The Yahrzeit of John Nelson Darby

 

by Geert ter Horst

Upcoming Shabbat, the 10^th of Iyyar, is the (131^st) Yahrzeit of John Nelson Darby, the founder of the movement of the Plymouth Brethren, who died on April 29^th, 1882. Darby was an Irish clergyman who became the intellectual father of what is known as theological Dispensationalism.

Although as Torah submissive Messianics we cannot accept all aspects of dispensationalist theology — at least not in its “classical” form, which demands the seperation of “Law” and “Grace” and of “Israel” and the “Church” — yet we have to consider that Dispensationalism was in many ways an important preparatory step for the development of Messianic Jewish theology, and that some dispensational distinctions are theologically expedient, and even necessary. [1]

Darby was born on the 18^th of November, 1800 (1^st of Kislev 5561). He was educated to become a lawyer, but after a conscious conversion to Christianity during his studies, he chose ordination and became a deacon in 1825, and a priest in 1826, of the Established Church of Ireland. Already soon after entering the priesthood his views began to depart from the accepted cadres of traditional Christianity. Darby particularly rejected any interweaving of Church and State, and he started questioning the hierarchical and political structure of the Established Church.

Darby was to become very disappointed in the Established Church. He had been successful in preaching the Gospel to Roman Catholics, and converted many of them to the Church of Ireland. But he ran into a conflict with his superior, Archbisshop William Magee, who demanded that converts to the Established Church had to take an additional oath of allegiance to the king, George IV, to be accepted. Darby protested by a letter to the Archbishop, and eventually resigned. [2] He became convinced that the Christianity of the Established Church was a serious deviation from the teachings of the Apostles. [2] His own view of the Church gradually moved into the direction of a wholly spiritual community, governed by the Holy Spirit, and detached from all earthly power structures. He taught that established Christianity was worldly, entrenched in politics and potentially apostate, and that true believers were called to separate themselves from it and simply gather as brothers and sisters in the Lord. [3] He soon discovered that there were others with a similar vision and he joined them. One of the first of their communities was formed in Plymouth (1832). Hence the name “Plymouth Brethren”. [4]

If this had been all, Darby would probably have been no more than a typical spiritual preacher who, as so many, tried to return to a pure and undiluted form of Christianity, based exclusively on the instructions of the NT. But his spiritual concerns about the Church led him to deeper theological reflections on the biblical differences between the Christian Church and the nation of Israel.

Darby sharply distinguished the Church as the mystical Body of Christ from the nation of Israel. He saw the principles of unity of the Assembly of Israel and the Assembly of Messiah as being hugely different, and indeed incompatible. The principle of Israel’s unity was its national election, the defining characteristics and limits whereof were given and explained in the Law. The Church’s principle of unity was personal saving faith in Jesus Christ.

According to Darby there is thus a distinction always to be upheld between Israel as a nation on the one hand, and the Body or Assembly of Messiah on the other. The two are never formally the same collection. From its inception, in the second chapter of Acts, the Assembly of Messiah was a distinct body within Israel (cf. Acts 2:13). It was the body of the believers, and the outward ritual sign by which they were distinguished was water immersion (Baptism) in Jesus’ name.

This essential distinction between the Church and Israel is the hermeneutical key for understanding Darby’s theology of Dispensationalism. From this distinction Darby draw the conclusion that traditional Replacement Theology was a serious failure. For Replacement Theology not only claims that the Christian Church is the legitimate successor of Israel, it also claims that the Church is the inheritor of Israel’s election and of the blessings connected to it. It says that the Christian Church is now the chosen people of G-d, the “true Israel” and that the unfulfilled biblical prophecies concerning Israel are to be fulfilled in the history and eschatological future of the Church.

Darby rejected this usurpation of Israel’s position by the Christian Church because his understanding of the essential differences between the two elections. In his view the one is a national election to a special place and function in the temporal life in this world; the other is a supranational election of individuals to the eternal life of the World to Come.

Messianics shouldn’t deduce from this that Darby denied that the Body of Messiah comprizes the believing remnant of Israel. Darby didn’t deny this obvious truth. The important point which he emphasized, however, is that once the Jewish believers were organized by the spiritual principles flowing from the resurrected Messiah, they had entered a framework which differed vastly from the framework of the Jewish nation and its Law.

Darby’s point was that in biblical history before Yeshua there existed no distinct body of believers. There was no distinct Assembly of which one could become a member and that was (supposed to be) composed exclusively of believers and thus was based on faith principles. No such thing existed before. In the situation before Messiah those in Israel who had a true saving faith and those who had not were not separated from each other or relegated to different communities. They lived together in one national community, within the context of the Sinai Covenant.

The Sinai Covenant doesn’t separate believers from unbelievers but only Israelites from non-Israelites. It is characterized by legal distinctions and demands, dealing with people groups on the basis of their natural descent and with respect to obedience and transgression. Although the Torah certainly encourages and demands faith and love (cf. Dt. 6:4), it doesn’t effectuate faith and love, nor does it deal with spiritual distinctions. It cannot make a distinction between the true faithful and the others as long as both comply with its legal demands.

Before Messiah believers from the Gentiles had not a community context at all, but were scattered individuals in a sea of apostate and idolatrous nations.

To Darby, the new thing introduced by the First Coming of Messiah is the formation of a congregation of those belonging to him, which congregation one enters by an explicit (confession of) faith accompanied by water immersion in Messiah’s name. That’s why this congregation is called Messiah’s Assembly or Body. This Body is always entered by a decision of faith and thus by free will. Nobody enters this Body by natural birth (as natural Israelites), by a legal conversion procedure (as proselytes), or by the use of force (as in the case of the forced conversion of Idumea under Jochanan Hyrcanus).

This Body or Assembly of Messiah, or the congregation of the faithful, is in Darby’s eyes not simply the collection of all true believers from all times. Only between the great events of the Resurrection and Second Coming this Assembly takes on public and outward existence and has an institutional life of its own, signified and manifested by a profession of faith, by water immersion (Baptism) in the name of Messiah, and by the celebration of the Sacrifice of Messiah in what is called the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. The Supper expresses the unity of the Assembly in the most excellent way, namely as being the Body of Messiah (Christ) (cf. I Cor. 10:16-17). The unity of the Assembly is both signified and effectuated by the sharing of the bread and cup of the Supper. For that reason according to Darby the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is the very heartbeat of the life of the Assembly. This celebration gives it its own and proper mode of communal worship. The Lord’s Supper is also of central importance for maintaining the internal discipline of the Assembly. Blatant sinners are to be excommunicated.

It is not difficult to see how Darby’s idea of a fundamental distinction between Israel and the Christian Church led him to reject the traditional interpretations of much biblical prophecy. He concluded that the prophecies which had the nation of Israel as their subject-matter had still to be applied to that nation. To apply them to the Christian Church was simply out of the question if the Church weren’t Israel. [5]

The consequences of this train of thought were revolutionary. The sharp distinction made by Darby between national Israel and the Christian Church made it possible to return to a literal interpretation of the prophecies. This led him to accept a literal restoration of Israel in a future Kingdom Age under the rule of the returned Messiah. The Plymouth Brethren, following Darby’s teachings, thus became the first Christian community which, as a community, fully believed in the future national restoration of the Jewish people. To them this was not something additional to the Christian faith, it was intimately connected to its very core. Darby’s theology of the spiritual nature of the Christian election and of the Church as strictly a faith-based community facilitated their appreciation of the different nature of the national election of the Jews.

If the Jewish nation were to be restored and a literal millennial Kingdom Age under the rule of Jesus Christ had to be accepted, then, Darby taught, the nature of this Kingdom had to be in accordance with the national nature of the election of Israel. The future Kingdom of Messiah and his present mystical Body had thus to be accepted as distinct and separate realities.

According to Darby, when the Kingdom will be set up, the dispensing of the household rules of G-d (i.e. the dispensation) will change, just as these rules changed — in the opposite direction — when the Jewish dispensation temporarily ceased after the national rejection of Messiah and gave way to the Christian Church.

The Kingdom cannot be called the Body of Messiah, since those who will be living in the Kingdom Age don’t formally enter it by an act of faith, followed by a public confession and by Baptism in Messiah’s name. In most cases those living in the Kingdom will enter the Kingdom by natural birth, by being born during the Millennium, wthin the realm of Messiah. Therefore they’ll have no choice but to obey the Reign of Messiah. So they don’t belong to this Kingdom by an act of faith.

For that reason there will no longer exist a distinct body which can be called the congregation of the faithful in the Kingdom Age. The ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper will cease. That the Supper will cease is clear from what is said in I Cor. 11:26. If Baptism were continued during the Kingdom, this would imply a forced Baptism, without spiritual value. For who would have any real choice of rejecting it? Such a rejection would equalize a blatant and public rejection of the reigning King, an offense of laesio majestatis against Messiah, which would result in the death penalty. Those living in the Kingdom Age will collectively be presumed to be faithful and loyal subjects of Messiah — until of course the goods prove to be unequal to sample. In that case punishment will follow.

Since Darby felt unable to reconcile the different divine elections of Israel and the Christian Church in one dispensation, i.e. in one set of divine household rules, he had to make sure that these dispensations only accidently ran simultaneously. The apparent problem he faced here was how the principle of grace which in his theory ruled the Christian dispensation was to be combined with the principle of Law which he viewed as the ruling principle of the Jewish dispensation.

This problem could be overcome with relative ease for the historical period of the emergent Christian Church. The continuation of the Jewish dispensation and the coming of the Kingdom were dependent on the national acceptance of the mission of Messiah. When Messiah and his Apostles were rejected, the coming of the Kingdom was post-poned to a later time (the Second Coming). The Jewish dispensation and the fulfilment of the prophecies connected to it were interrupted. Now the specific nature of the Body of Messiah, which was already formed on the Pentecost day mentioned in the second chapter of Acts, could be fully displayed, freed from the limits of the legal framework that in Darby’s eyes were foreign to it.

It was more difficult to cope with a similar problem at the other end of the history of the Christian Church. The Kingdom Age is preceded by the final ‘week’ or final seven years of Daniel’s prophecy, in the second half of which the Great Tribulation occurs. These seven years are a time of crisis leading up to the Second Coming and the establishment of the Kingdom. Darby says this time will be characterized by the complete apostasy of the Christian Church and her destruction through the hand of the infidel nations. While the Church has already gone through long periods of decline after the apostolic era and has corrupted herself by her aligning with the worldly powers and by allowing her to be infiltrated by unbelievers, yet her final definitive apostasy from the truth of the Gospel is to take place in the future, in the time leading up to the appearance of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation.

At that time a Jewish remnant will emerge and become the official bearer of the witness of Jesus Christ. Darby affirmed that these Jewish believers in Messiah will be in covenant with G-d and will live according to the commandments of the Law. He denied, however, their membership of the Body of Messiah. He saw this group as forerunners of the Kingdom Age, leading Israel to its public recognition of Jesus Christ, at the Second Coming.

To assign to this role to a future Jewish remnant, Darby had to admit that at that time the Jewish dispensation, which stopped when Israel rejected its Messiah and his Apostles, would be running again. The Church-dispensation was to be viewed as a parenthesis, which filled the gap between the rejection and restoration of Israel.

In order to ensure that this Jewish remnant remained part of the Jewish nation which would inherit the Kingdom, and did not by their faith in Jesus Christ face the obligation to join the Christian Church, Darby had the Church — or better the born again believers in it — removed from the scene before the Great Tribulation by what he called the Rapture of the Saints. He taught that the Second Coming was to happen in two phases: a secret appearance of Jesus Christ, before the Tribulation, by which the faithful of the Christian Church would receive immortality and be translated to heaven, and a public appearance of Jesus Christ on earth, after the Tribulation, in glory and majesty, to judge Israel and the nations.

Darby’s thought must have been that the fulfilment of the biblical prophecies was impossible during the Church dispensation. As I said, in his perspective the Body of Messiah emerged only after the rejection of Israel. The re-election of Israel thus demanded its disappearance. If the Christian Church were to remain on earth until the Second Coming, its unity would be gone, since it would be split up into two disparate groups: A group of Law-free Gentiles and a Jewish remnant living under the Law. And there would be no sufficient reason why the timeline of biblical prophecy, more specifically the continuity of the year-weeks of Daniel’s prophecy, would be broken if it were not for Israel’s rejection.

An additional argument in favour of the Rapture was that the continuing existence of the Church until the Second Coming would create theological difficulties for the position that the Jewish remnant would enter the Kingdom in their mortal bodies. It goes without saying that this position was essential for any theological theory favouring a national restoration of Israel. If all believers belonged to the Body, and all members of the Body were to receive resurrection life at the Second Coming, then there would be no-one left to fill the earthly Kingdom in a mortal body, because the only ones still in their mortal bodies would all be unbelievers.

Although this doctrine of a secret Rapture of the Saints was a serious mistake — in the Scriptures the Second Coming is a single and undivided event — it followed naturally from Darby’s combined premises of the necessities of a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church, and the literal reading of the biblical prophecies.

Darby’s Dispensationalism and his doctrine of the Rapture can be interpreted as a first attempt to deal with the nagging questions of the relevance of the Torah and the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Messiah, from a perspective not bound to Replacement Theology. In nuce, we already see here the unfolding of the whole field of our present discussions on “One Law” and “Bilateral Ecclesiology”. Despite the fact that his solutions to these questions were not altogether tenable, Darby’s efforts have led to a greater Christian awareness of the literal fulfilment of the biblical prophecies and the literal future restoration of the nation of Israel.

Darby travelled a lot in Britain, the European continent, and the United States, to found Brethren communities and to spread his vision that the faithful should separate themselves from the traditional churches, which he considered to be ripening to apostasy, and gather simply as Christians on the basis of the unity of the mystical Body. His successes were limited, and oftentimes the Plymouth Brethren were considered oddballs and extremists.

Darby’s influence in the United States was historically enormous, however. He visited the US more than once on his missionary travels, but considered himself quite unsuccessfull. Ironically, ultimately he got vastly influential because the Americans didn’t in big numbers accept his admonition that true Christians should separate themselves from the traditional churches and join the Brethren community. His American followers to a large degree preferred the option of being a faithful minority within the traditional framework as a better way in witnessing for the truth. And although Darby deplored this attachment of American Christians to their churches, his Dispensationalism and his interpretation of the biblical prophecies gained wider acceptance exactly because the Americans who absorbed his teachings remained in their churches. Dispensationalism thus developed into an interdenominational theology, and Darby’s teachings on the future restoration of Israel were gradually accepted in more mainstream evangelical churches because they were no longer connected to “Darbyism” or the “sect” of the Plymouth Brethren. Their acceptance contributed to the Jewish- and Israel-friendly atmosphere of large sections of American Christianity.

Darby and the Dispensationalism of the Plymouth Brethren represent an important transitional historical stage between traditional Replacement Theology and the development of a messianic Jewish theological perspective. Darby was a great and creative theologian, in many respects unknowingly a precursor of Messianic Judaism, whose explorations remain largely relevant up to this day. In some matters he erred greatly, as in his Secret Rapture doctrine. In other matters he grasped the truth with stumbling, as in his ecclesiology and Dispensationalism. In yet other things he was simply right, as in his uncompromising affirmation that the nation of Israel will gloriously be restored and is destined to become the head of all the nations in the Kingdom of Messiah.

Since we are recommended to remember them “who have spoken unto you the word of G-d” and to follow their faith, “considering the end of their conversation” (Hebr. 13:7), I think it proper for Messianics, especially those of a Plymouth Brethren background, to honour the Yahrzeit of John Nelson Darby.

____________

[1] Especially the distinctions involved in the Kingdom Offer to Israel, by the ministries of the forerunner, John the Baptist, Messiah and his Apostles. There are various dispensational hypothesis as to when the Kingdom Offer expired. In our opinion the Kingdom is offered to Israel until the end of the Acts of the Apostles. It expired in Acts 28:28.

[2] The letter is included in Darby’s Collected Writings and entitled: Considerations Addressed to the Archbishop of Dublin and the Clergy who Signed the Petition to the House of Commons for Protection (Dublin 1827)

[3] View for example his articles: “Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ” (Dublin 1828), and: “Separation from Evil God’s Principle of Unity”.

[4] In a letter of April 13^th, 1832, Darby wrote: “Plymouth, I assure you, has altered the face of Christianity to me, from finding brethren, and they acting together.” [Cf. Darby, Letters Vol. III, Appendix, p. 230 — Heijkoop Edition 1971.] For the early history of the Plymouth Brethren, view: Peter L. Embley, The Origins and Early Development of the Plymouth Brethren, St. Paul’s College — Cheltenham 1966.

[5] This view is expressed in Darby’s article: “The Hopes of the Church of God in Connection with the Destiny of the Jews and the Nations as Revealed in Prophecy” (Eleven Lectures delivered in Geneva, 1840)

On the Separation of Meat & Milk: Why the Traditional Halachah Should be Followed

 

by Geert ter Horst

Recently, Tim Hegg (TorahResource ministry) has written a paper on the issue of the separation of meat and dairy. [1] He concludes that this part of traditional kashrut is not biblical and can be ignored by Messianics. We at Messianic613 don’t agree with Hegg and are actually of the opinion that his approach to halachah on this point shows some serious defects, and that his exegetical method leads to irresponsible and anti-traditional reductions and simplifications in kashrut observance, to endless community disputes, and even to a dissolution of the traditional halachic framework as a whole. However much as we appreciate Hegg as a reliable biblical scholar on many Torah-related questions — in particular the question of Gentile observance — we are unable to go along when he takes issue with the traditional kashrut laws of Judaism.

We intend to go into the details of Hegg’s exegesis in a separate article. Here we’ll limit ourselves to a critical review of the basic ideas of his paper.

The fundamental problem with Hegg’s paper is that it takes the Protestant Scriptura Sola axiom — plus its accompanying maxim that historical-grammatical interpretation is the all and everything — as the guideline for establishing halachah. But historical Judaism never was committed to this principle or to this exegetical maxim.

Messianics perhaps will be surprised to hear that the kashrut laws cannot be established by means of only the Written Torah. Take for example the question which species of fowl are kosher. The Pentateuch only presents us two lists of fowl families that may not be eaten (in Lev. XI, and Deut. XIV). These lists have never functioned in Jewish tradition as an exhaustive categorization of treif fowl. They are considered to be a summary of the most important prohibited fowl families, which presents us the criteria for determining which fowl is kosher and which is not. The Sages have never concluded that we can eat all fowl species that aren’t explicitly mentioned in these lists. Instead, rabbinic exegesis extracts four indicators from them, which are used as traditional criteria for determining kosher fowl species. [2] To avoid all risk of error the Rabbis have since long refused to add any later discovered species to the list of permitted fowl. Only species uncontested by tradition are permitted. They are the following: All members of the chicken family, domesticated ducks, domesticated geese, pigeons, and domesticated turkeys.

There is no dispute in the messianic world about this, and everyone seems to accept the rabbinic tradition on kosher fowl. At least until now we don’t hear of Messianics that want to expand the list of kosher fowl to everything that isn’t included in the families explicitly prohibited by the biblical texts. However, Messianics generally are so ignorant in halachic issues that the majority of them may never have heard of the fact that the criteria for kosher fowl are to a high degree dependent on rabbinic tradition.

Another important principle of kashrut is that milk and eggs are only permissible if they are produced by kosher cattle and fowl. This is not a biblical commandment but part of the Oral Torah. [3] This principle is also accepted by Messianics, at least in in practice. Or, if it is not, new discussions will inevitably come up, e.g. about the permissibility of camel’s milk and ostrich’s eggs.

The traditional separation of meat and milk has to do with typical features of halachic exegesis, which differs from historico-grammatical exegesis. In halachic exegesis the main purpose is not to find out the literal and/or historical meaning of the text, but to rely on an interpretation which minimizes the danger of transgressing the Torah. From a traditional viewpoint historico-grammatical exegesis is always feeble and unreliable, since historical knowledge can change. One would take great risks if one tried to establish the halachah solely on the basis of the discipline of historical-grammatical scholarship. Now since the Torah text says “thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk” and it is difficult to establish what exactlty is meant by this injunction, halachic exegesis opts for the interpretation that all mixtures of meat and milk are prohibited. By doing so we are quite sure that, whatever is the true and divinely intended meaning of this commandment, we won’t transgress it. And that’s the essential thing.

It may be clear from the above that the concept of “biblically kosher” is erroneous and unsustainable. It only leads to endless discussions and congregational quarrels, resulting in the situation of each individual making his own halachah. Such a disaster should be avoided at all costs. The rules of kashrut are a community matter which concerns the whole Jewish nation and the whole Assembly of Messiah. No-one can make decisions here on his own, for this would lead to a complete chaos. And no local congregational leadership or ministry has any say in this matter.

Messianics do better not to try to outsmart the Rabbis in these highly technical domains such as kashrut, the rules of Shabbat, the construction of a mikvah and so on. The classical solutions are often the simplest and the best.

Perhaps it may be added to this that observing the separation of milk and meat is not a burden at all. The point is simply to take the trouble of installing and kashering one’s kitchen once and for all and separate all items correctly. After that, everything goes smoothly. But Messianics often seem to be so concerned with possible ‘burdens’ that they actually prefer to make matters more complicated and burdensome by their endless and repetitive discussions and quarrels on long-established matters, presumably having the idea that they should re-invent the wheel. As said, this is simply not a smart appraoch.

In its classic form, kashrut teaches us symbolically about two great truths of the Torah. The first is that there are things that are bad, e.g. stealing and lying, and that there are things that are good, e.g. honoring one’s parents and speaking the truth in love. This truth is symbolized by the distinction between kosher and treif. The second truth is that there are things that are good in their own right but cannot be combined with other things, e.g. family love and marital love, the combination of which is incest; or working for one’s bread and the Sabbath day, which constitutes a transgression of the Sabbath. Working for one’s bread is good and observing the Sabbath day is good, but working for one’s bread on the Sabbath day is not good. Marital love is good, and family love between children and parents and sisters and brothers is good. But both cannot be combined in one and the same relation. This truth is symbolized by the separation of milk and meat.

Kashrut is full of spiritualtity and beauty, if kept in its entirety and according to its traditional standards. [4] Properly understood and observed, it gives us a ritual awareness in all situations of daily life, which is something to be experienced as a great blessing.

In his paper Hegg relegates everything that isn’t contained in the text of the Pentateuch to the level of rabbinic legislation, which in his eyes can be ignored. He doesn’t seem to realize that his opinion leads to a complete dissolution of traditional Jewish observance. The daily recitation of the Shema for example cannot be deduced from Scripture by historico-grammatical exegesis. Dt. 6:6-7 doesn’t say that we should recite the Shema twice daily. It says that “these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart”. It also says that we “shall talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up, &c”. But it never says that the Shema must be ‘recited’ — as part of the evening and morning prayers. This text doesn’t even properly single out the words of the Shema, for it simply refers to “these words, which I command thee this day”, which may indicate the Torah in general. [5]

Does the fact that the traditional obligation to recite the Shema twice daily cannot be demonstrated from Scripture by historico-grammatical exegesis imply that we can neglect it? Surely not. According to the traditional interpretation the reading of the Shema is indeed part of the scriptural commandments. Maimonides declares that it is expressed in the words : “and thou shalt talk of them” (Dt. 6:7). [6] Here we see how the commandments of the Written Torah are intricately interwoven with their interpretation and determination by the Oral Torah (and later rabbinic tradition). To ensure that we shall “talk of them”, i.e. that the words of the Written Torah are found in our mouth, we are told (by the Oral Torah) to recite that part of it which constitutes its spiritual center, the Shema. This result can never be obtained by historico-grammatical exegesis. It is born out of the halachic mindset to be attentive to all details of the text that may contain injunctions, and to devise practical clues on how to execute them. As a consequence of Hegg’s approach, however, the daily recitation of the Shema should fall under the same verdict as the separation of meat and dairy and be disapproved of as an ‘unbiblical’ practice.

This is only one illustration of the disastruous effects of disrespecting the Oral Torah and Jewish tradition. It leads to a type of observance which differs so much from the traditional, that in practical terms it will be viewed as establishing a new religion, based on the subjective exegesis of the biblical texts by individual ministers and their followers. Messianics should be aware of this typical Protestant pitfall of individualism.

As Messianics we should be firm in maintaining that Scripture has supreme authority. But this doesn’t imply at all the Calvinistic dogma of Sola Scriptura, making Scripture the only and exclusive source of authority. This dogma is never taught in Scripture itself.

________________

[1] Hegg, T., “Separating Meat & Milk: An Inquiry”, at: TorahResource.

[2] The traditional four criteria are: (1) that the muscular wall of the gizzard must be easy to peel off by hand; (2) that the bird doesn’t eat in the manner of hunters, which use their claws for capturing and holding their prey; (3) that they have three toes in front and one in the back; (4) that they have crops. The first two criteria are of primary, the other of secondary importance. Ducks and geese are kosher, despite the fact that they don’t have crops, since they fulfil the two primary and one additional criteria.

[3] View for example the following summary, in the Shulchan Aruch, at: Torah.org.

[4] The only exception to this for Messianics would be the rabbinic halachah on gentile wine, cheese and bread. To keep the rabbinic halachah on wine makes no sense for (Gentile) Messianics, since it stipulates that the wine becomes treif if a Gentile opens the bottle, even if before opening it was rabbinically kosher according to the strictest criteria.

[5] Rivkin 272: “The Pentateuch begins with the creation of the world; the Mishnah, with the reading of the Shema. The first laws commanded to Israel relate to the Passover, whereas the first tractate of the Mishnah deals with prayers not even mandated in the Pentateuch”. [Rivkin, E., A Hidden Revolution — Abingdon, Nashville 1978]

[6] Sefer HaMitzvot #10: “By this injunction we are commanded to read the Shema daily, in the evening and in the morning. This injunction is expressed in his words (exalted be he), And thou shalt talk of them“. [Maimonides, The Commandments. The Soncino Press — London, Jerusalem, New York 1967, 1984]

A Messianic Kol Nidrei Service

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opening Hymn
[Hymns Ancient & Modern 84 SE, adapted.]

Once more the solemn season calls
A holy fast to keep;
And now within the temple wall
Let priest and people weep.

But vain all outward sign of grief,
And vain the form of prayer,
Unless the heart implore relief,
And penitence be there.

We smite the breast, we weep in vain,
In vain we deeply mourn,
Unless with penitential pain
The smitten soul be torn.

In sorrow true then let us pray
To our offended God,
From us to turn his wrath away,
And stay the uplifted rod.

O God, our Judge and Father, deign
To spare the bruised reed;
We pray for time to turn again,
For grace to turn indeed.

Bow at the last stanza:
Blest Holy One, to Thee we bow;
Vouchsafe us, in Thy love,
To gather from these fasts below
Immortal fruit above.

[From The Church of England Book of Common Prayer, adapted.]
At the beginning the Minister shall read with a loud voice some one or more of these Sentences of the Scriptures that follow. And then he shall say that which is written after the said Sentences.

When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Ezek. xviii. 27.

I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Psalm li. 3.

Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Psalm li. 9.

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psalm li. 17.

Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Joel ii. 13.

To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws which he set before us. Daniel ix. 9, 10.

O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jer. x. 24. Psalm vi. 1.

Repent ye; for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. St. Matt. iii. 2.

I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. St. Luke xv. 18, 19.

Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Psalm cxliii. 2.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 St. John i. 8, 9.

Dearly beloved, the Scripture moveth us, in sundry places, to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying with me:

A general Confession is to be said of the whole Congregation together with the Minister, all kneeling.

Almighty and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Messiah Yeshua our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

Then all confess their personal  sins in a short silent prayer.

The Minister pronounces a general Absolution, or Remission of sins, standing; the people still kneeling.

Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live: He pardoneth and + absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his everlasting joy; through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord.

The people shall answer here, and at the end of all other prayers, Amen.

Then the Minister shall kneel again, and say The Lord’s Prayer with an audible voice, together with the people.

Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

Now follows the Kol Nidre:
[From the Fischer Siddur pp. 73-74]
All vows, oaths, and pledges which we may be forced to take between this Yom Kippur and the next, of these we repent and these we renounce. Let them all be nullified and voided, and let us be + absolved and released. Let such personal vows, pledges, and oaths be considered neither vows, nor pledges, nor oaths.

Minister:
May all the congregation of the children of Israel be forgiven and all the strangers who live among them, for all the people are in fault.

People:
O please forgive the iniquities of this people according to thy great kindness, even as thou hast pardoned this people from Egypt until now. For thou hast told us: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”.

Our God and God of our forefathers
Yes, it is true, our evil inclination influences us;
Clear us, O Merciful One, so answer us:
I forgive.
Silence the accuser, let an advocate take his place;
O Lord, give our advocate thy support and say:
I forgive.
Confer on us the merit of our Messiah.
Remove all sin and loudly proclaim from heaven:
I forgive.
Good and Forgiving One, pardon and forgive sinners.
O God give heed, and also reply from the heights:
I forgive
Heal my wound, hide deeply my iniquity;
For thy Name, on my behalf say the word:
I forgive.
Blot out evil from among thy people;
Show thy faithful love and thy glory and say:
I forgive.
Cleanse every evil quickly as mist vanishes,
Blot out the guilt of a people delivered and say:
I forgive.
Remember the atonement of our Messiah Yeshua,
“Father, forgive” was on his lips, so say to us:
I forgive.

All rise for the following prayers [adapted from the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer]

Minister       O Lord, hear our prayer,
People         And let our cry come to thee
Minister       Let us pray

Almighty and most merciful God, kindle within us the fire of love, that by its cleansing flame we may be purged of all our sins and made worthy to worship thee in spirit and in truth; through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord. Amen.

The Minister says the prayer for the (Shabbat and) Yom Kippur light.
O Lord God Almighty, as thou hast taught us to call the evening, the morning, and the noonday one day; and hast made the sun to know its going down: Dispel the darkness of our hearts, that by thy brightness we may know thee to be the true God and everlasting light, living and reigning for ever and ever. Amen.

The Minister lights the candles and after it recites the following blessings
Blessed art thou, O Eternal, our God, King of the universe, who hath sanctified us with his commandments and hath commanded us to kindle the (Shabbat and) Yom Kippur light.

Blessed art thou, O Eternal, our God, King of the universe, who hath given us the light of the world in Yeshua the Messiah.

Blessed art thou, O Eternal, our God, King of the universe, who hath kept us alive, sustained us, and brought us to this season.

After a short moment of silence the congregation sings the following hymn [Phos hilaron, from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, p. 64, adapted]
O gracious light,
Pure brightness of the everliving Father in heaven,
O Yeshua Messiah, holy and blessed.

Now as we come to the setting of the sun,
And our eyes behold the light of (Shabbat and) Yom Kippur,
We sing thy praises O God our Father, the Lord God of Israel

Thou art worthy to be praised by happy voices,
O Eternal, our God, O giver of life,
And to be glorified through all the worlds.

Then follows a selection of the Psalter. Each Psalm is concluded by the doxology verse: «Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen». Preferably one bows during the first half of this verse and straightens up at: «As it was…»

Minister       O Lord, open thou our lips.
People         And our mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
Minister       O God, make speed to save us.
People         O Lord, make haste to help us
Minister       Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel
People         As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen

Psalm 95. Venite, exultemus

O come, let us sing unto the Lord : let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation.
2. Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving : and shew ourselves glad in him with psalms.
3. For the Lord is a great God : and a great King above all gods.
4. In his hand are all the corners of the earth : and the strength of the hills is his also.
5. The sea is his, and he made it : and his hands prepared the dry land.
6. O come, let us worship and fall down : and kneel before the Lord our Maker.
7. For he is the Lord our God : and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.
8. To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts : as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness.
9. When your fathers tempted me : proved me, and saw my works.
10. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said : It is a people that do err in their hearts, for they have not known my ways;
11. Unto whom I sware in my wrath : that they should not enter into my rest.
Doxology: Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Psalm 96. Cantate Domino

O sing unto the Lord a new song : sing unto the Lord, all the whole earth.
2. Sing unto the Lord, and praise his Name : be telling of his salvation from day to day.
3. Declare his honour unto the heathen : and his wonders unto all people.
4. For the Lord is great, and cannot worthily be praised : he is more to be feared than all gods.
5. As for all the gods of the heathen, they are but idols : but it is the Lord that made the heavens.
6. Glory and worship are before him : power and honour are in his sanctuary.
7. Ascribe unto the Lord, O ye kindreds of the people : ascribe unto the Lord worship and power.
8. Ascribe unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name : bring presents, and come into his courts.
9. O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness : let the whole earth stand in awe of him.
10. Tell it out among the heathen that the Lord is King : and that it is he who hath made the round world so fast that it cannot be moved; and how that he shall judge the people righteously.
11. Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad : let the sea make a noise, and all that therein is.
12. Let the field be joyful, and all that is in it : then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice before the Lord.
13. For he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth : and with righteousness to judge the world, and the people with his truth.
Doxology: Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Psalm 97. Dominus regnavit

The Lord is King, the earth may be glad thereof : yea, the multitude of the isles may be glad thereof.
2. Clouds and darkness are round about him : righteousness and judgement are the habitation of his seat.
3. There shall go a fire before him : and burn up his enemies on every side.
4. His lightnings gave shine unto the world : the earth saw it, and was afraid.
5. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord : at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.
6. The heavens have declared his righteousness : and all the people have seen his glory.
7. Confounded be all they that worship carved images, and that delight in vain gods : worship him, all ye gods.
8. Sion heard of it, and rejoiced : and the daughters of Judah were glad, because of thy judgements, O Lord.
9. For thou, Lord, art higher than all that are in the earth : thou art exalted far above all gods.
10. O ye that love the Lord, see that ye hate the thing which is evil : the Lord preserveth the souls of his saints; he shall deliver them from the hand of the ungodly.
11. There is sprung up a light for the righteous : and joyful gladness for such as are true-hearted.
12. Rejoice in the Lord, ye righteous : and give thanks for a remembrance of his holiness.
Doxology: Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Psalm 98. Cantate Domino

O sing unto the Lord a new song : for he hath done marvellous things.
2. With his own right hand, and with his holy arm : hath he gotten himself the victory.
3. The Lord declared his salvation : his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen.
4. He hath remembered his mercy and truth toward the house of Israel : and all the ends of the world have seen the salvation of our God.
5. Shew yourselves joyful unto the Lord, all ye lands : sing, rejoice, and give thanks.
6. Praise the Lord upon the harp : sing to the harp with a psalm of thanksgiving.
7. With trumpets also and shawms : O shew yourselves joyful before the Lord the King.
8. Let the sea make a noise, and all that therein is : the round world, and they that dwell therein.
9. Let the floods clap their hands, and let the hills be joyful together before the Lord : for he is come to judge the earth.
10. With righteousness shall he judge the world : and the people with equity.
Doxology: Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Psalm 99. Dominus regnavit

The Lord is King, be the people never so unpatient : he sitteth between the cherubim, be the earth never so unquiet.
2. The Lord is great in Sion : and high above all people.
3. They shall give thanks unto thy Name : which is great, wonderful, and holy.
4. The King’s power loveth judgement; thou hast prepared equity: thou hast executed judgement and righteousness in Jacob.
5. O magnify the Lord our God : and fall down before his footstool, for he is holy.
6. Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among such as call upon his Name : these called upon the Lord, and he heard them.
7. He spake unto them out of the cloudy pillar : for they kept his testimonies, and the law that he gave them.
8. Thou heardest them, O Lord our God : thou forgavest them, O God, and punishedst their own inventions.
9. O magnify the Lord our God, and worship him upon his holy hill : for the Lord our God is holy.
Doxology: Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Psalm 29. Afferte Domino

O bring unto the Lord, O ye mighty, bring young rams unto the Lord : ascribe unto the Lord worship and strength.
2. Give the Lord the honour due unto his Name : worship the Lord with holy worship.
3. It is the Lord that commandeth the waters : it is the glorious God that maketh the thunder.
4. It is the Lord that ruleth the sea; the voice of the Lord is mighty in operation : the voice of the Lord is a glorious voice.
5. The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedar-trees : yea, the Lord breaketh the cedars of Libanus.
6. He maketh them also to skip like a calf : Libanus also, and Sirion, like a young unicorn.
7. The voice of the Lord divideth the flames of fire; the voice of the Lord shaketh the wilderness : yea, the Lord shaketh the wilderness of Cades.
8. The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to bring forth young, and discovereth the thick bushes : in his temple doth every man speak of his honour.
9. The Lord sitteth above the water-flood : and the Lord remaineth a King for ever.
10. The Lord shall give strength unto his people : the Lord shall give his people the blessing of peace.
Doxology: Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Hymn
[Hymns Ancient & Modern 14 SE, 15 FS, Adapted.]
O Deity, most blessed Light,
O Unity of primal might,
As now the fiery sun departs,
Shed thou thy beams within our hearts.

To thee our morning song of praise,
To thee our evening prayer we raise;
Thee may our souls for evermore
In lowly reverence adore.

Bow at the concluding stanza:
Almighty Father, hear our cry
Through thine only Son our Lord most high,
Who by the Holy Ghost with thee
Doth live and reign eternally

The Lesson is read
Reader         The Lord be with you
People         And with thy spirit
Reader         A lesson from the (Second) Book of the Chronicles (II Chronicles 6:13-42)

13 [For] Solomon had made a brasen scaffold of five cubits long, and five cubits broad, and three cubits high, and had set it in the midst of the court: and upon it he stood, and kneeled down upon his knees before all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven. 14 And said, O Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee in the heaven, nor in the earth; which keepest covenant, and shewest mercy unto thy servants, that walk before thee with all their hearts: 15 Thou which hast kept with thy servant David my father that which thou hast promised him; and spakest with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day. 16 Now therefore, O Lord God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that which thou hast promised him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit upon the throne of Israel; yet so that thy children take heed to their way to walk in my law, as thou hast walked before me. 17 Now then, O Lord God of Israel, let thy word be verified, which thou hast spoken unto thy servant David. 18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built! 19 Have respect therefore to the prayer of thy servant, and to his supplication, O Eternal my God, to hearken unto the cry and the prayer which thy servant prayeth before thee: 20 That thine eyes may be open upon this house day and night, upon the place whereof thou hast said that thou wouldest put thy name there; to hearken unto the prayer which thy servant prayeth toward this place. 21 Hearken therefore unto the supplications of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, which they shall make toward this place: hear thou from thy dwelling place, even from heaven; and when thou hearest, forgive. 22 If a man sin against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him to make him swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house; 23 Then hear thou from heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, by requiting the wicked, by recompensing his way upon his own head; and by justifying the righteous, by giving him according to his righteousness. 24 And if thy people Israel be put to the worse before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee; and shall return and confess thy name, and pray and make supplication before thee in this house; 25 Then hear thou from the heavens, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which thou gavest to them and to their fathers. 26 When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; yet if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou dost afflict them; 27 Then hear thou from heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, when thou hast taught them the good way, wherein they should walk; and send rain upon thy land, which thou hast given unto thy people for an inheritance. 28 If there be dearth in the land, if there be pestilence, if there be blasting, or mildew, locusts, or caterpillers; if their enemies besiege them in the cities of their land; whatsoever sore or whatsoever sickness there be: 29 Then what prayer or what supplication soever shall be made of any man, or of all thy people Israel, when every one shall know his own sore and his own grief, and shall spread forth his hands in this house: 30 Then hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according unto all his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men:) 31 That they may fear thee, to walk in thy ways, so long as they live in the land which thou gavest unto our fathers. 32 Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of thy people Israel, but is come from a far country for thy great name’s sake, and thy mighty hand, and thy stretched out arm; if they come and pray toward this house; 33 Then hear thou from the heavens, even from thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for; that all people of the earth may know thy name, and fear thee, as doth thy people Israel, and may know that this house which I have built is called by thy name. 34 If thy people go out to war against their enemies by the way that thou shalt send them, and they pray unto thee toward this city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name; 35 Then hear thou from the heavens their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause. 36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near; 37 Yet if they bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn and pray unto thee in the land of their captivity, saying, We have sinned, we have done amiss, and have dealt wickedly; 38 If they return to thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their captivity, whither they have carried them captives, and pray toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, and toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built for thy name: 39 Then hear thou from the heavens, even from thy dwelling place, their prayer and their supplications, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy people which have sinned against thee. 40 Now, my God, let, I beseech thee, thine eyes be open, and let thine ears be attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. 41 Now therefore arise, O Lord God, into thy resting place, thou, and the ark of thy strength: let thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints rejoice in goodness. 42 O Lord God, turn not away the face of thine anointed: remember the mercies of David thy servant.

After the Lesson:
Reader         This is the word of the Lord
People         Thanks be to God

As a response to the lesson the following Psalm is sung:

Psalm 20. Exaudiat te Dominus

The Eternal hear thee in the day of trouble : the Name of the God of Jacob defend thee;
2. Send thee help from the sanctuary : and strengthen thee out of Sion;
3. Remember all thy offerings : and accept thy burnt-sacrifice;
4. Grant thee thy heart’s desire : and fulfil all thy mind.
5. We will rejoice in thy salvation, and triumph in the Name of the Lord our God : the Eternal perform all thy petitions.
6. Now know I that the Eternal helpeth his Anointed, and will hear him from his holy heaven : even with the wholesome strength of his right hand.
7. Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses : but we will remember the Name of the Eternal our God.
8. They are brought down, and fallen : but we are risen, and stand upright.
9. Save, O Eternal, and hear us, O King of heaven : when we call upon thee.
Doxology: Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

If Yom Kippur coincides with the weekly Sabbath, Psalm 92, the Sabbath Psalm, is sung. If Yom Kippur falls on another day Psalm 92 is omitted.

Psalm 92. Bonum est confiteri

It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord : and to sing praises unto thy Name, O most Highest;
2. To tell of thy loving-kindness early in the morning : and of thy truth in the night-season;
3. Upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the lute : upon a loud instrument, and upon the harp.
4. For thou, Lord, hast made me glad through thy works : and I will rejoice in giving praise for the operations of thy hands.
5. O Lord, how glorious are thy works : thy thoughts are very deep.
6. An unwise man doth not well consider this : and a fool doth not understand it.
7. When the ungodly are green as the grass, and when all the workers of wickedness do flourish : then shall they be destroyed for ever; but thou, Lord, art the most Highest for evermore.
8. For lo, thine enemies, O Lord, lo, thine enemies shall perish : and all the workers of wickedness shall be destroyed.
9. But mine horn shall be exalted like the horn of an unicorn : for I am anointed with fresh oil.
10. Mine eye also shall see his lust of mine enemies : and mine ear shall hear his desire of the wicked that arise up against me.
11. The righteous shall flourish like a palm-tree : and shall spread abroad like a cedar in Libanus.
12. Such as are planted in the house of the Lord : shall flourish in the courts of the house of our God.
13. They also shall bring forth more fruit in their age : and shall be fat and well-liking.
14. That they may shew how true the Lord my strength is : and that there is no unrighteousness in him.
Doxology: Glory be to Thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Psalm 93. Dominus regnavit

The Lord is King, and hath put on glorious apparel : the Lord hath put on his apparel, and girded himself with strength.
2. He hath made the round world so sure : that it cannot be moved.
3. Ever since the world began hath thy seat been prepared : thou art from everlasting.
4. The floods are risen, O Lord, the floods have lift up their voice : the floods lift up their waves.
5. The waves of the sea are mighty, and rage horribly : but yet the Lord, who dwelleth on high, is mightier.
6. Thy testimonies, O Lord, are very sure : holiness becometh thine house for ever.
Doxology: Glory be to Thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel : As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Immediately after Psalm 93 and without introductory invitation the Minster proceeds to the following Collects[adapted versions from the Episcopal Prayer Book]

Blessed art thou, O Eternal our God, God of fathers, Creator of the changes of day and night, giving [the/a] Sabbath of rest and bestowing upon us occasions of solemn song in the evening. As thou hast protected us in the day that is past, so be with us in the coming night; keep us from every sin, every evil, and every fear; for thou art our light and salvation, and the strength of our life. To thee be glory for endless ages. Amen.

The following Collect is only said on Friday evening
Almighty, everlasting God, let our prayer in thy sight be as incense, the lifting up of our hands as the evening sacrifice. Give us grace to behold thee, present in thy Word and Sacraments, and to recognize thee in the lives of those around us. Stir up in us the flame of that love which burned in the heart of thy Son as he bore his Passion, and let it burn in us to everlasting life and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Be present, be present, O Lord Yeshua, our great High Priest, as thou werest present with thy talmidim; thou who livest and reignest with the Father in the unity of the Ruach HaKodesh, world without end. Amen.

O God and Father of all, whom the whole heavens adore: Let the whole earth also worship thee, all nations obey thee, all tongues confess and bless thee, and men and women everywhere love thee and serve thee in peace; through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord. Amen.

Half Kaddish
Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world which he hath created according to his will. May he establish his kingdom during your life and during your days, and during the life of all the house of Israel, even speedily and at a near time, and say ye, Amen.
(Cong. — Amen. Let his great name be blessed for ever and to all eternity.)
Blessed, praised and glorified, exalted, extolled and honored, magnified and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be he (Cong. — Blessed be he exceedingly) though he be high above all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations, which are uttered in the world, through Yeshua the Messiah; and say ye, Amen. (Cong. — Amen.)

THE LITANY

Minister: O God the Father of heaven: have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
People: O God the Father of heaven: have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
Minister: O holy, blessed, and glorious Deity: have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
People: O holy, blessed, and glorious Deity: have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

Remember not, Lord, our offences, nor the offences of our forefathers; neither take thou vengeance of our sins: spare us, good Lord, spare thy people, whom thou hast redeemed with the most precious blood of thine own Son, and be not angry with us for ever.
Spare us, good Lord.
From all evil and mischief; from sin, from the crafts and assaults of the devil; from thy wrath, and from everlasting damnation,
Good Lord, deliver us.
From all blindness of heart; from pride, vain-glory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness,
Good Lord, deliver us.
From fornication, and all other deadly sin; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil,
Good Lord, deliver us.
From lightning and tempest; from plague, pestilence, and famine; from battle and murder, and from sudden death,
Good Lord, deliver us.
From all sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion; from all false doctrine, heresy, and schism; from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word and Commandment,
Good Lord, deliver us.
By the mystery of thy Son’s holy Begetting; by his holy Nativity and Circumcision; by his Immersion, Fasting, and Temptation,
Good Lord, deliver us.
By his Agony and bloody Sweat; by his Cross and Passion; by his precious Death and Burial; by his glorious Resurrection and Ascension; and by the coming of the Ruach HaKodesh,
Good Lord, deliver us.
In all time of our tribulation; in all time of our wealth; in the hour of death, and in the day of judgement,
Good Lord, deliver us.
We sinners do beseech thee to hear us, O Lord God: and that it may please thee to rule and govern thine holy Assembly in the right way,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to keep and strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteousness and holiness of life, thy Servant NN, our most gracious (King/Queen and) Governor,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to rule (his/her) heart in thy faith, fear, and love, and that (he/she) may evermore have affiance in thee, and ever seek thy honour and glory,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to be (his/her) defender and keeper, giving (him/her) the victory over all (his/her) enemies,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to bless and preserve (NN and NN and all the Royal Family),
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to illuminate all the Ministers of the Gospel with true knowledge and understanding of thy Word; and that both by their preaching and living they may set it forth and shew it accordingly,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
(That it may please thee to endue the Lords of the Council, and all the Nobility, with grace, wisdom, and understanding,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.)
That it may please thee to bless and keep the Magistrates, giving them grace to execute justice, and to maintain truth,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to bless and keep all thy people,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to give to all nations unity, peace, and concord,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to give us an heart to love and dread thee, and diligently to live after thy commandments,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to give to all thy people increase of grace, to hear meekly thy Word, and to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred, and are deceived,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to strengthen such as do stand; and to comfort and help the weak-hearted; and to raise up them that fall; and finally to beat down Satan under our feet,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to succour, help, and comfort all that are in danger, necessity, and tribulation,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to preserve all that travel by land or by water, all women labouring of child, all sick persons, and young children; and to shew thy pity upon all prisoners and captives,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to defend, and provide for, the father-less children, and widows, and all that are desolate and oppressed,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to have mercy upon all men,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to forgive our enemies, persecutors, and slanderers, and to turn their hearts,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to give and preserve to our use the kindly fruits of the earth, so as in due time we may enjoy them,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
That it may please thee to give us true repentance; to forgive us all our sins, negligences, and ignorances; and to endue us with the grace of thy Ruach HaKodesh, to amend our lives according to thy holy Word,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.
Son of God: we beseech thee to hear us.
Son of God: we beseech thee to hear us.
O Lamb of God: that takest away the sins of the world;
Grant us thy peace.
O Lamb of God: that takest away the sins of the world;
Have mercy upon us.
O Messiah, hear us.
O Messiah, hear us.

Lord, have mercy upon us.
Messiah, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Then shall the Minister, and the people with him, say the Lord’s Prayer.
Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. Amen.

Minister:      O Lord, deal not with us after our sins.
Answer:       Neither reward us after our iniquities.
Let us pray.
O God, merciful Father, that despisest not  the sighing of a contrite heart, nor the desire of such as be sorrowful: Mercifully assist our prayers that we make before thee in all our troubles and adversities, whensoever they oppress us; and graciously hear us, that those evils, which the craft and subtilty of the devil or man worketh against us, be brought to nought, and by the providence of thy goodness they may be dispersed; that we thy servants, being hurt by no persecutions, may evermore give thanks unto thee in thy holy Assembly; through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord.
O Lord, arise, help us, and deliver us for thy Name’s sake.

O God, we have heard with our ears, and our fathers have declared unto us, the noble works that thou didst in their days, and in the old time before them.
O Lord, arise, help us, and deliver us for thine honour.
Glory be to thee, O Eternal, the Lord-God of Israel;
Answer: As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

From our enemies defend us, O Messiah.
Graciously look upon our afflictions.
Pitifully behold the sorrows of our hearts.
Mercifully forgive the sins of thy people.
Favourably with mercy hear our prayers.
O Son of David, have mercy upon us.
Both now and ever vouchsafe to hear us, O Messiah.
Graciously hear us, O Messiah; graciously hear us, O Lord Messiah.

Minister:      O Lord, let thy mercy be shewed upon us;
Answer:       As we do put our trust in thee.

Let us pray.
We humbly beseech thee, O Father, mercifully to look upon our infirmities; and for the glory of thy Name turn from us all those evils that we most righteously have deserved; and grant that in all our troubles we may put our whole trust and confidence in thy mercy, and evermore serve thee in holiness and pureness of living, to thy honour and glory; through our only Mediator and Advocate, Yeshua the Messiah our Lord. Amen.

Almighty God, who hast given us grace at  this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name thou wilt grant their requests: Fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants, as may be most expedient for them; granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting. Amen.

Mourner’s Kaddish
Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world which he hath created according to his will. May he establish his kingdom during your life and during your days, and during the life of all the house of Israel, even speedily and at a near time, and say ye, Amen.
(Cong. — Amen. Let his great name be blessed for ever and to all eternity.)
Blessed, praised and glorified, exalted, extolled and honored, magnified and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be he (Cong. — Blessed be he exceedingly) though he be high above all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations, which are uttered in the world, through Yeshua the Messiah; and say ye, Amen. (Cong. — Amen.)
May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life for us and for all Israel, through the same Yeshua the Messiah; and say ye, Amen. (Cong. — Amen.)

Take three steps backward. Bow to the left and and say: “He who maketh peace…”; bow to the right and say: “may he in his mercy…”; bow forward and say: “and for all Israel…” After waiting for a short while in standing position take three steps forward.

He who maketh peace in his high places, may he make peace for us and for all Israel, through the same Yeshua the Messiah, our Lord; and say ye, Amen. (Cong. — Amen.)

Then follows the Maariv service for Yom Kippur.

© Messianic613.wordpress.com

October 9, 2009
11 Tishri 5770

Een Verbod op de Besnijdenis is een Verbod op het Jodendom

 

door Geert ter Horst

[Dit artikel werd geplaatst in het Katholiek Nieuwsblad van 23 augustus 2012.]

In zijn opinie bijdrage van 16 augustus j.l.: “Ontmoedig Besnijden van Jongens” in het Katholiek Nieuwsblad bepleit ethicus Gert van Dijk namens het KNMG een ontmoedigingsbeleid voor het besnijden van jongens. De belangrijkste argumenten die hij aanhaalt voor zijn positie zijn de stellingen dat de jongensbesnijdenis medisch schadelijk zou zijn en dat de beslissing om al dan niet te besnijden bij de persoon zelf zou moeten liggen, niet bij de ouders. Het lichaam van het kind zou gevrijwaard moeten blijven van onomkeerbare religieuze tekens. Het laatste zou betekenen dat de besnijdenis eventueel op volwassen leeftijd zou kunnen worden uitgevoerd, niet echter, zoals het Jodendom voorschrijft, op de achtste dag na de geboorte.

Het stuk van Van Dijk is voornamelijk een reactie op een eerder artikel van Rabbijn Lody van de Kamp tegen de stellingname van het KNMG. Van de Kamp’s artikel verscheen ook in het KN, onder de titel: “Besnijdenis in ‘Historisch’ Perspectief”. Ik wil hier op enkele aspecten van Van Dijks betoog en zijn verwoording van het KNMG standpunt ingaan die niet of minder expliciet door Van de Kamp werden behandeld. In de eerste plaats op het argument van de zogenaamde schadelijkheid. Dit argument is namelijk een merkwaardige zaak.

Het is wel een opmerkelijk feit dat de zogenaamde schadelijkheid van een rite die in de loop van de joodse geschiedenis miljoenen en nog eens miljoenen malen is uitgevoerd, en die zo’n 4000 jaar oud is, nooit door het joodse volk zelf is gethematiseerd of geproblematiseerd. Het Jodendom is een religie die grote waarde hecht aan al wat de lichamelijke gezondheid en de hygiene bevordert. Indien deze schadelijkheid dus al bestaat, is ze ongetwijfeld zo miniem dat ze nooit is opgevallen en dus praktisch zo goed als onschadelijk is. In ieder geval heeft het joodse volk niet merkbaar geleden onder deze schadelijkheid, helaas wel onder de wreedheid van vreemde machthebbers die gepoogd hebben de besnijdenis te verbieden. Joden hebben herhaaldelijk hun bloed en leven moeten geven om de voor het Jodendom fundamentele instelling van de besnijdenis te handhaven.

Hier kan men aan toevoegen een overweging betreffende de religieuze en sociale schadelijkheid die juist zou ontstaan door het niet uitvoeren van de besnijdenis. Dit zou de boodschap uitdragen dat een joodse jongen niet op volwaardige wijze in het joodse volk mag worden ingevoegd. Wat voor vragen omtrent de eigen identiteit zou dit oproepen bij een opgroeiend kind?

De schadelijkheid van stemmingmakerij tegen of van een verbod op de besnijdenis lijkt mij daarom al vele malen groter dan de veronderstelde schadelijkheid van de rite van de besnijdenis zelf.

In verband met de onlangs door het Keulse Landesgericht genomen beslissing dat de besnijdenis van jonge jongens als lichamelijke mishandeling zou moeten worden aangemerkt [1], wil ik graag het uitstekende betoog van de jurist Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops in het Nieuw Israelietisch Weekblad onder de aandacht brengen [2]. Knoops artikel is ook van belang voor het andere punt dat Van Dijk tegen de besnijdenis opwerpt, namelijk dat deze inhoudt het aanbrengen van een onomkeerbaar lichamelijk merkteken.

Dat het lichaam van het kind vrij moet blijven van onomkeerbare religieuze merktekens is een argument waarmee Van Dijk in ieder geval als KNMG woordvoerder zijn perken te buiten gaat. Hij begeeft zich hiermee op een niet-medisch terrein. De interpretatie van de religieuze rechten van ouders met betrekking tot de opvoeding van hun kinderen is helemaal geen zaak waarover het KNMG met enige bevoegdheid kan spreken.

Dit neemt niet weg dat ook dit argument hogelijk overtrokken is. De besnijdenis is een lichamelijk merkteken, maar dit merkteken bevindt zich op een plaats die voor anderen verborgen is, en die geen sociaal stigma met zich meebrengt indien iemand op volwassen leeftijd mocht besluiten het Jodendom te verlaten. In alle praktische situaties van het dagelijks leven is er van de besnijdenis niet meer te zien dan van het ‘eeuwig merkteken’ van de katholieke kinderdoop — ook een rite die het kind onomkeerbaar een religieuze identiteit opdringt en daarom wellicht niet de goedkeurig kan wegdragen van de verlichte ethici van het KNMG — namelijk niets.

Het interessante van het betoog van Van Dijk is, op dit punt, dat hijzelf niet inziet dat zijn criterium helemaal geen neutrale zaak is. Het is van secularistische inspiratie en daarom evengoed wereldbeschouwelijk gekleurd als joodse of islamitische opvattingen. Het gaat uit van een modern individualisme, dat evenzeer een geloof is als een godsdienstig geloof.

Bij dit secularistische geloof zijn allerlei fundamentele vragen te stellen. Ik wijs slechts op een enkel punt. Wat is dit moderne individu eigenlijk? Ik bedoel: waardoor krijgt het zijn inhoud? Het antwoord moet wel zijn: door willekeurige invloeden uit de samenleving, de markt, de mode, &c. Dit moderne individu, met zijn hooggeroemde vrijheid, staat veel minder sterk dan op het eerste gezicht lijkt. Wat is per slot een individu? Het doolt maar wat rond, in verschillende richtingen, op zoek naar orientatie voor zijn leven. Het is eindeloos manipuleerbaar door de bovengenoemde invloeden. Het is daarom uiterst kwetsbaar. Als alles om het individu draait, hebben levensidealen ook maar de houdbaarheid van het individu. Die houdbaarheid is niet al te groot.

Hieruit blijkt dat de moderne vrijheidsgedachte aan overspanning lijdt. Dit vrijheidsideaal vergt veel te veel van het individu. Men kan met goede argumenten verdedigen dat een individu dat opgroeit en genormeerd wordt door een religieuze traditie sterker staat dan het moderne individu. Het krijgt van den beginne een zinvolle inhoud aangereikt en het maakt deel uit van een gemeenschap die een vaste levensrichting heeft en niet zwalkt of zwabbert. Op de duur kan daarom een kleine religieuze groep, die een vaste koers aanhoudt, een veel grotere invloed ten goede uitoefenen dan een grote anonieme massa waarvan de individuen voor eigen rekening leven.

Het Jodendom is geen individualistisch geloof. Het is een geloof waarin de godsdienstige taak en functie toekomt aan het joodse volk in zijn geheel, doorheen alle generaties. Het Jodendom is dus een godsdienst met sterk aristocratische noties. Dit houdt in dat het individu vanaf de moederschoot wordt ingevoegd in het grote project van het joodse volk, het gestalte geven aan de Torah.

Men mag een dergelijk project verwijten dat het de vrijheid van het individu beperkt en kinderen indoctrineert met de inhoud van een bepaalde traditie. Dit geef ik graag toe. Niet religieuze mensen van allerlei snit indoctrineren hun kinderen evenzeer door hun pogingen ze tot seculiere individualisten op te voeden. Ook het secularisme is gebaseerd op traditie en indoctrinatie, al wil het dat zichzelf niet bekennen. Het secularisme, dat zich niet wil baseren op traditie maar op de rede, hanteert op onkritische wijze een rede-concept dat gevormd is binnen een bepaald humanistisch filosofisch milieu en zijn traditie.

De aristocratische trekken van het Jodendom vormen echter geen essentiele moeilijkheid voor de invoeging in een moderne maatschappij met een democratische constitutie. Geen enkele godsdienst is intern democratisch. Dat zou ook onzinnig zijn. Democratie is een uitwendige beregeling om in maatschappelijke vrede met verschillen in levensidealen om te gaan. De democratie is echter zelf geen primaire bron van inhoudelijke levensidealen. Ook een secularist, hetzij liberaal, socialistisch of nog anders georienteerd, laat zijn eigen inhoudelijke levensideaal niet op democratische wijze bepalen. Geen atheist bijv. is bereid om het vraagstuk of G-d bestaat bij meerderheid van stemmen te laten beslissen.

Gezien het feit dat men vanaf zijn geboorte joods is en als zodanig wordt aangemerkt — niet alleen door de joodse gemeensschap maar ook door de niet-joodse wereld — kan de onomkeerbaarheid van een religieus lichamelijk merkteken eigenlijk geen bezwaar zijn. Want het eerste onomkeerbare lichamelijke merkteken, dat ieder kind meekrijgt, is de geboorte. Door de geboorte wordt een kind al gemerktekend als joods of als niet-joods.

Uit dit basale gegeven blijkt nogmaals de overtrokkenheid van de moderne vrijheidsopvatting. Vanuit de typisch moderne fascinatie voor de zgn. ‘mogelijkheden’ van het leven zou men het liefst een individu willen dat nog helemaal onbepaald en open is en dat alles zelf kan kiezen. Niemand kan echter kiezen of hij geboren wordt en niemand kan zijn ouders en voorouders kiezen. Deze dingen worden vooraf voor iemand bepaald, en daarmee wordt reeds in belangrijke mate iemands positie in het geheel van de mensheid en haar geschiedenis vastgelegd. De eigen keuze is altijd secundair en kan alleen plaatsvinden in een context waarin men al inhouden heeft meegekregen waarvoor of waartegen men zelf stelling kan nemen. Keuzevrijheid is alleen zinvol indien ze een dergelijke secundaire en ondergeschikte plaats behoudt en niet naief wordt verheerlijkt tot iets allesbepalends.

Tegen het einde van zijn stuk merkt Van Dijk op dat verzet tegen de besnijdenis niets uitstaande heeft met antisemitisme. Hij noemt in dit verband het verschijnsel dat sommige Joden de besnijdenis niet toepassen maar vervangen door een ander ritueel. Deze argumentatie van Van Dijk is behalve onbehoorlijk, omdat hij, zoals eerder opgemerkt, zijn boekje te buiten gaat, in hoge mate dubieus.

In de eerste plaats zijn Joden die de besnijdenis principieel weigeren toe te passen hooguit een soort flauwekul-Joden. In de hoofdstromingen van de joodse traditie, zowel in de orthodoxe wereld als in het zgn. Conservative Judaism, en bovendien ook in het liberale of Reform segment, wordt de besnijdenis gezien als essentieel, zelfs als de kern-rite van heel het Jodendom. Slechts enkele fringe-groeperingen aan de uiterste rand van het Reform-Jodendom zwichten hier voor de moderniteit. Het is tekenend voor het gebrek aan begrip van Van Dijk dat hij deze fringe-groeperingen ten voorbeeld stelt aan het traditionele Jodendom. Hij kan toch zelf weten dat geen zichzelf respecterende traditionele gemeenschap daar in zal trappen.

De toets ter bepaling van de kwestie of een besnijdenisverbod antisemitisch is, is eenvoudig welke de gevolgen zijn van zo’n verbod. Welnu, die gevolgen zijn zeer duidelijk. Het eerste gevolg ervan is dat het gehele traditionele Jodendom gecriminaliseerd wordt. Het verbieden van de besnijdenis komt neer op het verbieden van het Jodendom. De enkele Joden aan de uiterste rand van het Reform-spectrum die de besnijdenis vervangen door een ander ritueel worden door niemand serieus genomen.

Geen synagoge in Nederland of waar elders ook zou kunnen functioneren onder een verbod op de besnijdenis. De joodse gemeenschap zou moeten emigeren, want Jodendom zonder besnijdenis is ten enenmale onmogelijk.

Niemand maakt mij wijs dat een verbod op de traditionele joodse religie, zoals ze al millennia bestaat, geen antisemitisme is. Antisemitisme komt waarachtig niet alleen uit de extreem-rechtse hoek. Vele van de als o zo tolerant aangemerkte denkers van de Verlichting waren expliciete Jodenhaters. Immanuel Kant wenste de Joden een schone dood, en de hogepriester van de verlichtingsfilosofen, Voltaire, schreef over de Joden met het schuim op de mond.

Dit verschijnsel van Verlichtings-antisemitisme is minder verwonderlijk dan het op het eerste gezicht lijkt. De Verlichting lijdt namelijk in verhoogde mate aan dezelfde ziekte als het traditionele Christendom, de ziekte van de vervangingstheologie. Deze vervangingstheologie oordeelt dat met de komst van Jezus het Jodendom en zijn Torah obsoleet zijn geworden en hun vervulling vinden in een Christendom dat in belangrijke mate heeft afgerekend met rituele observanties. Op vergelijkbare wijze oordeelt het verlichtingsdenken dat alle traditionele religies obsoleet zijn geworden en hun vervulling vinden in een humanistisch secularisme. Dit secularisme meet zichzelf vervolgens op arrogante wijze een soort keurmeesterschap aan op het terrein van wat er voorlopig, zolang er ‘helaas’ nog traditionele religies bestaan, door de beugel kan qua religieuze riten en observanties. De blinde naieviteit die hier aan het werk is, zou alleen maar belachelijk zijn indien ze niet zo gevaarlijk was. Terwijl de grote christelijke kerken sinds de Shoa, in een proces van zelfinkeer, belangrijke stappen hebben gezet om de vervangingstheologie te boven te komen, is een vergelijkbare zelfreflectie binnen het verlichtingsdenken ver te zoeken. Dit denken is zichzelf veelal onbewust van zijn eigen antisemitisme.

Het betoog van Gert van Dijk past wat dit betreft in een typisch nederlandse traditie, waarbij veelal gepoogd wordt niet door rechtstreekse aanvallen maar langs zijdelingse weg, met gebruikmaking van ogenschijnlijk neutrale argumenten, de joodse gemeenschap te treffen.

Een besnijdenisverbod heeft op de langere duur dezelfde gevolgen voor de joodse gemeenschap als afgedwongen assimilatie. Het joodse volk wordt namelijk als volk geconstitueerd door zijn religie. Wie jood is wordt bepaald door Torah en traditie. Een besnijdenisverbod zou het functioneren van de joodse religie zodanig schaden dat er van Jodendom eigenlijk geen sprake meer zou zijn, met als gevolg dat binnen enkele generaties niet meer duidelijk zou zijn wie joods is en wie niet. Dat komt dus neer op gedwongen verdwijning van de joodse gemeenschap door middel van assimilatie.

Van Dijk heeft kennelijk niet door welke fundamentele importantie de besnijdenis binnen het Jodendom heeft. Anders zou hij namelijk ook wel door hebben dat zijn streven om de besnijdenis uit te bannen nimmer zal slagen. Het betreft hier een rite voor de handhaving waarvan Joden herhaaldelijk in de geschiedenis het martelaarschap op zich hebben genomen. Het grote historische voorbeeld is hier de vervolging onder Antiochus IV (de zgn. Epiphanes), die in zijn streven naar een universeel hellenisme de besnijdenis en nog andere joodse observanties verbood. Dezelfde universalistische geest is werkzaam in het hedendaagse secularisme. Men vindt de uitzonderingspositie die religies innemen tegenover dit grote en universalistische project onverdraaglijk.

Omdat het volstrekt zeker is dat het Jodendom de kern-rite van de besnijdenis nooit ofte nimmer, onder welke bedreigingen ook, zal opgeven, zouden seculiere humanisten zoals Van Dijk zichzelf weleens vragen kunnen stellen omtrent de zinnigheid van het nastreven van een verbod. Juist omdat van te voren al vast staat dat het Jodendom niet van koers zal veranderen, staat het ook van te voren vast dat in een eventuele strijd hierover het Jodendom uiteindelijk zal winnen. Die strijd kan weliswaar veel joods leed veroorzaken en zelfs joodse levens kosten, maar het eindresultaat ervan zal zijn dat er op de duur weer andere tijden aanbreken.

De moderne wereld van het individualisme zal een eventueel verbod een tijdlang, maar ook slechts een tijdlang, kunnen volhouden. Dit moderne individualisme is zoals reeds gezegd niet erg stabiel en op een gegeven moment zal er weer een andere wind gaan waaien. En dan zullen er weer Joden zijn die openlijk hun zonen besnijden op de achtste dag na de geboorte. Er zal niets veranderd zijn, behalve dat de Jodenhaters voor de zoveelste keer op de mesthoop van de geschiedenis terecht zullen komen en bij de galerij van de infamen zullen worden gevoegd.

Dit zou een puur strategische reden kunnen zijn voor secularisten om af te zien van het pogen de besnijdenis te verbieden. Anders gezegd, wanneer iemand geen respect heeft voor het Jodendom of voor religies in het algemeen, of zelfs antisemitische neigingen heeft, zou zo iemand in dit strategische argument toch een reden kunnen vinden om voorzichtig te zijn en zich de vingers niet te branden aan het vervolgen van de joodse religie.

____________

[1] Zie hiervoor diverse bijdragen op de webpagina van de Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland, ondermeer: “Zum Urteil des Kölner Landesgerichts zur Beschneidung von Jungen” en: “Ganze jüdische Welt ist betroffen”. Zie ook twee belangrijke artikelen op de pagina van de Orthodoxe Rabbinerkonferenz Deutschland: “Toleranz ohne Respekt” en: Millionenfacher Eingriff.

[2] Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, “Lichamelijke Integriteit”, NIW 10 augustus 2012.

Sir Anthony Buzzard’s Absurd Crusade Against the Torah

 

by Geert ter Horst

It is always amazing to notice how some biblical scholars succeed in undermining their own theological position. One of the recent examples is Sir Anthony Buzzard. Buzzard has done a lot of biblical research and deserves well of all Messianics for his work on the Trinity and the Incarnation [1]. He did an excellent job in showing that the G’d the Bible teaches is One Person, not the multipersonal Being of Christian orthodoxy, and that Jesus was a faithful Jew who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Jewish creed: Hear, O Israel, HaShem is our G’d, HaShem is One (Dt. 6:4).

Buzzard ardently emphasizes the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewishness of Jesus’ expectation of the Messianic Kingdom, and with great enthusiasm quotes the words of L.L. Paine about Jesus:

Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new Gospel indeed, but not a new theology. He declared that he came “not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill” them, and he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: “Hear, O Israel, the L-rd our G’d is One G’d”. His proclamation concerning himself was in line with Old Testament prophecy. He was the “Messiah” of the promised Kingdom, the “Son of Man” of Jewish hope…[2]

Buzzard insists that we should believe in HaShem and expect his future Kingdom in the same manner as Jesus did. His magazine, Focus on the Kingdom, and his website, Restoration Fellowship, are devoted to this mission.

While teaching, however, that we should adopt the biblical faith of Jesus, Buzzard at the same takes great efforts in teaching us that we should not follow Jesus’ practice of a biblical, Torah obedient lifestyle. In Buzzard’s eyes, Christians would go in the wrong direction in seeking Torah obedience. This would result in a life of shadows. In an article entitled: “Resting in Christ as More Than a Weekly Sabbath”, of the July 2012 issue of his magazine, he exclaims: “Why live in the shadows when the light has come?” [3]. Buzzard’s version of the Christian faith can thus be summarized as: Believe in the One G’d of Israel, like Jesus did, but don’t follow his Torah.

I think it is at this point, where theory and practice are separated, that Anthony Buzzard loses Jesus’ Jewishness and gets lost in ordinary Christian Replacement Theology. For if the Torah is set aside, Jewishness is set aside. A Messiah who doesn’t teach Torah is false Messiah, who cannot be accepted by the Jewish nation.

How contrary is Buzzard’s teaching here to the very words of Jesus spoken at the sermon on the mount (Mt. 5:17-19):

Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one titte shall in no wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

From this text we learn that fulfilling the Torah includes practising it. Even the the least commandment is important. Any ‘focus on the Kingdom’ of heaven will be empty and void if it doesn’t include doing and teaching Torah. How can we focus on the Kingdom at all, if we deny it by our lifestyle and do not follow the Royal Torah? (Cf. Jas 2:8-10). The words Jesus spoke on the mount after his resurrection make it all the more clear that his Kingdom includes the rule and reign of the Torah (Mt. 28:19-20):

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Ruach HaKodesh: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

Do the “all things whatsoever I have commanded you” include Jesus’ words of Mt. 5:17-19, yes or no? So when one thinks about the consequences of Buzzard’s viewpoint, one can only wonder whether he would be prepared to affirm that Jesus himself lived in the shadows during his earthly days and followed a pattern of behaviour of an altogether lower nature than the life of freedom from the commandments now supposedly enjoyed by Christians [4]. If Buzzard would dare to affirm and uphold that, essentially, Messiah’s own lifestyle was less spiritual than the so-called ‘Christian’ lifestyle of today, then the question arises how he can take serious Paul’s injunction to the Corinthians: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Messiah” (I Cor. 11:1), particularly so if we know that Paul too was a Torah observant Jew, as is clear from Acts 25:8-11; 28:17.

How can any call to lead a life of following Messiah — imitatio Christi in the terminology of traditional Christianity — be taken serious if the Jewish and Torah obedient lifestyle of Messiah is perceived of as belonging to an altogether lower order of things than the Christian believer is thought to be part of?

One also can only wonder about what kind of Kingdom Buzzard is expecting if it is not the Kingdom of the universal rule of the Torah announced by the prophet Isaiah (Is. 2:2-3):

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of HaShem’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of HaShem, to the house of the G’d of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we shall walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of HaShem from Jerusalem.

If these words are literally true and if the rule of the Torah is the rule of HaShem’s Kingdom, then what excuse do we have for not obeying the Torah and its commandments, since in them we anticipate and foretaste the reality of the Kingdom? [5]. Buzzard has repeatedly admitted that the Kingdom of G’d is a real physical Kingdom to be expected here on earth, having its centre in the land of Israel and in Jerusalem. And yet he seems to conceive this Kingdom as a secular reality without the Torah and without a restored Temple.

Buzzard deplores that “a giant muddle has been introduced by a failure to grasp basic distinctions between the two covenant arrangements provided by G’d. The Old must not be confused with the New” [6].

One can ask who is really muddling the waters here if one recollects the words of Jeremiah (Jer. 31:31-33):

Behold, the days come, saith HaShem, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith HaShem: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith HaShem, I will put my Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their G’d, and they shall be my people.

Here it is clearly taught by the prophet Jeremiah that the content of the New Covenant is the same as the content of the Sinai covenant. The New Covenant has the same commandments and ordinances, and this is only logical as it is the renewal of the Sinai Covenant. The only important difference is that in the Kingdom Age this content will be written in the heart of HaShem’s people. The circumcision of the heart was always the deepest intention of the Torah [7]. It will be realized when all Israel is brought back to HaShem and his Torah, and the full effects of Messiah’s sacrifice will be revealed.

And the prophet Ezechiel teaches us that the centre of the Kingdom will be the restored and expanded Temple he depicts in chs. 40-48 of his prophecy.

In his absurd crusade against the Torah, Anthony Buzzard is threatening the legacy of his own worthy case, the defense of the Unity of G’d. For if Christians are no longer bound by the commandments of the Torah and should not follow Jesus’ practice and lifestyle, then why should they make such a big point of the commandment of the Shema? If the Torah is superseded and we have something better now, shouldn’t this be reflected in a better teaching about G’d?

By undermining the authority of the Torah, Buzzard undermines his own position on the Jewishness of the Creed of Jesus. For the Jewishness of this creed is rooted in the Torah. Buzzard also undermines his own Kingdom theology. For Jesus’ expected a Kingdom as outlined by the prophets and ruled by the Torah.

________________

[1] Buzzard, A.F. & C.F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, Lanham · New York · Oxford 1998.

[2] Buzzard, A.F., Who Is Jesus? A Plea for a Return to Belief in Jesus, the Messiah, Restoration Fellowship.

[3] Focus on the Kingdom, Vol 14, No. 10, July 2012, p. 3.

[4] We would recommend to Buzzard Tim Hegg’s paper: “Spirituality: Are We Better Off Now? At: TorahResource

[5] This is clearly the gist of the much disputed verses 16 & 17 in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians. View the article: “Exegesis: Colossians 2:13-17″, from the Parshanuth website.

[6] Focus on the Kingdom, Vol. 14, No. 10, July 2012, p. 3.

[7] This can be deduced from the Shema itself, which concentrates on the obedience of the heart, and from many other texts, among them Dt. 10:12-16: “And now, Israel, what doth HaShem thy G’d require of thee, but to fear HaShem thy G’d, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve HaShem thy G’d with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of HaShem, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is HaShem thy G’d, the earth also, with that therein is. Only HaShem had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked”.

Driving a Car on the Sabbath? Halachic Considerations on Travelling for the Sake of Fulfilling a Mitzvah

 

by Geert ter Horst

[Note: This article is only published for the purpose of study, and neither it nor its author do claim halachic authority. Questions regarding one's personal situation and rule of observance to be followed in this matter should be directed to one's local Rabbi.]

Many Messianics, as well as many traditional Jews who try to return to a Torah observant lifestyle, face the difficulty that to attend a worship service on the Sabbath they have to travel. Since travelling is one of the biblical Sabbath prohibitions (Ex. 16:29) and having a “holy convocation” on that day is one of the biblical Sabbath commandments (Lev. 23:3), it seems that they are on the horns of a dilemma, i.e. in a position that leaves only a choice between two transgressions.

The following considerations are meant as an exposition of what is halachically involved in travelling on the Sabbath in modern circumstances. From the outset I want to make clear that this exposition is not meant to rebuke or condemn anyone’s sincere practice in this matter. I know about the problems involved and I fully concede that there are no easy solutions. Especially for families with children growing up it is essential to have a worship service in the context of a community on the Sabbath.

One of the causes of our difficulties is that most Messianics were not born in observant families that belong to an established community. An orthodox Jew, born in an orthodox family and a member of a traditional community doesn’t face these difficulties. If, for example, he intends to apply for a new job in another town, his first thing in mind will be: where is there a Shul over there? And if he finds out that there is no Shul in that place he will cancel his plans to move to it.

From a halachic viewpoint modern ways of travelling, such as driving a car or going by train give more complications on the Sabbath than the travelling prohibition per se. In fact modern ways of travelling cause a fourfold transgression of the biblical and traditional Sabbath restrictions: kindling (and extinguishing) fire, travelling itself, carrying and handling money.

First, one cannot drive a car without kindling fire. This isn’t only about turning on and off the engine. Adding fuel to an existing flame, which occurs by touching the accelerator — or any direct handling of a flame by whatever means — is considered as a transgression of this commandment. Simply to transfer a fire that was lit before the Sabbath constitutes a transgression on the rabbinic level, since it causes a fire to be in a place where before it was not, which is one of the ways of “making” a fire. This transferring of fire of course happens continually when driving a car.

One should further consider that handling electric devices is a manner of making fire. This means that to open the car doors is already a transgression of the Sabbath — since this action causes an electric circuit to function and a light to turn on — as are numerous other things done while driving, e.g. turning on the radio, turning on and off the car lights. The reason why all these things are seen as transgressions is twofold: 1) a spark of genuine fire is generated by turning on and off an electric switch that opens or closes an electric circuit; 2) electric devices are used for generally the same purposes today as was fire in earlier times and using them constitutes creative work. In today’s halachah electricity and fire are treated as almost completely identical phenomena, and for good reasons.

If one chooses to travel by bus or by train one can avoid the kindling of fire that is involved in starting a car. However, one cannot avoid using electric devices, such as for instance turning on and off switches to open doors. This is prohibited even in the case of automatic processes that are set in motion when one runs into an electric circuit. The common halachic ruling is that the making of the fire is to be ascribed to the person who runs into the circuit, and thus causes the device to work. Thus, to give an example, a person who runs into the domain of an electric detector that causes a light or any other electric device to turn on, from a halachic perspective is making fire.

Oftentimes the opinion is expressed that in biblical times making a fire was a laborious work, and that this is the reason for the biblical prohibition. I don’t think, however, that the amount of work, or the level of exertion, is decisive here, and there are no indications to this in the texts. Work as defined in relation to the Sabbath (melachah) is about prohibited actions that are independent of the amount of work involved. The reasons for the prohibition of kindling fire are not given by the Torah, but one can easily suspect that it is a profanation because it is a creative action. Making a fire on the Sabbath destroys the idea of that day as being the perfect goal or end of creation. Kindling a fire on the Sabbath carries the message that the Sabbath isn’t perfect and is in need of additional perfection. Making fire actually shows a resemblance to what G-d did on the first day of creation, making light (Gen. 1:3).

Sometimes the argument is brought forth that fires may be lit for the sake of a Sabbath service in Shul because fire was lit in theTemple and nowadays the Body of Messiah is the Temple. This argument is not valid. Although the Assembly of Messiah is a spiritual Temple, this doesn’t imply that a messianic Shul service possesses or should possess — or by any means is able to possess — the levitical levels of sanctity and purity that were required for theTemple. The Temple is a very special and sacred domain and it is extremely difficult to make valid inferences from this sacred domain to secular places as a Shul. One cannot compare the travelling needed to attend a Synagogue service to any legitimate activity in the Temple.

Second, driving a car normally means going out of town and travelling a greater distance than permitted by the Sabbath borders. Since travelling itself is prohibited on the Sabbath it doesn’t matter much — from a practical perspective — whether a person travels by car or by other means, e.g. by walking. One transgresses the commandment of travelling as soon as one crosses the Sabbath limits. Only the number and categories of the transgressions involved are greater in the case of going by car or by train. One might think that in ancient times it was possible to travel on horseback or so, but this is clearly excluded, even within the Sabbath limits. Animals may not be used at all on the Sabbath. They are explicitly mentioned in the commandment of Ex. 20:10.

Third, if one travels by car or by train one has to carry things, which is prohibited on the Sabbath (Jer. 17:21-22). Examples of this are carrying the keys of the car and the drivers licence papers, which must be brought from inside the home to the inside of the car and back. This often implies carrying these items through a public domain, either at home or at the place of destination. Even if one has his car parked in his own place at home, it is often impossible to park the car within the precincts of the destination building, i.c. the Shul. If one goes by train or by bus one has to carry money and ones train tickets.

Fourth, also a person travelling by car has to keep money with him for a number of reasons. Money — which of course includes credit cards — is muktzeh on the Sabbath and may not be touched. Although touching it is only a rabbinic prohibition, it is clear that in an observant social context it doesn’t make sense to touch money on the Sabbath, since no transactions can be performed. When driving a car, however, one oftentimes even has to perform real money transactions, for instance if one has to park at a spot that must be paid for. Real transactions are of course unavoidable if one travels by train. One has to buy tickets.

For all the reasons stated above it thus seems impossible to travel in a legitimate manner during the Sabbath. However, by choosing not to travel many people will miss the opportunity to attend a worship service. And we have already seen from Lev. 23:3 that we are commanded to have a holy convocation on the Sabbath day. This raises the question whether the prohibition of travelling can be set aside for the sake of fulfilling the commandment of having a holy convocation.

The answer to this question must be that this cannot be done. The halachic tradition generally doesn’t allow for the transgression of a scriptural commandment in order to fulfil another scriptural commandment. One can easily see that such as “solution” threatens to dissolve the whole structure of the Torah. The halachic tradition is that it is not permissible to transgress in order to fulfil, for to do so would defy all logic. If for the sake of having a worship service on the Sabbath it is permissible to transgress the prohibition of travelling, then why is one still obligated to have a service? If one Sabbath commandment can be set aside all Sabbath commandments can be set aside. This is the real difficulty of the dilemma.

One of my sympathetic correspondents referred to Hosea 6:6 as a possible solution for this dilemma: “I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of G-d more than burnt-offerings”. She pointed to Yeshua’s citation of this verse in his discussion about the Sabbath with some Pharisees in Mt. 12:1-8. Her main point was the following syllogism.

Major: Sacrifices supersede the Sabbath, which is proved by the fact that “the priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath — e.g. by bringing sacrifices and by lighting the menorah — and are blameless” (Mt. 12:5, cf. Num. 28:9-10).

Minor: Mercy and knowledge supersede the sacrifices, according to Hos. 6:6: “I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of G-d more than burnt-offerings”

Conclusion: If sacrifices supersede the Sabbath prohibitions and if mercy and the knowledge of G-d supersede the sacrifices, then a Torah service in Shul, which teaches and instils the knowledge of G-d, supersedes the sacrifices. And thus according to a kal v’chomer or a fortiori reasoning a Torah service certainly supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions, since it already supersedes the sacrifices.

Is this reasoning valid, and is it sufficient for demonstrating that in certain cases it is permitted to transgress some of the Sabbath prohibitions in order to perform a major Sabbath mitzvah, such as having a holy convocation? Let us try to analyse it.

It must be clear that the saying found in Hos. 6:6 doesn’t mean that it was permissible to neglect or override the Temple service in order to study Torah or to perform acts of mercy. An animal dedicated for sacrifice couldn’t return to its owner, not even for the sake of selling it to perform an act of mercy or tsedakah with the money. Similarly, this verse doesn’t mean that one could set aside the Temple service for the sake of Torah study. What then does the prophet intend to say? The basic point seems to be here that the Torah is an undivided and interdependent whole, and that to neglect one part of it does harm to the other parts as well. In the words of the Apostle James: “whosoever shall keep the whole Torah, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jm. 2:10). One can argue that mercy and the knowledge of HaShem are to be reckoned under the very goals of the Torah, since these virtues are akin to those of the Great Commandment. And thus to perform the ritual commandments, for instance the sacrifices, in a manner that despises with the demands of mercy and fear of HaShem is to miss the mark completely. Hosea possibly refers to those who misused the institutions of the sin and guilt offerings to atone for merciless and unrighteous behaviour without repentance and without any intention to repair the damage done. His prophetic cry is directed against religious hypocrisy.

In Yeshua’s ministry we meet this same cry, now directed against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Yeshua’s point seems to be that the goal of Torah observance is not to be sought in the perfect execution of the ritual demands on a technical-halachic level. The pericope of Mt. 12:1-8 also contains an argument taken from the Temple service, while the whole tenor of Yeshua’s conclusion circles around the fundamental values of mercy and compassion. It can be expected, therefore that this pericope is relevant for our understanding of the case of driving a car on the Sabbath for the sake of attending a congregational worship service.

The first thing that strikes us in Mt. 12:1-8 is that we are told that Yeshua’s talmidim were hungry: “At that time Yeshua went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his talmidim were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat”. This walk through the cornfields probably took place during the Sabbath afternoon, and the hunger of the talmidim would signify that nobody had invited the Master and his talmidim for a Sabbath meal after the morning service in Shul. And now the Pharisees come and complain against Yeshua that his disciples transgress the Sabbath laws. According to a strict interpretation of the law they may have argued that what the disciples did — plucking ears and rubbing them in their hands according to the parallel passage in Lk. 6:1 — should be classified as reaping and threshing respectively. These were understood as belonging to the activity of harvesting, which was clearly prohibited on the Sabbath (Ex. 34:21). Reaping and threshing were among the 39 basic Sabbath prohibitions which were logically derived from the types of work prohibited on the Sabbath while the Mishkan was being built (cf. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, pp. 44-45).

Yeshua’s answer to the charges of the Pharisees begins with a reference to the incident of David and his men eating the shewbread (Mt. 12:3-4): “Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the House of G-d, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?”. From this history, recorded in I Sam. 21:1-6, we learn that for the sake of feeding the hungry David and his men the divine commandment concerning the shewbread was set aside. How much more, seems to be Yeshua’s inference, may a rabbinic commandment be set aside for the same kind of necessity.

One could argue against this explanation that the analogy between the situation of David and his men and the situation of the Yeshua and his talmidim doesn’t hold. While David and his fellows were hungry fighters on a dangerous mission and therefore needed to eat something, to all probability there was no real danger of life or of health involved if the talmidim had abstained from eating.

This argument may actually lead us into a deeper issue of the conflict. Yeshua’s reproach of the Pharisees doesn’t seem to be directed against their classification of the 39 categories of melachah and he doesn’t dispute the rule that one shouldn’t reap or thresh on the Sabbath day. We have seen above that activities that can be classified as harvesting are clearly prohibited by the Torah itself. The real point of conflict might be in the interpretation the Pharisees gave to this prohibition. From a common sense viewpoint nobody would describe the casual plucking and rubbing done in passing-by, by the categories of reaping or threshing, or harvesting. And this common sense perspective might be confirmed by the Torah, in its permission to pluck and eat from the standing corn of one’s neighbour, in Dt. 23:25: “When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbours standing corn”. Moving the sickle unto the corn would constitute an instance of harvesting, since the Torah connects the use of the sickle with the beginning of the harvest, in Dt. 16:9. The opinion of the Pharisees, that considered any accidental plucking and rubbing as prohibited on the Sabbath could thus be refuted on pure halachic grounds. For this opinion presupposes that if this plucking and rubbing occures on a weekday it still counts as harvesting.

The Torah, however, does not classify these acts as harvesting, which can also be inferred by the injunction found in Lev. 19:9: “…when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field”. This injunction limits the acts of harvesting and reaping to “your land” and “thy field” respectively. It doesn’t say “…when ye reap the harvest of your neighbour’s land…”, for, obviously, a person is not supposed to harvest his neighbour’s field.

Thus Yeshua’s talmidim didn’t transgress the Torah when they plucked and rubbed ears. With the permission of their Master they only set aside a prohibition of the Pharisees which was based on an over-scrupulous interpretation of a Torah commandment. And they did this for the greater good of honoring the Sabbath. For according to the common and overriding tradition nobody should be hungry on a feast day or Sabbath. And for that reason the inference drawn by Yeshua from the example of David and his men eating the shewbread should be considered as valid. If David and his men were permitted to transgress a commandment of the Written Torah and eat of the holy bread because they were weakened and hungry, then certainly the talmidim were permitted to transgress an aggravating interpretation of the Written Torah for the sake of giving proper honour to the Sabbath.

As to the argument from Hosea 6:6, it faces two difficulties. The first difficulty is that using this text involves making halachot on the basis of the prophetic writings. However, since Yeshua does this we cannot object to it. The second difficulty is that it is doubtful whether attending a Synagogue service is in the category of an act of mercy. It can be argued that a service is in the category of “burnt offerings” mentioned in this text, since a service is primarily an act of worship. An act of worship is in the category of the ritual acts (i.e. the acts which have HaShem as their immediate object)  and not — at least not primarily — in the category of the moralacts (which have our fellow men as their immediate object). One could say, though, that there is some value in this argument, if one explains it as a permission to travel on the Sabbath because of a person’s ‘hunger’ to be nourished with the word of G-d. Such a permission would fit in with the demand of mercy.

It is true that such a permission would be an act of compassion. Yet it is far from sure whether such compassion is permitted if it leads to a direct transgression of the Torah on a regular basis. Both the case of David’s men and the shewbread and Yeshua’s application of Hosea’s text to this case deal with exceptional and unique situations. Yeshua’s appeal to Hosea is in the context of mercy since the disciples were hungry. Probably no one had invited Yeshua and his disciples for a Sabbath meal!

My personal view is that the most consistent way of reconciling the two demands of abstaining from travelling on the Sabbath and having a holy convocation on that day is through the principle that one shouldn’t transgress a commandement in order to fulfil another commandment. This reconciliation sets priorities and gives greater weight to the Sabbath rest than to communal worship and fellowship on that day. It seems to me that this principle rightly prioritizes the Sabbath rest as the more fundamental aspect of the Sabbath (cf. Gen. 2:2-3). The Sabbath rest is a precondition of the Sabbath worship and to overstep the boundaries set by this this precondition seems to overthrow the divine order of things and not only to damage the Sabbath rest but also the sabbatical nature of our worship on that day. Nevertheless, I understand the considerations of those who, for serious practical and communal reasons, don’t follow this principle and decide otherwise.

When facing a dilemma that cannot be escaped by the halachic device of “avoiding the situation” and in which one faces serious difficulties on both sides, one has simply to follow one conscience in the fear of HaShem and in trusting his mercy. This doesn’t imply, in my view, that one can use Hosea 6:6 as an excuse to escape the Sabbath prohibition of travelling. I actually don’t think the verse can be used for making a halachic rule. What I’m saying is that an appeal to this verse is perhaps possible in situations in which all rules fall short. There will always be situations that cannot be covered by rules, and rule-making itself, though necessary, only goes so far. In the end of the matter it is always the fear and love of HaShem that are decisive.  The problem of travelling on the Sabbath in order to have a holy convocation because of one’s particular circumstances should be dealt with in this spirit and as a matter of one’s personal conscience. And I think this is in accordance with what Yeshua taught in Mt. 12:3-8. However, one should never accept the dilemma one faces here as normal and be prepared to make serious efforts to move to a location which has functioning congregation.

Prayers for Yom HaZikaron

 

Yom HaZikaron ceremonies in Israel are generally not perceived as religious observances, but they are part of Israel’s national and civil culture. Yet many observant Jews on this day say prayers for the souls of fallen soldiers. Although it is clear that as Messianics and as adherents to the theological position of Conditional Immortality we are unable to follow this practice, we still can recite prayers in commemoration of the fallen for the State of Israel. We can for instance observe the custom of reciting the Mourners’ Kaddish, since this doesn’t imply the notion of praying for the dead. And we can add some special commemoration prayers. The following Collects are intended as a messianic expression of our commitment to the State. They can be recited during the daily prayers of Yom HaZikaron. Their contents and formulations are in accordance with the biblical demands of not praying to or for the dead.

Commemoration of All the Fallen of the State of Israel

We give thee thanks, O HaShem, our God, for all who have died that others may live, for all who endured pain that others might know joy, for all who made sacrifices that others might have plenty, for all who suffered imprisonment that others might know freedom. Turn our mourning into determination, and our determination into deed, that as men and women of the State of Israel died for peace, we all may live for peace for the sake of the Prince of Peace, even Yeshua HaMashiach our Lord.

Commemoration of the Fallen of the Israeli Armed Forces

Almighty God, our Refuge and our Rock: Defend and protect the soldiers of the State of Israel who fall victim to the forces of evil, and as we remember this day those who endured depredation and death because of who they were, not because of what they had done or failed to do, give to the Armed Forces the courage to defend the State of Israel against all aggression, hatred and oppression, and to seek the dignity and well-being of all. This we beg for Yeshua the Messiah’s sake, our Saviour and Defender.

Prayer for the State and People of Israel

O Lord God Almighty, who hath made all peoples of the earth for thy glory, to serve you in freedom and peace: Grant to thy nation, the House of Israel, a zeal for justice and the strength of forbearance, that they may use their liberty in accordance with thy gracious will; through Yeshua HaMashiach our Lord, who liveth and reigeth with thee in the unity of the Ruach HaKodesh, now and throughout all ages, world without end.