meaning of this passage.

First of all, Yeshua’s teaching fits squarely within mainstream Judaism. The Shema, including the commandment to love God is considered Judaism’s central declaration. And as for the commandment to love one another?

Ben Azai said “This is the book of the generations of man,” (Bereishit 5:1) That is the great principle in the Torah. Rabbi Akiva said “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Vayikra 19:18) This is even a greater principle. Hence you must not say, Since I have been put to shame, let my neighbor be put to shame. R. Tanhuma said, if you do so, know whom you put to shame, for “in the likeness of God he made him.” (B’reshit Rabbah 24:7)

In the Talmud, we read:

Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.” (Shabbat 31a)

Rashi comments on this statement of Hillel, connecting love of neighbor with love of God.

“Your fellow and your fathers fellow you should not abandon” (Proverbs 27:10) The verse in Proverbs as well as this statement of Hillel is referring to the Holy One, so do not abandon His words, for you find it despicable when your friend abandons your words. Or another explanation is that it is referring specifically to your friend and Hillel enjoins him not to rob, steal, commit adultery and other mitzvot that are similar.

A later commentator, Rabbi Isaiah Halevy Horowitz explained Rashi’s interpretation of this passage:

In truth one who reads carefully will find that most of the commandments depend on loving one’s friend as one’s self. The Mitzvahs of Tzedaka, tithing, leaving the gleanings of the field, good faith in business, the prohibition against taking interest, and many others.

Similarly, all the qualities of mercy, forgiveness, forbearance, compassion, giving one the benefit of the doubt, not standing idly by the blood of your kinsman, distancing one’s self from gossip and slander, distancing one’s self from frivolous clowning, jealousy, hatred, or, checking ones anger, and not seeking honors as well as thousands of other qualities all hinge on whether a person truly is loving of ones friend as himself.

Even that which has nothing to do with his friend like the prohibitions against eating forbidden foods, leavened bread on Passover, anyone who loved his neighbor would fulfill these commandments even moreso. For if he loves his friend as he loves himself how much more would he love the Holy One who is compassionate without expectation, a true compassion for He is the Master of the world and everything is in His hand, may He be blessed. See, “Being loving to your neighbor” is what causes “Being loving to God…

So we find that our Master Yeshua fits squarely into the context of mainstream Judaism throughout the centuries in choosing these commandments as the greatest. As for the second issue, that of him negating the rest of Torah by selecting these two, the answer has already become obvious.

We can no more assume that Yeshua was abolishing the Torah with these statements than Hillel, Rashi, or Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz. Instead, he teaches that the Torah depends on these things. If he was not interested in teaching people how to live out the Torah, then it would be irrelevant that the Torah depends on these commandments.

But what is love, really? How do we know that what we do to God or to others is really loving? Is love a feeling, an emotion, something that we think about? Is it sentimentality, romance, infatuation, admiration, adoration, affection?

How can we know what Deuteronomy 6:5 means when it says “love God”? Let’s look at the context.

• In the previous chapter it says, “but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Deuteronomy 5:10)
• In the next chapter it says, “Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;” (Deuteronomy 7:9)
• A few chapters later it says, “You shall therefore love the LORD your God, and always keep His charge, His statutes, His ordinances, and His commandments.” (Deuteronomy 11:1)

But is this what our Master meant in quoting this verse?

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. (John 14:15)

He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him. (John 14:21)

If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. (John 15:10)

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. (1 John 5:2-3)

And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. (2 John 1:6)

Obviously, to love God means to walk in obedience to His commandments.

Therefore, it does not make sense to interpret Yeshua’s statement that we should “love God” and “love your neighbor” to mean that we need not keep the commandments. Biblical love is obedience, not merely niceness or affection.