Roman Catholicism and the Jerusalem Council

The Church and the Apostolic Decree of Acts XV

by Geert ter Horst

 

For Christians today the principle of abstaining “from pollutions of idols”, the first precept of the Apostolic Council of Acts XV (15:20, 29) often sounds antiquated, because in our secular society institutionalized idolatry no longer seems to exist. But in important respects this situation is one of superficial appearance. On second thoughts, large sections of Christianity itself are contaminated by idolatry and superstitition, based on swerving from biblical truth. It may be hard to digest for us that idolatry is found in the people of G-d. There is nothing new in this, however, and it is a problem of all times. As Messianics we should acknowledge this sad state of affairs, and do our best to rectify it by our own walk of life and by thoughtfully and lovingly drawing our fellow believers’ attention to it.

Modern Messianic Judaism to a large extent finds its historical roots in diverse sections of evangelical Christianity. Naturally, therefore, Messianics have inherited many characterics of the mindset of evangelical Christians. Even if Torah observance has brought many changes to their ideas as well as in their practical walk of life, Messianics are often maintaining two typical features of evangelical Christians. These are: 1) An emphasis on the necessity of personal faith in Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ) for eternal salvation; and 2) A certain disregard for typical traditional denominational distinctions.

These two features are part of a biblical mindset which should be cherised as the right mean between the two dangers of, on the one hand, a denominational small-mindedness excluding true believers, and, on the other hand, an ecumenical latitudinarianism or liberalism compromising the core of the Gospel message.

The introduction of a positive orientation towards the Torah, however, has added some new biblical sensibilities to the messianic mindset. One of the more conspicuous of these is the heightened awareness of the evil nature of idolatry and sins associated with it. Although this awareness is part and parcel of Christianity in general — and of Protestantism in particular — in a messianic context it acquires new practical meaning. This is due, mainly, to the fact that the Apostolic Decree of the Jerusalem Council is given far greater weight and attention in messianic circles than in average Christianity. For non-trinitarian Messianics there is the important additional point that the doctrine of the Deity of Messiah is exposed as false in the light of Scripture.

In our days, when many Church traditions are crumbling and old denominational differences no longer paid attention to, evangelicals often face the question how to approach Catholics, especially Roman Catholics: Are they to be considered Christians? And what practical implications do we face in our intercourse with Catholics? Can we work and worship together with them? These questions are even more topical for Messianics than for evangelical Christians in general, given the vague taint of idolatry that surrounds Catholicism. For Messianics indications of idolatry are especially alarming, as I have said above, and for them the just mentioned questions amount to this critical and very fundamental issue: Are Roman Catholics Christians or are they idolaters? From a messianic viewpoint our answer to this question and its practical ramifications should to a great extent be based on the precepts of the Jerusalem Council in Acts ch. XV.

The first thing one should take into account when dealing with the world-wide phenomenon of the Roman Catholic Church is that the overwhelming majority of its members are only nominal Catholics. They don’t actively subscribe to their Church’s doctrinal teachings and far less do follow its practical religious and moral precepts. They are baptized members that in many cases want to have a Church wedding and a Church burial, but that apart from some attraction to these life-cycle rituals show no particular Christian religious interest. This state of affairs leads to low expectations about the number of Roman Catholics that can be considered Christians from a biblical point of view. Evangelical Christians — and there are good reasons to reckon Messianics as Evangelicals in this question — are often misled here by the impressive liturgical traditions of Catholicism, by its staunch hierarchical and authoritarian structure, and by its official orthodoxy regarding the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

The two biblical verses that are the shortest and simplest expressions of the Gospel message found in the Bible are perhaps John 3:16 and Romans 10:9. John 3:16 says: “G-d so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life”. Romans 10:9 says: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Yeshua, and shalt believe in thine heart that G-d hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.

If, with these verses in mind, one asks Roman Catholics about their personal faith and trust in Yeshua one almost always gets evasive and non-committal answers, sometimes even clear denials of faith. Only very seldom one gets a positive affirmation of belief “in Christ”. One of the most often given positive answers is that they believe “in the Church”, without being able to specify what that means or implies. Cardinal John Henry Newman, the famous XIX^th century Anglican convert to Roman Catholicism, elaborated on this faith “in the Church” in his Grammar of Assent. He defended the position that for the average Catholic it is enough to have “implicit faith”. By this he meant to say that the explicit affirmation of belief “in the Catholic Church” — which is a distinct article of faith in the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds — includes implicit assent to all the Church’s teachings and precepts. He says:

The difficulty is removed by the dogma of the Church’s infallibility, and of the consequent duty of “implicit faith” in her word. The “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” is an article of the Creed, and an article, which, inclusive of her infallibility, all men, high and low, can easily master and accept with a real and operative assent. It stands in the place of all abstruse propositions in a Catholic’s mind, for to believe in her word is virtually to believe in them all. Even what he cannot understand, at least he can believe to be true; and he believes it to be true because he believes in the Church. [1]

It can hardly be admitted, however, that such “implicit faith” qualifies as saving faith in the biblical sense. Biblical faith is trusting faithfulness in the G-d of Israel and his Anointed one, Yeshua. The implicit faith of Cardinal Newman isn’t the personal trust in G-d as found in Abraham, the father of all the faithful, and described by the words: “And he believed in HaShem; and He counted it unto him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). The biblical faith is an explicit faith in G-d and in the message that comes from G-d. An implicit faith based on reliance on the teachings of a religious body without the requirement of any explicit personal commitment to the person of the Saviour and the contents of the message is certainly not enough for salvation. In his epistle to the Romans the Apostle Paul says (10:13) that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”. And he continues (10:14-15): “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”.

This construction of “implicit faith” finds its theological motivation in the impossibility of the average Christian to have an adequate theological knowledge of the mysteries of faith which he affirms in the Church’s Creed. How, for instance, is it said, could a simple Catholic ever have a true faith if this faith were dependent on his own personal theological knowledge? To correctly believe what is called the “mystery of the Holy Trinity” he would have to understand that in the One G-d there are two processions, three persons, four subsistent relations and five notions.

The problem with this motivation is, however, that it offers a solution for a difficulty that doesn’t exist from a biblical and evangelical viewpoint. The Bible doesn’t teach us the “mysteries” of Catholicism and doesn’t demand our “faith” in them. It demands returning to G-d in true repentance and amendment of life, trusting in Him and in the redemption He made available for us in the person and work of Messiah Yeshua, and walking a life of continual trusting faithfulness. As to doctrinal truth, part of this walk of faithfulness is of course to become acquainted with Holy Scripture and to accept its teachings.

By comparing the basic biblical attitude of faith, which is trusting faithfulness, and “faith” as understood by Catholicism, which is the affirmation of dogmatic Church doctrine, one becomes aware of a fundamental distortion of the nature of faith caused by Roman Church doctrine. Although this Church theoretically holds that faith without love is dead and that to be saved a person has to be in what is called “the state or condition of grace”, all this only points to the fact that the Catholic expects his salvation from the Church institution rather than from Jesus Christ personally. For, one may ask, what is this Catholic “state of grace”? It is being baptized in a valid manner and having subjected oneself to the authority of the Roman Church, especially in the domains of doctrine and morals, and practically in the manner of confessing and doing repentance. This practice consists in regular auricular confession of one’s sins to a Roman priest and doing the “acts of penance” imposed or recommended by him.

Essentially, thus, subjection to the Roman Church is what is presented here as the way of salvation. In fact this is not salvation in a biblical sense at all. One can state without exaggeration that — because of the enormous doctrinal errors found in Roman Catholic teaching — there is hardly any officially proclaimed dogma of the Church that has the mark of truth according to biblical standards. Many of the Church’s teachings are outrightly superstitious or idolatrous in nature from a biblical perspective. It is well-known that idolatry and superstition are among the worst sins mentioned in the Torah, and that idolatry was one of the main concerns of the Jerusalem Council of Acts XV. Idolatry and superstition are very grave sins, because they directly impair the relationship with the only true G-d. The endorsement of idolatry and superstition throughout history by the Roman Church is therefore one of  the most worrisome and troubling characteristics of this religious body. This Church has teachings and practices which cause its members to sin gravely by adhering to them and which actually endanger the salvific relationship of the true believer with his heavenly Father.

The idolatry committed by the Roman Church is nowhere clearer than in its main act of worship, the “Mass”. The Roman Catholic Mass pretends to be a representative repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine used for its version of “Holy Communion”. The Church teaches that the bread and wine used in the celebration are transsubstantiated by the “consecration formula” (“This is my body, …&c”; “This is the blood of the New Covenant…&c”). These elements are taught to become the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. While the outward appearance of the bread and wine remains intact, the real being or substance of it is changed in Christ’s body and blood. Since the body and blood of Christ do not exist apart from his soul the Church teaches that “the whole Christ” is contained in the Sacrament. The Roman Catholic dogma that Jesus Christ is G-d implies here that the transsubstantiated substances of bread and wine of the Roman Eucharist contain G-d Himself and thus are worthy of divine worship and adoration. A piece of bread is thus honored as if it were G-d Himself. [2]

One the abominable consequences of this doctrine of Transsubstantiation is the teaching that a person drinking the wine of the Eucharist doesn’t actually drink wine at all, but the literal substance of the blood of Christ. It may smell and taste like wine, but its essence is the human blood of Christ. Likewise, the person eating the bread of the Eucharist is literally eating the substance of Christ’s body.

From this it is evident that what happens in the Roman Mass is nothing less than an outright perversion of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper as depicted in the Gospels and in Paul’s first Corinthian letter. On the one side what we have here is earthly products made by humans being elevated to the sphere of the divine and superstitiously and idolatrously worshipped as G-d. And on the other side we have those partaking of the “sacramental species” according to their own profession of faith literally eating human flesh and blood.

No long argument is needed to demonstrate that any consumption of human flesh and blood is totally contrary to biblical teaching. The Roman doctrine doesn’t only violate the kashrut laws of Judaism. It violates basic concepts of the Torah that are obligatory for all mankind. Human flesh and blood are prohibited food for all, even if one holds the position that Gentile Christians are only bound by the laws given to Noach. The meat permitted to Noachides in Gen. 9:3 is clearly the meat from animals, not from humans. From this it follows that the consumption of human blood is already excluded even apart from the explicit prohibition against blood in Gen. 9:4.

The Apostolic Council by its four prohibitions ordained that Gentiles could not be admitted to the fold of believers in Yeshua unless they separated themselves from paganism and idolatry. Therefore the new Gentile believers were summoned to abstain from “meats offered to idols” (Acts 15:29). Roman Catholicism publicly sins against this apostolic injunction by insisting that the bread of the Eucharist is the literal flesh of Jesus and by honouring it with divine worship. One of the characteristics of paganism in the days of the Apostles was the consumption of (sacrificial) blood. Therefore Gentiles had to abstain from it before they could be admitted as genuine believers. Roman Catholicism, however, publicly sins against this verdict of the Apostles by its teaching that the wine of the Eucharist is turned into the literal blood of Jesus by the consecration of the Roman priest. By biblical criteria the Roman Mass is thus exposed as a public act of idolatry.

This leads to the devastating conclusion that the Apostles wouldn’t have admitted Roman Catholics — had they existed in their days — to the Assembly of believers. I’m well aware of the fact that this conclusion is anachronistic, but yet it reveals the enormous deviations from apostolic teaching that have taken place in the later history of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church, which adorns itself with the gift of infallibilty in its dogmatic and moral teachings, would never have been acknowledged by the same Apostles it so vehemently claims to follow as a legitimate community of believers.

It does not simply follow from this that in Catholicism there are no true believers in Yeshua at all. They are difficult to find, however, and without doubt they are a tiny minority in a sea of unbelief and superstition. But what does actually follow from this is that the average Catholic cannot be accepted as a true believer, and that Catholics who want to stay in the Roman Church cannot without relunctance be acknowledged by messianic congregations as fellow believers. It would be very problematic to admit Catholics in Messianic congregations without requiring them to sever their ties with a Church which by its own official act of worship commits a sin of idolatry. It would violate the prohibitions of the Apostolic Decree to have Catholics admitted to messianic congregations while remaining in practical communion with the Church of Rome.

How should Torah observant Messianics relate to Roman Catholics? While it is clear that Catholics are not outright pagans, in most cases they are only nominal Christians. Therefore I think we should follow the general guidelines of the Apostles for relating to unbelievers and approach Catholics as non-believers. We may eat with them, according to the permission of the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:27), but we should not participate in or attend their religious ceremonies, since these are tainted with idolatry and superstitition. Above all, we should bring them the true Gospel of Yeshua and try to open their hearts and minds for the Jewishness of the Messiah. We should try to use the elementary knowledge Catholics have of the biblical story to remind them that the true capital of the faith is Jerusalem, not Rome. It is a matter of life and death for them to get out of the paganized and anti-Jewish Christianity of the Roman Church, and be led to the King of the Jews. For when Messiah will return he’ll destroy the Roman Church and set up the Kingdom of Israel.

__________________

[1] Newman, p. 150, at: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/grammar/chapter5-2.html  [J.H. Newman, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Longmans, Green & Co. — London · New York · Bombay 1903]

[2] Many Protestant denominations agree with the Roman dogma of the Deity of Christ. The dangers of public idolatry is less great, however, in the Protestant liturgy, because in their official worship these Churches often follow the biblical pattern of praying to the Father “through Jesus Christ our Lord”. In practice they honour Jesus Christ more as the human mediator with G-d than as member of the “Holy Trinity”. They don’t subscribe to the doctrine of Transsubstantiation and thus don’t worship any visible material substance.

The Chanukah Lights: An Important Detail

 

An important detail of kindling the chanukah menorah occurs when Shabbat and Chanukah coincide. Since Chanukah is an eight day celebration there is always at least one Shabbat during Chanukah.

While on the other days of this festival the chanukiah is lit at the beginning of halachic “night”,  Shabbat is an exception to this rule. The Shabbat candles must be lit already before sunset, and after having them lit it is no longer permitted to kindle a fire. This implies that the chanukiah must be lit before the Shabbat lights. If one has lit the Shabbat candles first it is no longer possible to fulfil the mitzvah of kindling the chanukah menorah, because it is too late for that and one has accepted the Shabbat.

To not transgress the Shabbat it is thus very important to keep the right order in doing things. First one kindles the chanukakiah and says the blessings belonging to it. After that one kindles the Shabbat candles and says the blessings over them. One should thus be ready for Shabbat at an earlier time than customary, to have enough time left to kindle the chanukiah.

Happy Chanukah!

The Yahrzeit of Samuele Bacchiocchi

 

Last year (5769), on the 23rd of Kislev (20 december 2008) Samuele Bacchiocchi died. Bacchiocchi was a Seventh-Day Adventist theologian who was of great significance for the Torah observant branch of modern Messianic Judaism. In his famous dissertation: From Sabbath to Sunday, he clearly demonstrated that Christian Sunday keeping has no biblical or NT roots whatsoever. Moreover, Bacchiocchi went further in his pro-Torah leanings than many of the adherents his own denomination. In his publications he shows an acute understanding of the continuing relevance of all the Appointed Times of HASHEM.

Another doctrine that has received additional light by Bacchiocchi’s research and lucid style of writing is that of the bodily resurrection. Bacchiocchi made it abundantly clear that the tradional doctrine of the immortality of the soul is thoroughly contrary to Scripture and cannot be sustained from a biblical, resurrection based point of view.

Bacchiocchi did also some fine scholarly work in his articles on the chronology of the passion and resurrection of Messiah Yeshua, in the well-known and complex controversies about a 14th or 15th Nisan crucifixion, a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday crucifixion, and a Sunday or Sabbath resurrection. Although in some points of his teachings he was not without error — note especially his complete rejection of alcohol consumption — yet on the whole he was a reliable scholar on many subjects of biblical doctrine and practice. [1]

Above that Bacchiocchi was a shining light for many in his devoted walk of faithfulness to HASHEM, and in his relentless service to his Lord and Saviour Messiah Yeshua, both in his scholarly work and his lifestyle, which was one of simplicity and conscientiousness. His death, two days before Chanukah, may symbolize his nearness to the Light of the world.

As Messianics we should be thankful for the life and works of this fellow believer and servant of G-d. We can express our thankfulness by studying Bacchiocchi’s works and by honouring his Yahrzeit.

May his remembrance be a blessing to the Messianic Community and inspire us all to give ourselves fully to the service of our Master. May the season of Chanukah remind us that the spiritual core of this festival is the message to have a dedicated heart.

Yahrzeit Prayer:

O G-d, the King of saints, we praise and magnify thy Holy Name for all thy servants who have finished their course in thy faith and fear; for the blessed virgin Miryam; for the holy patriarchs, apostles and martyrs; and for all other thy righteous servants known to us and unknown; and also for our teacher — in thee and for thee — Samuele Bacchiocchi; and we beseech thee that, encouraged and inspired by their examples, and strengthened by their fellowship here on earth, we may with them be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, in that great Day of the Appearing of our Lord and Saviour Yeshua the Messiah, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen. [2]

________________

[1] For further information on Bacchiocchi’s life and works, view the website Biblical Perspectives, At: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/

[2] Based on a prayer found in the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church, 1979 edition, p. 489.

The Two Parts of Israel: Reflexions on the Continuing Relevance of Rabbinic Judaism for the Messianic Community

 

by Geert ter Horst

 

One of the causes of the difficulties inherent in either the “One Law” (TorahResource) or the “Divine Invitation” (FFOZ) theological models — which were discussed in our two previous posts — is perhaps that we not duly consider all the factors involved in the issue of Gentile Torah observance. It might be that one of the neglected factors in the problem is in fact part of the solution. By this factor I mean the yet unbelieving part of Israel, more precisely: Rabbinic Judaism.

What I’m thinking of is that perhaps traditional Rabbinic Judaism and the Messianic Community are, in a mysterious way, working in tandem, so to say, for the sake of the redemption of the world.

During the time-period covered by the first parts of the Book of the Acts — the part preceding the introduction of the Gentiles, roughly Acts chs. I-IX — there were two possible results of the mission of Yeshua’s Apostles to the nation of Israel. The first possibility was that all Israel accepted the Messiah; the second was that only a part of the nation accepted him. If all Israel had accepted him, the national restoration of Israel would have happened first, is my hypothesis, and, after that, the ingathering of the Gentiles would have followed. In that scheme of things there would be no problem as we now have it of a premature mixing of Jews and Gentiles, because Israel would have been firmly restored in the Land first.  

This is not what happened, as we all know. Only a minor part of the nation accepted Yeshua as Messiah. And this fact caused a change in the historical scheme of things. Now the believing remnant of Israel had to go to the Gentiles and lead them to the Kingdom of Messiah, before the national restoration of the chosen people. In this scheme the remnant minority had to mix with Gentiles in the formation of the Messianic Community. The unbelieving majority was now given the historical role of preserving Jewish national identity. Thus Israel was split “into two bands” (cf. Gen. 32:7, 10). In the great spiritual struggle against the Roman Empire (the spiritual descendants of Esau), Jacob had become two bands. One was made the instrument of “attack”. This was the missionary part that believed in Messiah. The other part stood — and until now still stands — aloof. This state of affairs can be interpreted as being part of a deep spiritual strategy, for “if Esau come to the one company, and smite it — which has happened in the formation of Roman Catholicism, when the remainders of the faithful Jewish remnant were swallowed and Torah obedient messianic faith was destroyed — then the other company which is left (i.e. Rabbinic Judaism) shall escape” (Gen. 32:8). 

Maybe Paul is alluding to the emerging reality of an Israel divided in two companies when he says, in Rom. 11:25: “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in”. What I mean is that, after the fact of the rejction of Messiah by the leading majority of the nation, this splitting of Israel, and this division of roles indicated above, became a kind of necessity (with emphasis on “after the fact”). A further indication for this interpretation can perhaps be found in Paul’s words immediately following: “And so (i.e. in exactly this manner) all Israel shall be saved”. Paul’s words seem to signify that the very process of blinding is part of the greater story of Israel’s redemption. 

One part of Israel, the remnant, is saved within the Messianic Community. The other part is “saved” — i.e. historically preserved — without it and will ultimately be saved in its eschatological encounter with Messiah at his second and definitive coming.

My guess is that during this time of Israel being “two companies” the Messianic Community is called to express the perfect unity of Jew and Gentile as “one new man” in Messiah (Eph. 2:15). This perfect unity of Jew and Gentile in faith and observance — which naturally includes the possibility of intermarriage — is an anticipation of the state of affairs in the World to Come, when the unity of mankind will be perfectly restored. In the meanwhile the unbelieving part of Israel is functioning — through the sovereign counsel of G-d which cannot be thwarted by their unbelief — as the preserver of the peculiar identity of the chosen nation in preparation of the Kingdom Age, when Israel as a nation will be ultimately redeemed and fully restored (cf. Acts 1:6-7!).  

If what I said is true, then there is a solution for the difficulties signalled in the interaction of Jews and Gentiles in the Messianic Community (either according to the “One Law” or the “Divine Invitation” model). The equality of Jew and Gentile in the Messianic Community can be maintained and propagated, including their equal access to the blessings of the Torah and the possibility of intermarriage — which actually is a very beautiful illustration of the union between Jew and Gentile as “one new man” — because the distinct preservation of Jewish national identity is relegated to traditional Judaism and is in save hands there, until Messiah will return. 

I acknowledge, of course, that this hypothesis has to be further examined. But what I like about it is that it gives a positive role to traditional Judaism, while at the same time it keeps its focus firmly on Messiah and does not give way to a cheap “two-ways” –theology in dealing with the division between traditional and messianic Judaism.

“Divine Invitation”, “One Law” and the Case for Intermarriage: Some Nagging Questions Asked From A Generational Perspective

 

by Geert ter Horst

 

The following questionary remarks on intermarriage are meant as a follow-up of the comments on my previous article, “FFOZ’s New Theology of Divine Inviation”. They should be viewed as a contribution to the ongoing discussion between the “One Law”-viewpoint of TorahResource and the new “Invitation Theology” of FFOZ. This is the second in a series of articles devoted to enquiring the recent theological shift at FFOZ.

If we adopt the “One Law” position endorsed by Tim Hegg of the ministry of TorahResource [1], intermarriage heightens the problem — already inherent in this position — that being Jewish loses all practical and legal relevance, at least within the context of the Messianic Community, since both Jew and non-Jew are accountable to the same standards regarding Torah observance. The distinction between Jew and non-Jew evaporates into an empty distinction that only reveals something about a person’s descent. Intermarriage in this theological position has the additional effect of completely wiping out Jewishness. For the question that arises now is: what offspring of a mixed marriage should count as Jewish offspring? Offspring of a Jewish mother? Of at least one Jewish parent? What halachah is to decide this question? What halachah is to be followed in this domain by communities who adopt a “One Law” position?

The inevitable effect of “One Law” — at least as it is currently proposed — is that after a few generations all children that stay within the community will simply enjoy a homogeneous “Israelite” status without any remaining possibility to determine whether they are in fact Jewish or Gentile. The Jew-Gentile distinction is thus not merely made irrelevant, i.e. of no practical importance; it is also made unmanageable, i.e. unfit to be handled at all. It simply can no longer be known, and thus no longer reasonably be asked, who is a Jew and who is a non-Jew, for these names do not make sense any more. Only new members, coming from traditional Judaism could rightly be called Jews in “One Law” communities.

This seems to imply that the “One Law” position, that endorses the full equality between Jew and Gentile within the Body of Messiah, remains dependent on traditional Judaism in referring to persons as Jews or non-Jews. In declaring the equality of Jew and non-Jew in matters of Torah it makes use of the commonplace Jew-Gentile distinction while at the same wiping out its relevance and, for future generations, even its meaning. It uses the names “Jew” and “non-Jew” thus in a parasitic manner, for its communal policy doesn’t allow for the preservation of the distinction referred to by these names.

If we adopt the FFOZ “Invitation theology” perspective, intermarriage itself has problematic aspects. For the Invitation perspective requires a clear distinction between Jewish believers, who are legally obligated to full Torah observance, and Gentile believers, who are not under the same obligation. Now the question is: What actually does happen, legally or halachically, in the case of intermarriage? Does the Gentile partner perhaps become formally obligated to the whole Torah by his or her marriage with a Jewish person? In other words, does he or she become Jewish by the marriage itself, (for being Jewish and being obligated to the entire Torah are one and the same thing, according to FFOZ author Daniel Lancaster in his blogpost: “An Unbearable Yoke”)?[2] If not, how is unity of observance to be preserved in such a marriage?

What halachah is to be followed in this question? And what is the status of the children? Are they Jews or non-Jews? This is a matter of importance here, because if they are Jews they are born within the legal framework of being obligated to the Torah. If they are Gentiles, however, their relation to the Torah is one of invitation. If, for example, a certain male child is considered Jewish, it will make sense to have a Bar-Mitzvah ceremony when he reaches the age of 13 years. This would be superfluous — or non-obligatory at least — in the case of a Gentile male child. One can legitimately ask whether it is recommendable at all to have Jewish and Gentile children to have strong communal ties if the obligations of the one are to be considerably different from the obligations of the other. And how can, in the situation of a mixed marriage,  a Gentile father, who is only invited, not legally obligated to a Torah obedient lifestyle, prepare his presumably Jewish children for a lifestyle of obligatory obedience to the requirements of the Torah in a credible and sustainable way?

If the traditional halachah is followed Invitation theology leads to the consequence that intermarriage between a Gentile man and a Jewish woman causes the children to be Jewish. However, traditional halachah also teaches that such a marriage, although it is valid, is prohibited. Should this traditional halachah be adopted by the Messianic Community? This would lead to a general prohibition of intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews within the Body of Messiah. And then the question about the wisdom of having Jews and Gentiles together in one (local) community returns.

Intermarriage and offspring are very interesting topics for investigating the broader and deeper inherent problems and viabilities of the diverse theological positions on Gentile Torah observance. Thus far, however, all proposed solutions — save only perhaps that one that simply keeps intact the since long accepted traditional distinctions and separations between Jews and Gentiles — seem to lead to rather puzzling and confusing consequences. These traditional distinctions and separations, however, although internally consistent, are clearly opposed to the message of the Apostolic Writings. In these writings, and particularly in the letters of Paul, the Body of Messiah is regarded as a community in which Jews and Gentiles worship and live together. And thus the problems surrounding intermarriage in a messianic context remain unsolved for the time being.

_____________

[1] For example in Fellow Heirs: Jews & Gentiles Together in the Family of God, First Fruits of Zion — Littleton, Colorado 2003. And in his article: “Is the Torah Only for Jews?”. The pdf-version of this article can be found at: http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&source=hp&q=%22Is+the+Torah+Only+for+Jews%3F%22&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=&aq=f&oq= 

[2] D. Thomas Lancaster, “An Unbearable Yoke”, In: FFOZ Blogs, at: http://ffoz.org/blogs/2009/09/an_unbearable_yoke_acts_1510.html

 

FFOZ’s New Theology of Divine Invitation

A Preliminary Investigation of a Recent Theological Shift

by Geert ter Horst

 

This is the first in a series of articles specifically addressed to the recent theological developments in the messianic ministry of First Fruits of Zion concerning the “One Law” question. These developments touch a number of problems that are subjects of inquiry at Messianic613. A pdf-version of this article is available by the following link: FFOZ’s New Theology of Divine Invitation . A new window opens, and by clicking on the image in it the pdf-version appears.

It is I think the problem of how to determine the theological ‘location’ of the Gentile believers in Yeshua according to the (halachic) categories available in traditional Judaism that has — more than anything else — led FFOZ to adopt the idea of ‘divine invitation’.[1] This ministry has left its earlier position that the commandments of the Torah are equally obligatory and binding for Jewish and Gentile believers in Messiah Yeshua. It is difficult to say whether this new idea of invitation is adequate for Gentiles, because of its inherent vagueness. But let me first, for the sake of coming to terms with the problem, consider it from the traditional Jewish perspective just mentioned.

In our days traditional Judaism acknowledges only two basic categories of people: Jews and Gentiles. These are mutually exclusive, for Gentiles are defined as non-Jews. Gentiles are also often called Noachides, but this name is not exactly to the point for the reason that strictly speaking all people — including Jews — are Noachides. The b’nei Avraham (the Jews) are a special category and thus a sub-division within the all-compassing category of b’nei Noach. The Noachide commandments — as outlined and interpreted by traditional Judaism — thus apply to all humanity, not just to non-Jews. These commandments are considered truly universal and binding for both Jews and Gentiles.

At first sight the categories of first century Judaism seem to be at variance with the current halachic division between Jew and Gentile. The first century is known for its threefold division between Ger Tzedek, Ger Toshav and Gentile. Noachide theology as we know it nowadays had not yet fully taken shape. This was a later development, which was not fixed as part of the halachah before the time of the composition of the Gemara. As was noticed by Tim Hegg, the seven commandments of b’nei Noach seem to be wholly absent from the Mishnah.[2]

The mutually exclusive distinction between Jew and Gentile doesn’t conflict, however, with the earlier distinction between Ger Tzedek, Ger Toshav and Gentile. This threefold division of mankind was not replaced by a later twofold division. The division between Jews and non-Jews is simply a more basic division, and the division between the Ger Toshav and the Gentile tout court — i.e. the pagan Gentile — is a subdivision between two categories of non-Jews. The Ger Tzedek is the proselyte Jew. This threefold division is thus not at all obliterating the basic distinction between Jews and non-Jews.

Now the question is to which category the Gentile believers in Yeshua, the Gentile Christians, belong. If we take first the twofold division between Jews and non-Jews, it is clear that these Gentiles belong to the category of the non-Jews, since they are neither Jews by birth nor proselytes. According to the above mentioned threefold division the Gentile Christian is thus either just a plain Gentile (i.e. a pagan), or a Ger Toshav.  By way of reduction it turns out that he is a Ger Toshav, because he cannot be honestly held to be a pagan. According to later terminology this almost equates to classifying the Gentile Christian as an observant Noachide, since he has renounced idolatry. This name would be appropriate at least for Gentile Christians of the first century, or the first two or three Christian centuries — not however for later Catholic Christians, who fell back into idolatrous practices.

Qua religious practice and level of observance the Ger Toshav was in between the pagan Gentile and the Jew. He had left Paganism, but he had not fully entered Judaism. His observance thus could vary between the levels of just avoiding idolatry on the one and full Jewish observance on the other — with the obvious exceptions only of circumcision and/or the mikvah of conversion. This seems to agree with the diverse levels of observance nowadays found among Gentile Christians who are attracted to Messianic Judaism.

On second thought a difficulty appears, however, when we consider the theological terms applied to Gentile believers in the Apostolic Writings. The Gentile believer is called ‘son of Avraham’ (in Gal. 3:29) and is viewed as somehow included in the house of Israel (Eph. 2:11-13, 19; 3:6). Clearly this does not correspond to the status of the Ger Toshav, who definitely is not a son of Avraham and is certainly not included in Israel. The big question that needs to be addressed here is: In exactly what sense is the Gentile believer included in Israel and considered a son of Avraham?

One of the possible theological options to handle this difficult question is to comply with the traditional categories outlined above and to relegate the NT language of ‘son of Avraham’ to the level of ultimate salvation and having a share in the World to Come. According to this scheme no halachic status change whatsoever is implied in the case of a Gentile coming to faith in Messiah Yeshua. This option uses the distinction between this world and the World to Come to make sure that — like all other distinctions, e.g. between man and woman, free and slave  (cf. Gal. 3:28) — the distinction between Jew and Gentile remains intact in this world. Equality between all believers, it says, is strictly reserved to the World to Come. The equality only consists in the status of all believers as belonging to Messiah and as being saved for eternity. Not, however, in an equality qua halachic status between Jews and Gentiles in this world.

It is questionable whether this theological option can fully account for the fact that all believers in Messiah form a strong physical and social unity, which is partly described in the Apostolic Scriptures in Torah-like terms like ‘assembly of God’ (1 Cor. 1:1) and ‘holy nation’ (1 Pe. 2:9), and partly in new terms like ‘body of Messiah’ (1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12-27, Eph. 1:23; 3:6; 4:4; Col. 1:18). The concept of a spiritual unity which leaves intact all the traditional distinctions seems hardly adequate to describe a community which is instructed by Paul to keep the Pesach Seder together (1 Cor. 5:7-8) — both Jews and Gentiles — as an expression of its corporate unity in Messiah, and which is supposed to collectively celebrate the moadim, as appears in Col. 2:16-17.

On the other hand it cannot be said that by their faith the believing Gentiles are now Jews or proselyte Jews. If they were, they would be included in the halachic community of Israel. To my knowledge there are no historical indications that the believing Gentiles were ever considered to be Jews. Not in Paul’s letters, not in the other Apostolic Scriptures and not by the established Jewish authorities of the day. The particular treatment of the commandment of circumcision by Paul also seems to be an indication of a peculiar and exceptional status of the Gentile believers.

Another indication for this peculiar and exceptional status can be found in Paul’s rulings on marriage. It is beyond doubt that Paul permitted intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, only with the caution that the marriage of a believer should always be “equally yoked” or “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39), i.e. with a partner who shares the faith. This permission of Paul seems to conflict with the halachah of his day, which, as far as I know, only permitted a marriage with a person of Gentile descent after halachic conversion. Thus it seems that Paul draws halachic consequences from the new status of Gentiles “in Messiah”. And this is only natural. It would of be preposterous to unite the Gentile believers with strong social ties to the Jewish believers in one “body of Messiah” and one local community and yet forbid intermarriage. If intermarriage should be discouraged or prohibited the proper measure would be to form separate communities of Jews and Gentiles, as nowadays is advocated by the UMJC.

The question of intermarriage in the Paul’s congregations of course leads us to the broader problem how Jewish-Gentile interaction was viewed upon by the Jewish community at large. For example, was a Gentile who was known as a Ger Toshav included in the Synagogue community in any real and practical sense? It is certain that the Synagogue authorities were involved in getting him exempted from idolatrous religious obligations imposed on him by the Roman Empire. But were they part of the worshipping and learning community and invited to have table fellowship with the Jews? I hardly think so (cf. Acts 10:28), because, inevitably, this would lead to intermarriage, something strongly disapproved by traditional halachah.

All this contributes to the impression that the Gentile believers were in a kind of halachic limbo at that time. They were neither Jews, nor Gentile pagans, and they didn’t fit nicely into the subcategory of the Ger Toshav. It is clear that Paul considers Jewish and Gentile believers equal in Messiah, but to what extend that equality was intended by him to have real effects in this world in removing ancient and established legal distinctions is extremely difficult to figure out. In my view FFOZ’s invitation theology should be considered as a provisional attempt to deal with this difficulty. It remains to be seen whether it is tenable in the long run, for it cannot be excluded that the idea of invitation theology is more fit to smooth or cover up hitherto unsolvable problems and paradoxes in Paul’s letters than it is capable really to address and tackle them.

There are many questions raised by this concept of divine invitation. I only mention two. First, in light of the fact that the validity of the Torah instructions requires to have them set forth in the form of commandments, a theology of invitation seems to undo the very structure of the Torah. Second, it is clear from the outset that not all Torah commandments can be viewed as invitations by Gentiles. There has to be accepted a minimum number of unconditional and unavoidable obligations. It is not clear in the new FFOZ theology what are the minimum observances to be kept by Gentiles and how they are to be derived from Scripture. The whole idea, as it appears now, seems to steeped in inescapable vagueness.

 

---

[1] Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster, ““One Law” and the Messiah Gentile”, in: Messiah Journal #101 2009/5769.

 

[2] Hegg, p. 7: «Never does the Mishnah mention a body of laws that, if followed, would render a Gentile righteous and therefore fit for the world to come.» Tim Hegg, “Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council” at TorahResource 2008. Downloadable at: http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Acts%2015.pdf

Unitarianism

 

Biblical Unitarianism Is Not Theological Rationalism

« En het woord was G-d »

 

Enige opmerkingen over de anarthrous constructie in Joh. 1:1

door Geert ter Horst

 

Het eerste vers van het Johannes evangelie bestaat uit drie korte zinnen, verbonden door het nevenschikkend voegwoord ‘en’ (Gr. ‘kai’). De derde zin: « en het woord was G-d », luidt in het Grieks: « kai theos èn ho logos ». Deze zin wordt door orthodoxe theologen vaak opgevat als een bewijstekst voor de godheid van de Messias, Yeshua. We willen hier kort nagaan of deze gedachte bij nadere bestudering stand houdt.

In deze zin verschijnt het woord ‘theos’ (‘G-d’) in de zogenaamde anarthrous constructie. Dit is de constructie zonder lidwoord. Aangezien het Grieks alleen een bepaald lidwoord heeft, wordt deze constructie vaak benut in situaties waarin het Nederlands het onbepaalde lidwoord (‘een’) zou gebruiken. Daarnaast wordt deze constructie gebruikt om een woord een qualificerende functie, in het bijzonder de functie van predikaatsnomen, te geven.

In Joh. 1:1 komt deze constructie voor bij het woord ‘theos’. Op grond van deze gegevens liggen twee mogelijke vertalingen van Joh. 1:1c voor de hand. 1) « en het woord was G-d », en 2) « en het woord was een god ». Deze laatste vertaling is echter uit te sluiten op grond van het feit dat het onderwerp en het gezegde in omgekeerde volgorde voorkomen en het gezegde hier voorop staat. ‘ho logos’ (‘het woord’) is duidelijk het onderwerp. Het gezegde (‘theos’) staat hier echter voorop, ongetwijfeld met het oogmerk het te accentueren. Dit wijst erop dat ‘theos’ hier als qualificatie van ‘ho logos’ optreedt. Indien Johannes had willen zeggen dat het woord ‘een god’ is — en hij ‘god’ dus als soort- of geslachtsnaam had gebruikt, zoals dit gebeurt in bijv. Ex. 22:8-9 en Ps. 82  — zou hij de gewone volgorde van subject en predikaat hebben kunnen aanhouden. De zin zou dan luiden: « kai ho logos èn theos », en niet: « kai theos èn ho logos ».

Ter verduidelijking van het voorafgaande geef ik een overdreven letterlijke vertaling: « In het begin was het woord, en het woord was bij de G-d, en G-d was het woord ». Als we er half Grieks van maken is het makkelijker om te zien wat er hier aan de hand is. Er staat: « In het begin was de logos, en de logos was bij de theos, en theos was de logos.» In de laatste zin: «…, en theos was de logos » zijn er twee opvallende dingen aan de hand. Het eerste is, zoals gezegd, dat het onderwerp en het gezegde van de zin van plaats verwisseld zijn; het tweede is dat ‘theos’ zonder lidwoord verschijnt (en dus anarthrous is). Die twee dingen hangen onderling nauw samen. In deze zin: « en theos was de logos » is ‘de logos’ het onderwerp van de zin, ‘theos’ is het gezegde. Met andere woorden: ‘theos’ wordt hier gezegd van ‘de logos’.

Er wordt dus van de logos, het woord, gezegd dat hij G-d is, echter niet — en dat is uiterst belangrijk — dat hij de G-d is. ‘G-d’ (‘theos’) heeft hier een predikatieve functie, een functie als gezegde van de zin (predikaatsnomen), niet echter persé de functie om een bepaald zijnde of een bepaalde persoon aan te wijzen. Dat is de reden waarom het lidwoord is weggelaten. Dit is vergelijkbaar met het geval dat ik van Socrates zeg dat hij mens is. Ik laat dan het lidwoord bij ‘mens’ weg, want Socrates is niet de mens, maar mens (d.w.z. Socrates is menselijk qua wezen of aard). Wil ik nu bovendien juist het mens-zijn van Socrates beklemtonen, dan kan ik dit doen door de volgorde van onderwerp en gezegde om te keren en te zeggen: « Mèns is Socrates », in plaats van: « Socrates is mens ». Als ik echter zeg « Socrates is de mens », of ook: « De mens is Socrates », dan gaat de zin óf betekenen dat er maar één mens is, namelijk Socrates, óf dat Socrates zoiets is als de mens bij uitstek, de exemplarische mens. In de context van de Proloog van Johannes zou dit betekenen dat het woord de enige G-d, of de G-d bij uitstek, is.

Om op het laatste even door te gaan: Indien ‘theos’ hier een lidwoord zou hebben en er stond: « en de theos was de logos », dan zou het voor de hand liggen te veronderstellen dat ‘de theos’ het onderwerp zou zijn, en dan zou de zin betekenen dat G-d het woord zou zijn, en wel op zo’n wijze dat G-d helemaal zou opgaan in het woord-zijn. Maar als niettemin ‘de logos’ als het onderwerp zou worden beschouwd, zou de zin betekenen dat het woord de G-d zou zijn. Beide lezingen zouden erop neerkomen dat Johannes de bedoeling zou hebben de identiteit van G-d nader toe te lichten, en met deze zin zou willen verklaren dat het woord de ware G-d is. Maar dit staat er niet, en zou ook wringen met het eerder gestelde dat het woord bij G-d is.

Met het vooropzetten van ‘theos’ in: « en theos was de logos », valt de klemtoon bijgevolg op ‘theos’. Het G-d-zijn van het woord is dus wat hier beklemtoond wordt. Maar omdat ‘theos’ hier anarthrous is en een predikatieve functie heeft, een functie als gezegde, betekent dit niet dat hier gesteld wordt dat de logos de persoon van G-d is — zoals in « Mèns is Socrates » ook niet gesteld wordt dat Socrates de persoon ‘mens’ is. Veeleer wordt er gezegd dat de term ‘G-d’ de essentie of het wezen uitdrukt van de logos, en dus weergeeft wat of van welke aard de logos is. Dat kunnen we in het Nederlands alleen weergeven met een bijvoeglijk naamwoord: ‘goddelijk’.

Dit levert de volgende vrije vertaling, of parafrase, op voor Joh. 1:1: « In het begin was het woord, en het woord was bij G-d, en [geheel en al] goddelijk [van aard] was het woord ». Deze parafrase geeft volgens mij de betekenis van het Grieks nauwkeurig weer.

Orthodoxe (trinitarische) theologen hebben gelijk wanneer zij zeggen dat het feit dat het predikaat zonder lidwoord (anarthrous) is niet betekent dat het onbepaald is, en ‘een god’ zou betekenen. Het betekent niet ‘een god’, juist omdat het hier niet een persoon betekent of aanwijst, maar een kwalificatie, een eigenschap. Dat men juist hier veelal niet aan denkt komt omdat orthodoxe theologen er meest reeds van uitgaan dat ‘het woord’ een persoon aanduidt. Wie dat onbedacht aanneemt, komt inderdaad voor het dilemma te staan te moeten vertalen: « en het woord was G-d », zoals de traditie doet, of met een onbepaald lidwoord: « en het woord was een god », zoals bijv. de Jeh.-getuigen doen. En eenmaal in dat dilemma verzeild geraakt is het niet zo moeilijk om aan te tonen dat de vertaling: « en het woord was een god » niet erg geslaagd is. Want deze vertaling zwakt juist het G-d- of goddelijk zijn van het woord af, door — via het generieke gebruik van het woord ‘god’ — van het woord een mindere godheid te maken, terwijl Johannes nu juist de volstrekte goddelijkheid van het woord benadrukt, door ‘theos’ voorop te plaatsen. Staande voor dat dilemma is dus de traditionele vertaling heel begrijpelijk. Als men er echter niet a priori van uitgaat dat met ‘het woord’ of ‘de logos’ een persoon bedoeld is, komt ook dat dilemma helemaal niet op, en ligt een vertaling zoals ik die hierboven heb gegeven veel meer voor de hand.

Ook uit het feit dat het geslacht van ‘logos’ mannelijk is valt niets af te leiden voor het persoon-zijn van de logos. Dat het Griekse woord ‘logos’ mannelijk is, wil natuurlijk volstrekt niet zeggen dat de realiteit van de logos een persoon is; zoals ook het feit dat het woord ‘meisje’ in het Nederlands onzijdig is volstrekt niet wil zeggen dat meisjes geen personen zijn. Het gaat hier alleen om een woordgeslacht. ‘Zon’ is vrouwelijk in het Nederlands en ‘Maan’ mannelijk, net zoals in het Duits, maar het is duidelijk dat dit volstrekt niet betekent dat de Zon zelf een vrouwelijk wezen, laat staan een persoon is. Om die reden hebben ook vroegere vertalingen, zoals bijv. de engelse vertaling van Tyndale, met een gerust hart ‘it’ gebruikt om naar de logos te verwijzen. Als uit het mannelijk zijn van het woord ‘logos’ zou volgen dat de logos als een persoon zou moeten worden opgevat, zou er ook uit volgen dat de logos als een persoon van het mannelijk geslacht zou moeten worden opgevat, wat toch wel heel ver — en volgens mij te ver — zou gaan. 

Het is duidelijk dat de realiteit ‘woord’ of ‘logos’ als zodanig geen persoon is. Juist daarom ligt hier de mogelijkheid van personificatie voor de hand, evenals bij een begrip als ‘sophia’, ‘wijsheid’. Johannes zegt dat het woord ‘bij’ G-d is, wat op een personificatie kan wijzen, maar ook een kernachtige aanduiding kan zijn van het feit dat het woord zich in de sfeer van G-d ophoudt, wat nog versterkt gezegd wordt door de daaropvolgende zin, die ik hierboven besproken heb: « en het woord was G-d ».

Uit Joh. 1:1c is dus geen bewijs te ontlenen voor de stelling dat de Messias een goddelijke persoon zou zijn. Integendeel, een nauwkeurige exegese van dit vers maakt duidelijk dat Joh. 1:1c handelt over de aard van de logos en stelt dat het woord goddelijk van aard is, zonder een tweede goddelijke persoon te zijn. De logos is als zodanig geen tweede persoon in G-d, maar is het woord van G-d, dat wil zeggen: G-ds gedachte, zijn voornemen of raadsbesluit, welke vlees wordt, namelijk een concrete menselijke gestalte aanneemt, in Messias Yeshua. De Messias is geen tweede goddelijke persoon, maar is de menselijke persoon waarin het woord van G-d belichaamd wordt.

Shavuot and Matan Torah

 

According to Jewish tradition the festival of Shavuot is referred to as “the time of the Giving of our Torah”, as appears from the Amidah for the festival (cf. the ArtScroll Siddur, p. 665). Remarkably, this association between the date of the festival and the date of the Giving of the Torah (Matan Torah) is not made by the text of the Torah itself. It is never said in the Chumash that the Theophany on Mount Sinai happened on the date of Shavuot. 

In Ex. 19:1 it is said: “In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai”. The words “the same day” seem to signify that the arrival at Sinai happened on the 15^th of Sivan. In rabbinic exegesis (e.g. Rashi’s Chumash commentary) it happened on Rosh Chodesh Sivan, but this reading cannot be taken for granted. Ex. 19:1 seems to refer back to Ex. 12:41, and thus to the day on which the Exodus from Egypt (which happened on the 15^th of the first month — Nisan) did take place, and to Ex. 16:1, the day when the Israelites arrived at the wilderness of Sin (the 15^th of the second month — Iyyar). If the first day of the month was meant one would expect the wording of the text to be different, and more like Ex. 40:2, 17. 

If the three days mentioned in Ex.19:10-11 began immediately on Sivan 15, and if the counting of these days should be inclusive, then the 17^th of Sivan was the earliest possible day for Matan Torah. This is a day that is completely incompatible with the rabbinic date of Shavuot on the 6^th of Sivan. It should be noticed that it is also incompatible with a Sadducean reckoning of Shavuot, which has this festival always happening between Sivan 5 and Sivan 12. The only way the 17^th Sivan could be a possible date of Shavuot is by admitting that Shavuot according to Dt. 16:9 was determined agriculturally and was dependent upon the state of the fields, i.c. the ripening of the barley. This is in accordance with the stipulations given in Lev. 23:9-11 about the Omer. In Lev. 23:9 a new section of the text begins that has no immediate connection with what was said before, and from Lev. ch. 23 alone a direct relation between Pesach and the counting of the Omer cannot be proved. 

In normal circumstances, however, the barley would be ripe around the time of Pesach. And I guess that only in times of bad and late harvests it could happen that Shavuot would be as late in the year as Sivan 17. 

While in the Tanach we never see a direct relation, as far as I know, between Shavuot and Matan Torah, in rabbinic literature, from the second century CE on, we find the two identified. There may have been an earlier oral tradition, though, because in the Apostolic Writings this identification appears to be alluded to. There are in fact interesting comparisons. In Ex. 32:28 we have three thousand people dying because of the sin of the golden calf, a sin which happened almost immediately after Matan Torah. In Acts 2:41 we have three thousand people being baptized and the Body of Messiah formed by the Ruach HaKodesh as a new and distinct group within Israel. Another similarity is to be noticed between the fire on Mount Sinai and the fiery tongues descending upon the Apostles. (Both events mark a new beginning and show a certain resemblance to what happened on the first day of creation, when the Ruach HaShem was above the waters and the light was created.) 

Thus the conclusion might be justified that qua theological content there is a relation between Shavuot and Matan Torah but not qua calendrical date. The fact that Shavuot is the only yearly festival which has no fixed date in the Torah may already point in this direction. The rabbinic idea that Matan Torah happened on the 6^th of Sivan should perhaps be considered a forced attempt to emphasize the celebration of Matan Torah in a diaspora situation in which the agricultural aspects of Shavuot could no longer be given due weight. To be clear, this rabbinic idea is only to be regarded as “forced” in relation to the actual date of Sivan 6, not in relation to its thematic content. Israel is the firstfruits of mankind, a nation dedicated to HaShem and which received its constitution at Mount Sinai. The Messianic Assembly is that part of Israel which has the firstfruits of the Spirit as the Apostle says in Rom. 8:23, and which was constituted on the Shavuot day of Acts ch. 2. 

The thematic identification of Shavuot and Matan Torah is thus probably a later but legitimate development of the oral tradition. It appears to be based on a grown understanding of the symbolism of the festival. And in a broad sense there’s still a calendrical connection between Shavuot and Matan Torah, since both events are related to the third month.

Minor Celebrations Between Pesach and Shavuot

Reflections on Lag Ba‘Omer and Ascension Day

  

by

Geert ter Horst

 

Traditionally, orthodox Jews between Pesach and Shavu‘ot celebrate a minor festival, Lag Ba‘Omer. This festival occurs on the 33^rd day of the Omer. Also traditionally, Christians celebrate a festival on the 40^th day after Yeshua’s resurrection, Ascension Day. The question thus presents itself whether Torah observant Messianics should celebrate these days, and if so, in what manner.

A calendrical difficulty must be clarified first. For, as we have pointed out in other articles — and as has been noticed by others — the orthodox Jewish method of counting the Omer is in conflict with Scripture.[i] And it needs no argument that the Gregorian method of calculating the calendar can afford no biblical basis for fixing the date of Ascension Day.

But this difficulty is only a minor one. Once the correct method of counting the Omer is established, it is easy to fix the 33^rd and the 40^th day of the count. If we start the Omer on the Sunday after 14 Nisan, which we have established as the biblical date, the two celebrations of Lag Ba‘Omer and Ascension Day occur on two succeeding Thursdays, during the fifth and the sixth weeks of the Omer respectively.

1. The reasons for celebrating Lag Ba‘Omer

The real difficulty is the biblical legitimation of these festivals. And in this respect Lag Ba‘Omer seems to be the more troubling case to defend, because within orthodox Judaism itself it has aroused discussion about its meaning. In the introductory remarks of the chapter on Lag Ba‘Omer in R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin’s important work: The Festivals in Halachah, it is said: “[…] Lag Ba‘Omer as a minor festival is somewhat clouded in mystery. Not only are we unsure of its reason, but unlike all other memorable days in the Jewish year, its name indicates neither the reason behind the festival (as, for instance, with Pesach, Sukkos, or Purim) nor its date (like Tu BiShvat, or the Tenth of Teves). The only indication of when the day occurs depends on the counting of the Omer, and if one were to forget or confuse this count the name would give no clue to the correct date”.[ii]

R. Zevin continues that “the first known reference to Lag BaOmer as a minor festival […] is found in certain of the Rishonim. No mention of this halachah is recorded in the geonic literature except that one Rishon (Meir) refers to it as a tradition handed down by the Geonim. In Meir’s commentary, Beis HaBechirah, at the place where the Talmud tells about the twelve thousand pairs of students of Rabbi Akiva who died between Pesach and Atzeres (Shavuos), the author relates, “It is a tradition of the Geonim, zal, that on Yom Lag BaOmer the deaths stopped, and that for this reason it is customary to refrain from fasting on this day.” It would seem that this is our earliest source for this holiday”.[iii]

In his article on “Practises of Mourning During Sefira”, Rav Yosef Zwi Rimon elaborates on this theme: “The Gemara in Yevamot (62b) tells that Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students from Gevat to Antipras. (This yields a sum total of 24,000; in the version found in Midrash Rabba, Bereishit 61:50, the word “pairs” does not appear, suggesting that he had twelve thousand students total.  On the other hand, the Gemara in Nedarim 50a records the number as 24,000 pairs.)  All these students died within a short period of time on account of the disrespect they afforded one another. As a result, writes the Gemara, the world “was desolate” from Torah study, until Rabbi Akiva traveled south and taught five outstanding disciples.  The Gemara then cites a source from the tanna’im that the students perished during the sefira period, in between Pesach and Shavuot.  (Later the Gemara writes that they died from a type of illness, but from the Yerushalmi it appears that they fell in the Bar-Kokhba revolt.  A complete discussion of this issue lies beyond the scope of our discussion.)”.[iv]

He adds an observation that reveals an embarrassment surrounding the celebration Lag Ba‘Omer: “Significantly, however, the Gemara mentions nothing of Lag Ba-omer in this context, implying that the deaths occurred throughout the entirety of the sefira period.  Secondly, this passage makes no indication of any practices of mourning to be observed to mark this tragedy”.[v]

R. Zevin refers to a multitude of motives connected with the celebration of Lag Ba‘Omer. Among these is a biblical one not often mentioned: “One 19^th-century authority who suggests that on this day we celebrate an event which took place at the very beginning of our history as a nation is the author of Chasam Sofer. This scholar dates the origins of the rejoicing connected with Lag Ba‘Omer at the early stages of the wandering of our forefathers in the wilderness. The Torah tells us (Exodus 16:3): “And they journeyed from Elim, and all the congregation of the Children of Israel came to the Wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure from the land of Egypt.” This was on the 15^th of Iyar. On the 16^th the people complained against Moshe and Aharon and all the elders, going as far to say: “We wish we had died by the hand of God in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread” (Exodus 16:3). On the 17^th of the month HaShem told Moshe that the Manna — the bread from heaven — would begin to fall on the next day, the 18^th of Iyar. This is the date of Lag Ba‘Omer”.[vi]

R. Zevin goes on to explain why this theme is not emphasized in the existing celebration customs of Lag Ba‘Omer: “Thus on this day we are in fact celebrating the miracle of the Manna — echoing the joy of our forefathers when for the first time they perceived this wonder. Since however the events preceding it do not reflect favorably on our ancestors, we make no reference to it”.[vii]

Although the attempt to date the first occurrence of the Manna on the 18^th of Iyar in R. Zevin’s quote of Chasam Sofer appears a bit forced — the Torah text only says that the Manna began soon after the 15^th and even apart from this uncertain date there is no biblical connection between the 33^rd day of the Omer and the calendar date of 18 Iyar — it is exactly this biblical theme of the Manna that contains a possible clue for a Messianic relevance of the festival. The bread from heaven is a well-known theme in the Apostolic Writings with clear references to Yeshua (cf. Jn. 6:26-58; Apoc. 2:17).

2. Messianic Relevance of the Day

From the fact that Yeshua is our bread of life descended from heaven we might have a first and somewhat speculative intuition about the number 33. Why is it the 33^rd day of the Omer that is so important?

We know that Yeshua’s earthly life lasted 33 years. It may thus be that we should view the first 33 days of the Omer as a kind of liturgical representation and recapitulation of Yeshua’s first mission, when he came down from heaven as the bread of life, according to Jn. 6:33: “For the bread of G-d is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world”.

A week later, on the 40^th day of the Omer, we celebrate Yeshua’s ascension, when he was elevated to the right hand of HaShem. This may indicate that Lag Ba‘Omer and Ascension Day symbolize two complementary and opposite movements in the ministry of Messiah. On Lag Ba‘Omer we are reminded of Messiah’s descending to this earth and of his earthly years; on Ascension Day we are reminded of his ascension to the Father. Ascension Day occurs on the eight day after Lag Ba‘Omer. The eight day symbolically refers to that which transcends this world, because there are only seven days in a week. The week of this creation symbolically signifies our existence in this world. The eight day signifies the World to Come.

Yeshua’s ascension occurs on the 40^th day after his resurrection. The number 40 is the number of trial and wandering, of preparation. The Israelites wandered through the desert during 40 years, before they were able to conquer the promised land. At the beginning of his ministry Yeshua was in the desert during a preparatory period of 40 days, to be tested and tempted (cf. Mt. 4:1; Mk. 1:12-13; Lk. 4:1-2). After his resurrection he began the second phase of his ministry. He went through another period of 40 days and was seen by the apostles, “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of G-d” (Acts 1:3). During these days he instructed his talmidim and prepared them for their great mission that would begin at Shavu‘ot (Acts 1:4-5). After these 40 days he was taken up and entered the realm of Heaven, to be seated at the right hand of G-d (Mk. 16:19).

3. Anomalies in the Traditional Themes of the Day

Does the messianic interpretation of Lag Ba‘Omer make sense in the light of the traditional themes of this day? What are we to make for instance of the tradition of the twelve thousand pairs of students of Rabbi Akiva dying between Pesach and Shavu‘ot? This tradition has led to the acceptance of mourning practices during the Omer count. And this practice of mourning at first sight appears to stand in strong contrast, or opposition, to our joy about the resurrection of Messiah at this time. A number of additional observances of Lag Ba‘Omer, e.g. the traditional haircut, are related to this time of mourning, which is intermitted on this day. And how should we view still other observances connected with it, such as the lighting of bonfires and visiting the tomb of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai?

It is clear that we cannot accept these practices without duly screening their legitimacy and validity from a messianic viewpoint. We know that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was a student of Rabbi Akiva and that Rabbi Akiva was a determined adversary of the Jewish followers of Yeshua and that he tried to destroy them by proclaiming the false Messiah Bar Kochba. But perhaps we can make something of the events and observances associated with Lag Ba‘Omer by considering them from the viewpoint of their symbolic and perhaps somewhat hidden meaning. What are all these things about? There are reasons for asking this question, for there are a lot of difficulties and oddities in the traditional stories told about this day, and in the observances connected with them.

One of the conspicious anomalies is the abnormal and disproportional mourning over Rabbi Akiva’s dead students. As Rabbi Pinchas Stolper has attentively noticed: “Why does this event, the death of Rabbi Akiva’s students, tragic as it was, merit thirty-two days of mourning when greater tragedies in Jewish history, such as the destruction of both Temples or the breaking of the Stone Tablets of the Covenant by Moses, are marked by a single day of mourning. In terms of numbers, the massacres of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Chemelnitsky progroms, and the Holocaust which destroyed European Jewry and cost six-million Jewish lives far overshadowed the death of Rabbi Akiva’s students. Yet, these tragic events are not commemorated by even one special day of mourning. Why is the death of Rabbi Akiva’s students given so much more weight?”.[viii] And he adds: “There also appear to be glaring inconsistencies in the story itself. What were Rabbi Akiva’s students guilty of that they deserved to die? If Rabbi Akiva’s students died as a result of G-d’s punishment for their sins, why should we mourn them? Didn’t they deserve their punishment?”.[ix]

We noticed that, according to the tradition, the deaths of the students of Rabbi Akiva stopped on the 33^rd day of the Omer. In the Talmud (bYevmoth 62b) it is said that these students died because they did not show proper respect to one another. This accusation sounds very similar to the reason always given for the destruction of the second Temple: baseless hatred (sinat chinam (bYoma 9b)). The Apostolic Writings confirm this diagnosis in an aggravating manner. Before Yeshua symbolically “went out and departed from the Temple” (Mt. 24:1) and held his final Olivet discourse (Mt. 24:1-25:46), he concluded with a lament over Jerusalem, saying: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of HaShem” (Mt. 23:37-39).

Yeshua’s announcement of the destruction of the Temple clearly reveals the deeper cause of the catastrophe that was to come upon the Jewish nation: its refusal to be united under the guidance of the true Messiah and to let its divisions be healed by him. And this draws our attention to the Roman wars and to the final and desperate endeavours of Rabbi Akiva and his followers to create a false national unity by expelling and cursing the followers of Yeshua. By his deliberate attempt to destroy the believing remnant of Israel, Rabbi Akiva for a very long time destroyed all hope of the nation, his own efforts for a restoration of its independence included. By the Bar Kochba war Judaism completely separated itself from the believers in Messiah Yeshua, and was itself separated from the Messianic Kingdom that had been so near to it during the days of Yeshua and the Apostles.

The tradition that the students of Rabbi Akiva didn’t show proper respect one for the other thus confers to us in a distorted way a deeper spiritual understanding of the mourning during the Omer. The mourning during these days is for the loss of all national messianic hopes for thousands of years. The mourning is not for the students of Akiva in a narrow sense, but for all his followers, and, as R. Stolper writes, “for the failure of the Jewish people to bring about the Messianic Age, for the fall of the curtain on Jewish independence, Jewish hopes and Jewish messianic ambitions”.[x] After the expulsion of the believers all Israel was brought under the yoke of rabbinic authority that was established by Rabbi Akiva. In this way all future Jews were made Akiva’s students. The mourning associated with them thus turns out to be a mourning for the whole Jewish nation. Unknowingly — and unconscious of the real state of affairs — the nation mourns for her own failure to recognize the true Messiah, Yeshua. That is the solution for the inconsistency detected above by Rabbi Stolper. All those who belong to rabbinic Judaism are Rabbi Akiva’s students, and they mourn for themselves and for the condition of the Jewish people.

What, from this perspective, is the meaning of the celebration of Lag Ba‘Omer? From our messianic perspective we feel compelled to say that it is the hidden spark of hope under the ashes that could not be destroyed by all the failures of Israel and all the cruelties of the Roman Empire. This spark of hope was Messiah Yeshua, crucified and resurrected in the 33^rd year of his life. He was and is and remains the foundation for the future redemption of all Israel. The atonement that he wrought on the Cross and the resurrection life he obtained are his definitive achievements that remain for all times and can nevermore be destroyed. Messiah has conquered and defeated the strong and evil forces behind sin and death, and therefore on the 33^rd day of the Omer we as Messianics can celebrate the ceasing of deaths because we have life in him. It is no mere coincidence that Lag Ba‘Omer is celebrated about the date that initiated the miracle of the Manna. For Yeshua is that “bread of life which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die” (Jn. 6:50). Lag Ba‘Omer thus contains the deepest mystery: the Messiah, in whom are hidden the secrets of everlasting life and the divine promise of the future restoration of all Israel.

4. Esoteric Mysticism versus Faith in Messiah

Now we can try to discover the reasons for the other observances connected with Lag Ba‘omer mentioned above, the lighting of bonfires and visiting the tomb of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

About the same time that Lag Ba‘Omer began to be celebrated (the XIII^th century CE) the pseudepigraphic book Zohar began to circulate, which was to become one of Judaism’s primary texts of kabbalistic mysticism. Its authorship was ascribed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and many Chassidic Jews today still believe that the essential teachings found in it are his. However that may be, Lag Ba‘Omer is also celebrated as his Hilula or Yahrzeit. Shimon bar Yochai’s name thus became indissollubly linked with the emergent kabbalah and with with its esoteric, mystical doctrine. Many orthodox circles who acknowledge that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is not the historical author of the Zohar, maintain that he initiated kabbalistic mysticism. According to Rabbi Stolper, “In the midst of defeat, the Tannah, Rabbi Shimon bar-Yochai revealed to a small number of students the secrets of the mystical Zohar. In the Zohar, in its formulas, disicplines and spirituality lie the secrets whose seed will bring about the coming of the Messiah. The Zohar’s living tradition has kept that hope alive down to this very day”.[xi]

In the following centuries Shimon bar Yochai was elevated to the highest levels of mystical life and knowledge in the imagination of the people. In the 16^th century even a festive Lag Ba‘Omer song, composed by Shimon ibn Lavi, was dedicated to him. It praises him in wordings which, if sung by believers in Yeshua, would be exclusively be reserved for Messiah. This hymn is sung by most Jewish communities on Lag Ba‘Omer. Although it is clear that they don’t think Shimon bar Yochai to be the Messiah, yet he is addressed in this song in a manner that is similar to the manner Yeshua is addressed in messianic hymns.[xii]

By this development we see how the rejection of the true Messiah and the rising of kabbalistic mysticism became intertwined. Once the true spiritual renewal of life was refused, inevitably another path to redemption had to be sought. Once the true Messiah was rejected and his talmidim were step by step expelled from the Jewish nation, and the following generations saw the terrors of the Roman war, the destruction of the Temple, the national breakdown and the exile, new spiritual resources were needed for Judaism to survive. These resources were found in the form of an occult mysticism that seems to have begun with the rabbis of the second century CE. This is the sad route a considerable part of Judaism has taken. The P’rushim and the early rabbis had already begun to dilute the biblical faith by embracing the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and the practice of prayers on behalf of the dead. The later mysticism, that was strongly influenced by Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism and culminated in such works as the Sefer Yetzirah, the Sefer Bahir and the Zohar and similar works, went much further and accepted reincarnation, magical interpretations of the mitzvot, a whole lot of other occult practices, and a panentheistic concept of G-d.

From a messianic perspective the kabbalistic path of redemption is an illusion, a dream-world not rooted in the Scriptures. The mysticism that we find expressed in the Zohar offers a spiritualistic mythology, though this mythology takes the outward form of biblical interpretation. In this way the words of Scripture in fact become the vehicles of a new religious structure inspired by Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism. Under the guise of conformity to Scripture an entire new world of entities and concepts is introduced that is essentially incompatible with the basic teachings of the Torah and the prophets.

One of the results of this esoteric mysticism were intense and exaggerated speculations about the coming of Messiah. This has led to a spiritual climate that in the long run would lead to such historical derailments as for instance the proclamation of the false Messiah Sabbatai Zevi in the XVII^th century.[xiii]

The customs of lighting bonfires and having celebrations at the tomb of Shimon bar Yochai at first sight are of a similar paradoxical nature as the perplexities we met in the aforementioned mourning for Rav Akiva’s students. How can a Yahrzeit be celebrated in the manner of a joyous festival and be marked by bonfires? We have already argued that the mourning for Akiva’s students betrays, in a distorted manner, the mourning of the entire Jewish nation for not having known the time of her visitation (cf. Lk. 19:44). We must assume that the false renewal of Judaism by means of the esoteric mysticism of Bar Yochai and his followers, in a similar distorted manner, testifies for the true renewal of life that has come in Messiah Yeshua. There is only one tomb in the world that truly is a site of joy and that speaks of him “who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light” (II Tim. 1:10).

This should lead us to consider the proper way for Messianics to celebrate Lag Ba‘Omer. For it is clear that we cannot simply take over the celebrations found in orthodox and chassidic circles. And yet we have seen that there is a deep symbolism referring to Yeshua inherent in this day.

5. Suggestions for a Messianic Celebration of Lag Ba‘Omer

Perhaps the best way for Messianics to celebrate Lag Ba‘Omer is by aligning ourselves to the biblical symbolism we have discovered, of Yeshua being the bread of life. By interpreting the number 33 as a recapitulation of Yeshua’s lifetime here on earth we have the occasion for a glad and joyous commemoration of the life and times of our Messiah. And how could we better commemorate him than by keeping the memorial he himself instituted and which we call ‘the Lord’s Supper’? In it we feed ourselves with the bread of life, and we experience that “the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (Jn. 6:51). We experience that true mystical union between the Head of the Body and its members, when “he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (Jn. 6:56).

On the eve before Pesach, at b’dikat chametz, we remember that Yeshua instituted the Supper in the face of his approaching death. While the joy of that celebration is overshadowed by the impressive and solemn events of our Master’s trial and crucifixion the next day (Nisan 14), the emphasis of the celebration on Lag Ba‘Omer is on our joy in him and our living communion with him. As the Apostle says: “Now, if we be dead with Messiah, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Messiah being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him” (Rom. 6:8-9). And as Yeshua himself testified: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (Jn. 6:57). We don’t have to gather at the tomb of R. Shimon bar Yochai on this day and we don’t have to lit Yahrzeit candles. We may celebrate that we have a living Messiah by lighting bonfires and candles of joy, in honour of him who is the true and everlasting king of Israel.

It is also appropriate to have a haircut on this day. To let one’s hair grow is a sign of mourning and to have a haircut is a sign of joy. Obviously, we rejoice throughout the entire period of the Omer in the resurrection of Messiah. But a slight sense of mourning is also characteristic of this period. First, because, as we have explained above, the Jewish nation is still in a state of unbelief and refusal concerning Yeshua. The restoration of all Israel in Messiah is still awaiting. Second, because Messiah in his resurrection glory is in a sense detached from his followers who are still in the exile of their mortal bodies. There is also a mystical signification in the haircut. It reminds us of the cutting of the sheaf of the Omer, which by this cutting was detached from the earth. The cutting of the sheaf, on the first day of the Omer, and our haircut on Lag Ba‘Omer, are thus symbols of the fact that in his resurrection Messiah is detached from us and from this world’s life, and has now entered the completely sanctified state of the life of the World to Come.

By this manner of celebration Lag Ba‘Omer finds its natural complement in the celebration of Messiah’s ascension on the 40^th day of the Omer. On Lag Ba‘Omer we recapitulate Messiah’s life; a week later, on Yom HaAliyah Yeshua, we celebrate Messiah’s elevation to the right hand of the Father, and his installation as head over all things. Both celebrations lead up to the great Yom Tov of firstfruits, Shavu‘ot. On Shavu‘ot Israel received the Torah and was dedicated unto G-d as the holy firstfruits of mankind. On the Shavu‘ot in the year of Messiah’s resurrection the Ruach HaKodesh was outpoured on the believing remnant of Israel, which was dedicated unto G-d as the firstfruits of the nation. May we, believers in Messiah Yeshua — born Jews or added from the Gentiles — all be faithful members of this remnant.

 

 _____________________

 

---

[i] Van Goudoever [pp. 19-20] says that the counting from the Sunday after Passover “is the original meaning of Leviticus xxiii. 11 and 15. The ordinary meaning of ‘Sabbath’ is the seventh day of the week. The same is valid for the Greek version of Leviticus xxiii. 15, in which the Hebrew word Sabbath is translated with ‘sabbaton’. To the passage ‘You shall count from the day’ there is a marginal not in the Greek version ‘the day which is after the Sabbath, tei meta to sabbaton; and another marginal note reads ‘from the first day after the Sabbath, apo tes protes tou sabbatou’. From rabbinic sources we can be certain that this was indeed the way the Boethusians counted the 50 days. In Leviticus xxiii. 15 the expression occurs, ‘You shall count seven full weeks’ (teminot), which supports the counting of the 50 days from Sunday to Sunday, because in that case it is possible to count seven full weeks, from Sunday to Sabbath. This is at least the quite reasonable interpretation of the Boethusians”. J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, E.J. Brill — Leiden 1961. Cf. Christian Churches of God, “The Omer Count to Pentecost”, at: http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p173.html; and my own articles on this site: “Why Shavuos is always on Sunday”, at: http://messianic613.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/why-shavuos-is-always-on-sunday/ and “De Verwarring over de Omertelling en het Wekenfeest”, at: http://messianic613.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/de-verwarring-over-de-omertelling-en-het-wekenfeest/

[ii] Zevin, p. 887. Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, The Festivals in Halachah: An Analysis of the Development of the Festival Laws (Vol. II), Mesorah Publications, ltd. New York in conjunction with Hillel Press Jerusalem — Brooklyn NY · Jerusalem 2002 (1999).

[iii] Zevin, o.c., p. 888.

[iv] Rimon, p. 1. Rav Yosef Tzvi Rimon, “Sefirat Ha-omer Part 3: Practices of Mourning During Sefira” In: Halakha: A Weekly Shiur in Halakhic Topics, Yeshivat Har Etzion, Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, at: http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/halak61/24sefirathaomer3.doc

[v] Rimon, ibid.

[vi] Zevin, o.c., p. 887.

[vii] Zevin, ibid.

[viii] Rabbi Pinchas Stolper, “The Mystery of Lag Ba‘Omer”, In: Orthodox Union Network 1995, at: http://www.ou.org/chagim/sefira/mystery.htm

[ix] Stolper, ibid.

[x] Stolper, ibid.

[xi] Stolper, ibid.

[xii] For an English version of this song, view: http://www.kabbalaonline.org/Holydays/omer/Bar_Yochai_Song.asp To what heights of idolatry this cult of the Rashbi has led can be illustrated by the translation of the Bar Yochai Song found on the Orthodox Union site. View:  http://www.ou.org/chagim/lagbaomer/song.htm 

[xiii] Laenen, pp. 193-208. J.H. Laenen, Joodse mystiek. Een inleiding, Kok-Kampen · Lannoo-Tielt 1998.