« 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.

De Verwarring over de Omertelling en het Wekenfeest

 

door

 

Geert ter Horst

 

 

1. Inleiding: De verandering in de gemeente Beth Yeshua

 

Het behoeft weinig betoog dat de messiasbelijdende wereld verdeeld is over de bijbelse datum van het Wekenfeest (Sjavoe‘ot), en, in verband daarmee, over de begindatum van de Omertelling. Sommige gemeenten beginnen de Omertelling volgens rabbijns voorschrift op 16 Niesan en vieren bijgevolg Sjavoe‘ot op de traditioneel-joodse datum, 6 Siewan. Anderen menen dat de Omertelling altijd dient te beginnen op een zondag en volgens hen heeft het Wekenfeest geen vaste datum.

 

Dit is een van de halachische vraagstukken waarover veel verwarring bestaat. Die verwarring blijkt ook uit de verandering van standpunt in dit vraagstuk van de grootste en toonaangevende messiasbelijdende joodse gemeente in ons land, Beth Yeshua te Amsterdam. Terwijl in de Ijar-Siewan aflevering 5767 (mei 2007) van het periodiek van deze gemeente, Melach HaArets, de praktijk werd verdedigd dat de Omer op een zondag begint — ook wel de opvatting van de Boethusiërs of de Sadduceeën genoemd — blijkt men nu van opvatting  veranderd te zijn en de rabbijnse praktijk van de Omertelling te hebben overgenomen, welke historisch teruggaat op de opvatting van de Farizeeën.

 

In de Ijar-Siewan aflevering 5767 (2007) van Melach HaArets werd gesteld dat “het verschil” [tussen de messiasbelijdende en de tradionele datum van het Wekenfeest] is gelegen in de interpretatie van vers 11b en vers 16 uit Wajikra (Leviticus) 23. Vers 11b: “De dag volgend op de feestelijke rustdag moet de priester de zijdelingse beweging [wuifoffer] ermee maken” (Dasbergvertaling). De verzen 15 en 16: “Jullie moeten tellen van de dag volgend op de feestelijke rustdag, van de dag dat jullie de Omer, bestemd voor de zijdelingse bewegingen, gebracht hebben; zeven volle weken moeten het zijn. Tot de dag volgend op de zevende week moeten jullie vijftig dagen tellen en dan een nieuw meeloffer voor de Eeuwige brengen” (Dasbergvertaling). De dag “volgend op de feestelijke rustdag” is de dag “daags na de sabbat” (NBG 1951), “de dag volgend op de feestelijke rustdag” (Dasberg). Die Sjabbat kan worden opgevat als: 1. de Sjabbat van het weekend dat valt in de week van de Pesach, of 2. de feestdag en Sjabbat die de Pesach zelf is. Het traditionele Jodendom heeft voor punt 2 gekozen. Dit is echter tegenstrijdig met de opdracht om vijftig dagen te moeten tellen en dan te moeten uitkomen op “de dag volgend op de zevende week”. Weken worden geteld vanaf hun eerste dag, zeg maar de zondag. Het einde van de zevende week is dus een Sjabbat (zaterdag). De dag die daarop volgt, is een zondag.”

 

In de onlangs verschenen Ijar-Siewan aflevering van dit jaar (5769 (2009)) worden echter plotseling de rabbijnse data van het Wekenfeest en van het begin van de Omertelling aangetroffen. Men schrijft daarover: “De precieze dag waarop we deze vijftig dagen beginnen te tellen is “de dag na de Sjabbat”, volgens Wajikra/Leviticus 23:15. ‘Sjabbat’ kan de betekenis hebben van ‘week’. In Jochanan/Johannes 19:31 staat over 15 Niesan geschreven dat de Sjabbat van die dag groot was. In dat geval is ‘Sjabbat’ de term voor een Sjabbaton, niet de wekelijkse Sjabbat. Dan vertalen we: tot de dag na de zevende week. In dat geval kan de vijftigste dag elke dag van de week zijn. Het begin van de Omertelling is dan niet gebonden aan de zondag. Zoals de bijbelse eerste dag van het Joodse Paasfeest ook niet gebonden is aan een zondag.”

 

Men ziet dat hier eigenlijk zonder gedegen onderzoek van de ene naar de andere opvatting van de Omer en het Wekenfeest wordt overgegaan. Men zou verwachten dat zo’n overgang niet zou plaatsvinden zonder een uitvoerige weerlegging van de opvatting die men verlaat en zonder een even uitvoerige bewijsvoering voor de opvatting waartoe men overgaat. Dit gebeurt in het bovenstaande echter allerminst. Er wordt maar wat op los geknutseld met uit hun verband gerukte teksten, en een op deze wijze verdedigde overgang naar de rabbijnse opvatting is natuurlijk niets waard en wordt waarschijnlijk alleen ingegeven door de motivering om in de lijn van de overheersende joodse traditie te staan en zich bij de conventionele praktijk aan te sluiten.

 

In de beide hierboven gegeven citaten uit Melach HaArets zitten nogal wat exegetische misvattingen opgesloten. Vóór deze bloot te leggen lijkt het ons echter beter eerst een poging te wagen om de bijbelse gegevens betreffende het begin van de Omer en de dag van het Wekenfeest opnieuw te bestuderen, en met name om een nauwkeurige exegese te geven van de relevante verzen uit het Boek Wajikra (Leviticus) hst. 23. Indien we daarin slagen kunnen we daarna wellicht met een verhelderd inzicht terugkeren naar de citaten uit Melach HaArets om mogelijk overgebleven misvattingen recht te zetten en een einde te maken aan de zojuist geschetste verwarring.

 

 

2. Een eerste aanwijzing: Een feestdag is geen Sjabbat

 

Eén van de zaken die opvallen bij een gedetailleerde bestudering van Lev. 23 is dat dit hoofdstuk een duidelijk onderscheid maakt tussen de wekelijkse Sjabbat en de andere vastgestelde hoogtijdagen van HaSjeem. Dit onderscheid vindt men overigens ook in de overige gedeelten van de Torah die handelen over Sjabbat en feestdagen. Nergens wordt een jaarlijkse feestdag Sjabbat genoemd. Voor de jaarlijkse feestdagen wordt soms wel een verwant woord, ‘Sjabbaton’ gebruikt, dat echter niet met ‘Sjabbat’ mag worden gelijkgesteld. Hierop is maar één schijnbare uitzondering, de Grote Verzoendag, welke ‘Sjabbat Sjabbaton’ wordt genoemd, en op deze uitdrukking zullen we nog terugkomen.

 

In de messiasbelijdende wereld is het echter schering en inslag om te spreken of ‘jaarlijkse Sabbatten’ (‘annual Sabbaths’ in de Angelsaksische literatuur), en in het algemeen om een feestdag een ‘Sjabbat’ te noemen, wat naar ik zal aantonen in de Heilige Schrift nergens gebeurt. De Schrift kent in deze zin geen jaarlijkse Sabbatten. De feestdagen die tradioneel in het Jodendom worden aangeduid als Jamiem Toviem — de eerste en de zevende dag van het Matsotfeest, de dag van het Wekenfeest, de dag van het feest der Trompetten (Rosj HaSjanah) en de feestdagen van het Loofhuttenfeest — worden nooit ofte nimmer met de term ‘Sjabbat’ aangeduid. Het spreken over jaarlijkse Sabbatten (of ‘annual Sabbaths’) is dan ook onjuist en misleidend.

 

Wanneer we precies nagaan voor welke dagen of tijden de Torah de term ‘Sjabbat’ gebruikt, dan vinden we dat, behalve voor de wekelijkse Sjabbat deze nog gebruikt wordt voor het Sjabbatsjaar (ofwel het zgn. Sjemita-jaar), dat is dus voor het zevende jaar, waarin de landbouwgrond in Erets Jisrael braak moet blijven liggen, en, zoals gezegd, voor het bijzondere geval van de Grote Verzoendag (Jom Kippoer). Dat zijn de enige dagen en tijdsperioden welke door de Torah ‘Sjabbat’ worden genoemd.

 

In het bijzonder wordt ook de tijdsperiode van de week, welke is gebaseerd op de Sjabbat, in de Torah niet met ‘Sjabbat’ aangeduid. Het Hebreeuws heeft een eigen woord voor week (Sjavoe‘a) dat niet verwant is met het woord ‘Sjabbat’. Natuurlijk kan men een tijdsperiode van zoveel weken óók aanduiden als een tijdsperiode van zoveel Sabbatten, maar dit spraakgebruik is niet omkeerbaar. Als men kan spreken over zeven weken als over zeven Sabbatten gaat dit alleen op indien het weken betreft die lopen van zondag tot en met Sjabbat. Een periode van zeven aaneengesloten Sabbatten beslaat dus wel zeven weken — hetgeen vanzelfsprekend is en in aard van de zaak ligt opgesloten — maar daarom kan de term ‘Sjabbat’ de term ‘week’ nog niet vervangen of ermee gelijkgesteld worden. Want de betekenis van ‘Sjabbat’ is een geheel andere dan die van ‘week’ (Sjavoe‘a). ‘Sjabbat’ betekent ‘ophouden’, ‘rusten’, terwijl ‘Sjavoe‘a’ ‘zevental’ betekent. Bovendien kan iedere willekeurige periode van zeven aaneengesloten dagen ‘week’ (Sjavoe‘a) worden genoemd, ook als zij niet loopt van zondag tot en met de Sjabbat.

 

Deze eerste verkenning bevat al een aanwijzing voor het geval dat we willen onderzoeken. Indien de feestdagen van de ongezuurde broden (het Matsotfeest) niet met de term ‘Sjabbat’ worden aangeduid door de Torah, zullen er zwaarwegende exegetische (en wellicht andere) redenen moeten worden aangevoerd om een tekstinterpretatie en een daarop gebaseerde halachische praktijk ingang te doen vinden welke uitgaan van een terminologische gelijkstelling van feestdag en Sjabbat, en van een gelijkstelling van de zeven Sabbatten van Lev. 23:15-16 aan zeven weken met een willekeurige begindag.

 

 

3. Analyse van de termen ‘Sjabbat’ en ‘Sjabbaton’

 

Het onderscheid tussen Sjabbat en Jom Tov vinden we in Leviticus 23 duidelijk aangegeven. Dit hoofdstuk begint met een algemene oproep (23:1-2) om de vastgestelde tijden van HaSjeem, die heilige samenkomsten zijn, uit te roepen. Dan wordt (in :3) de wekelijkse Sjabbat geïntroduceerd als de eerste van deze. Daarna volgen aanwijzingen voor de andere feestdagen (vanaf :4). In 23:5-36 worden successievelijk de feestdagen vanaf Pesach tot en met Soekot behandeld. In ::37-38 worden algemene bepalingen gegeven voor de te brengen offers op deze dagen, en ook hier wordt de Sjabbat (in :38) duidelijk onderscheiden van de jaarlijkse feestdagen (in :37). In de volgende verzen (::39-43) worden bijzondere aanwijzingen gegeven voor het Loofhuttenfeest, en het hoofstuk besluit met nogmaals een algemene vermelding van de bijzondere tijden, op de wijze van een inclusio (:44).

 

De jaarlijkse feestdagen worden, zoals reeds opgemerkt, in deze tekst niet ‘Sjabbat’ genoemd. Somtijds, zoals in het geval van Rosj HaSjanah en Soekot, worden zij ‘Sjabbaton’ genoemd (Lev. 23:23, 39). De feestdagen van het Matsot- en het Wekenfeest worden hier echter op geen van beide wijzen aangeduid.

 

De termen ‘Sjabbat’ en ‘Sjabbaton’ geven een kenmerk van een bepaalde dag aan, niet die dag als zodanig. Zo is ‘Sjabbat’ niet de naam van de zevende dag van de week, maar de zevende dag wordt ‘Sjabbat’ genoemd naar een bepaald kenmerk van die dag, en zo worden ook bepaalde dagen ‘Sjabbaton’ genoemd naar een bepaald kenmerk van die dagen. Beide woorden, ‘Sjabbat’ en ‘Sjabbaton’ komen van dezelfde wortel, ‘Sh.b.t’, welke ‘ophouden’ of ‘rusten’ betekent. De zevende dag van de week wordt ‘Sjabbat’ genoemd, en dit woord wordt gevormd uit de werkwoordelijke Pi‘el stam, het intensivum van de actieve vorm van het werkwoord. ‘Sjabbat’ betekent daarom een ‘volkomen ophouden’ of een ‘volkomen rust’. Het woord ‘Sjabbaton’ lijkt wegens de -‘on’ uitgang afgeleid van de Qal (Pa‘al) stam die een gewone actieve vorm aangeeft. Volgens deze stam betekent dit werkwoord ‘ophouden’ of ‘rusten’ Een Sjabbaton is daarom een ophouden of rusten, terwijl een Sjabbat een volkomen ophouden of rusten is.

 

Ook de combinatie van deze twee woorden, ‘Sjabbat Sjabbaton’ komt voor, in Ex. 31:15, Lev. 23:3, 32. ‘Sjabbaton’ wordt hier gequalificeerd door ‘Sjabbat’ en men kan de combinatie vertalen als een ‘ophouden dat een volkomen ophouden is’, of als een ‘rust die een volkomen rust is’. De uitdrukking ‘Sjabbat Sjabbaton’ wordt alleen gebruikt voor de wekelijkse Sjabbat en voor Jom Kippoer. De uitdrukking beklemtoont dat de in een bepaald verband of op een bepaalde dag gevergde rust niet maar enkel een rust maar een volkomen rust moet zijn. Deze beklemtoning is in het kader van de voorschriften voor de feestdagen juist van belang voor de Grote Verzoendag, die hierin verschilt van de overige feestdagen. Terwijl voor deze dagen een rust is voorgeschreven die wordt omschreven als “geen dienstwerk zult gij doen” (Lev. 23:8, 21, 25, 35, 36), wordt de op Jom Kippoer vereiste rust aangeduid als “gij zult geen werk doen” (Lev. 23:31, vgl. :28, 29). Dit laatste werkverbod is hetzelfde als het werkverbod voor de wekelijkse Sjabbat, zoals blijkt uit Lev. 23:3.

 

Het onderscheid tussen het werkverbod dat geldt voor de Sjabbaton-dagen en het werkverbod dat geldt voor de Sjabbat–dagen is dus dat op de Sjabbat-dagen in het geheel geen werk is toegestaan, terwijl op de Sjabbaton-dagen geen dienstwerk is toegestaan. Dit onderscheid moet klaarblijkelijk volgens de Torah en krachtens Ex. 12:16 zo verstaan worden dat op de Sjabbaton-dagen voedsel bereid mag mag worden, terwijl dit op de wekelijkse Sjabbat en op Jom Kippoer niet is toegestaan. Het verschil tussen wel of geen voedselbereiding is het enige verschil tussen de werkverboden van Jom Tov en Sjabbat dat in de Torahtekst te vinden is. Volgens Ex. 12:16 geldt voedselbereiding als toegestaan werk voor de eerste en de zevende dag van het Matsotfeest, waaruit men kan afleiden dat voedselbereiding volgens de Torah wel werk maar geen dienstwerk is. Krachtens Lev. 23:24-25, 35-36, 39 is “geen dienstwerk” de rust die met de term ‘Sjabbaton’ wordt uitgedrukt. Hoewel de eerste en de zevende dag van het Matsotfeest en de dag van het Wekenfeest in Lev. 23 niet als ‘Sjabbaton’ worden aangemerkt wordt toch de Sjabbaton-rust, dus de onthouding van dienstwerk, op die dagen duidelijk geboden (Lev. 23:7-8, 21).

 

Nu wordt ook inzichtelijk waarom Jom Kippoer een ‘Sjabbat Sjabbaton’ genoemd wordt. We zien in Lev. 23 dat Jom Kippoer weliswaar een jaarlijkse feestdag is en geen wekelijkse Sjabbat, maar dat het werkverbod op Jom Kippoer even streng is als dat op de wekelijkse Sjabbat. Dit hangt ongetwijfeld samen met het gegeven dat Jom Kippoer een boetedag is, een dag waarvoor geldt: “dan zult gij uw zielen verootmoedigen” (Lev. 23:27), hetgeen volgens de traditie altijd is verstaan als een vastendag. Op deze dag voedsel bereiden ter wille van de dag zelf heeft dus geen zin, terwijl voedselbereiding ter wille van een andere dag reeds uitgesloten is door het Sjabbaton-werkverbod, dat alleen voedselbereiding voor de feestdag zelf toestaat. Het Jom Kippoer werkverbod is daarom even streng als het Sjabbat werkverbod.

 

Het onderscheid tussen de termen ‘Sjabbat’ en ‘Sjabbaton’ is dus een onderscheid tussen twee niveau’s van het werkverbod, en dit onderscheid wordt door de Torah op precieze wijze gehanteerd. De jaarlijkse feestdagen kunnen dus geen ‘Sjabbat’ genoemd worden, uitgezonderd, zoals zojuist aangetoond, de Grote Verzoendag.

 

 

4. “De volgende dag na de Sjabbat”

 

De voorafgaande analyse heeft grote consequenties voor de status van de eerste dag van het Matsotfeest. Op de daarop volgende dag begint volgens de rabbinale theorie de Omertelling. Volgens Lev. 23:15 begint deze telling op de dag van het beweegoffer van de garf van de eerstelingen, en dit beweegoffer is volgens de tekst “de volgende dag na de Sjabbat” (Lev. 23:11). Lev. 23:15-16 stelt: “Daarna zult gij u tellen van de andere dag na de Sjabbat, van de dag, dat gij de garve van het beweegoffer zult gebracht hebben; het zullen zeven volkomen Sabbatten zijn; Tot de andere dag, na de zevende Sjabbat, zult gij vijftig dagen tellen, dan zult gij een nieuw spijsoffer aan HaSjeem offeren”.

 

Volgens de rabbinale theorie begint de Omertelling altijd op 16 Niesan en moet de in Lev 23:11 & 15 aangeduide “dag na de Sjabbat” dus 16 Niesan zijn, met als gevolg dat de daar genoemde Sjabbat de eerste Jom Tov van het Matsotfeest moet zijn, 15 Niesan. Dit zou echter betekenen dat de eerste dag van het feest hier als ‘Sjabbat’ werd betiteld. Gezien de voorafgaande beschouwingen over de termen ‘Sjabbat’ en ‘Sjabbaton’ is dit echter geheel en al onaannemelijk. We hebben immers duidelijk gemaakt dat de jaarlijkse feestdagen niet ‘Sjabbat’ worden genoemd maar hoogstens ‘Sjabbaton’.

 

Het tekstverband van Leviticus 23 laat geen andere redelijke mogelijkheid toe dan dat de Sjabbat die in :11 genoemd wordt een wekelijkse Sjabbat is. De term ‘Sjabbat’ valt voor het eerst in :3 en daaropvolgende keer in :11. De in :11 genoemde Sjabbat wijst dus logischerwijze terug naar de in :3 genoemde Sjabbat, die de wekelijkse Sjabbat is. Bovendien is het woord ‘Sjabbat’ in :11 nog voorzien van het lidwoord, ‘HaSjabbat’, hetgeen betekent dat verwezen wordt naar een in reeds bekend veronderstelde Sjabbat, wat alleen de reeds eerder genoemde wekelijkse Sjabbat kan zijn.

 

Verder bewijs dat het hier alleen om een wekelijkse Sjabbat kan gaan vinden we in ::15-16. Volgens de daar gegeven aanwijzingen moeten er vanaf de dag na de zojuist genoemde Sjabbat zeven Sabbatten geteld worden. Indien we nu overeenkomstig de rabbijnse opvatting aannemen dat de Sjabbat die voorafgaat aan de eerste dag van de Omertelling niet de wekelijkse Sjabbat is maar een feestdag, namelijk de eerste Jom Tov van het Matsotfeest (15 Niesan), dan lijkt het geboden te zijn dat ook de zeven Sabbatten van ::15-16 zeven feestdagen zijn. Dat is echter onmogelijk. Er zijn geen zeven feestdagen tussen 15 Niesan en het Wekenfeest. De enige feestdag die in deze periode valt is de zevende dag Matsot, 21 Niesan. De rabbijnse opvatting wijkt daarom hier uit naar de verklaring dat de zeven Sabbatten zeven weken zijn, niet zeven feestdagen of zeven wekelijkse Sabbatten.

 

Deze laatste verklaring is echter zeer problematisch, om niet te zeggen volkomen onhoudbaar, en wel om de volgende redenen. In de eerste plaats heeft zoals reeds opgemerkt de term ‘Sjabbat’ in de Torah en in heel de Tenach nimmer de betekenis van ‘week’, en deze betekenis steunt zeker op geen enkel tekstgegeven in de context van Lev. 23. Natuurlijk kan men een zeker tijdsverloop in plaats van door een aantal Sabbatten evengoed aanduiden door een aantal weken — en bijgevolg kan men heel goed spreken van het Wekenfeest, zoals geschiedt in Dt. 16:9-10 — doch daaruit mag men geenszins besluiten dat men de term ‘Sabbatten’ van Lev. 23:15-16 mag vervangen door de term ‘weken’. Men vervangt de uitdrukking ‘zeven Sabbatten’ in deze tekst toch ook niet door ‘vijftig dagen’, al zijn zeven Sabbatten vijftig dagen?

 

In de tweede plaats ontstaat er door de vertaling van ‘Sjabbat’ door ‘week’ een onoplosbaar probleem in Lev. 23:15. Hier komt het woord ‘Sjabbat’ tweemaal in dezelfde volzin voor, de eerste keer in het enkelvoud en de tweede keer in het meervoud. Volgens de rabbijnse verklaring zou dit woord de eerste keer ‘feestdag’ betekenen en de tweede keer ‘week’. Er valt moeilijk iets onaannemelijkers te bedenken dan deze verklaring, volgens welke het woord ‘Sjabbat’ binnen één en dezelfde volzin twee verschillende betekenissen heeft, die bovendien beide niet de betekenis van dit woord zijn in heel de Torah en zelfs heel de Tenach. Indien het woord ‘Sjabbat’ de eerste keer dat het in de zin voorkomt zonodig ‘feestdag’ moet betekenen, moet het dit ook de tweede keer betekenen en dan zegt :15 dat “zeven volkomen feestdagen” moeten worden geteld, een lezing die we hierboven al als onmogelijk hebben afgewezen. Er zijn immers geen zeven feestdagen tussen Pesach en het Wekenfeest. Maar indien het woord ‘Sjabbat’ de tweede keer dat het in de zin voorkomt zonodig ‘week’ moet betekenen, moet het dit ook de eerste keer betekenen, en bij deze lezing gaat Lev. 23:15-16 als volgt luiden: “Daarna zult gij u tellen van de andere dag na de week, van de dag, dat gij de garf van het beweegoffer zult gebracht hebben; het zullen zeven volkomen weken zijn”. Wat de dag “na de week” is, is hier niet duidelijk. Deze lezing is evenmin mogelijk, aangezien zij het noodzakelijk maakt om in :11 het woord ‘Sjabbat’ ook door ‘week’ te vervangen, waardoor het onduidelijk wordt wat er in :11 bedoeld wordt. Gaat het hier om een volledige week van zondag tot en met Sjabbat, of gaat het hier om de week van het Matsotfeest? Beide lezingen van de tekst zijn zo gekunsteld dat men zich onwillekeurig afvraagt hoe men de enige voor de hand liggende betekenis is van ‘Sjabbat’ over het hoofd heeft kunnen zien. En de rabbijnse uitleg, die de lezingen ‘feestdag’ en ‘week’ voor ‘Sjabbat’ combineert is de meest onwaarschijnlijke van alle. Indien het woord ‘Sjabbat’ in één en dezelfde volzin zowel ‘feestdag’ als ‘week’ moet betekenen en beslist niet, volgens zijn gewone betekenis, de wekelijkse rust op de zevende dag van de week mag aanduiden, dan heeft men van alle onwaarschijnlijke lezingen de onwaarschijnlijkste en van alle onmogelijke interpretaties de onmogelijkste uitgekozen. Daarmee is de rabbijnse uitleg van Lev. 23:11 & 15-16 en de daarop gebaseerde halachah betreffende het begin van de Omertelling (16 Niesan) en de datum van het Wekenfeest (6 Siewan) duidelijk gedisqualificeerd. Men houdt eenvoudig geen mogelijkheid van een consistente tekstlezing van Lev. 23 over indien men deze rabbinale exegese accepteert. Ze is niet alleen in strijd met de tekstgegevens van Lev. 23; ze is zelfs innerlijk tegenstrijdig.

 

 

5. Het traditionele beroep op Joz. 5:11

 

De rabbinale datum voor het begin van de Omer, Niesan 16, wordt vaak nader verdedigd met een beroep op het Pesach dat beschreven wordt in het Boek Jozua. Joz. 5:10-11 zegt: “Terwijl de kinderen Israels te Gilgal gelegerd waren, zo hielden zij het Pesach op de veertiende dag van die maand, in de avond, op de vlakke velden van Jericho. En zij aten van het overjarige koren van het land, de volgende dag van het Pesach, ongezuurde broden en gerooste aren, juist op diezelfde dag”. Men ziet in deze verzen vaak een aanleiding om te denken dat de dag die hier “de volgende dag van het Pesach” genoemd wordt de 16^de Niesan was, de dag waarop volgens de rabbijnse uitleg van Lev. 23:10-14, 15-16 de Omer moest worden gebracht. Men verwijst dan in het bijzonder naar Lev. 23:14, alwaar gezegd wordt: “gij zult geen brood, noch geroost koren, noch groene aren eten, tot op die dag, dat gij de offerande van uw G-d zult gebracht hebben”. Uit het feit dat in Joz. 5:11 vermeld wordt dat de Israelieten koren en gerooste aren van het land aten leidt men dan af dat de Omer reeds was gebracht. In zijn artikel “Counting the Omer” (2002) heeft Tim Hegg nogmaals de rabbinale positie langs deze weg verdedigd. Hij vestigt er in het bijzonder de aandacht op dat de Israelieten pas op de 16^de Niesan het land konden betreden, aangezien de 15^de een Jom Tov was. En hij legt de uitdrukking “de volgende dag na het Pesach” uit als betreffend de 16^de Niesan. De dag na het Pesach zou hier niet zijn de dag na de 14^de Niesan, de dag waarop het Pesachlam geslacht werd, maar de dag na de aansluitende eerste feestdag van het Matsotfeest, 15 Niesan. Hegg baseert zich hiervoor op Dt. 16:1, waar het Pesach houden lijkt in te sluiten de viering van de eerste dag van het Matsotfeest.

 

Maar is deze gedachtengang aannemelijk en deze verdeding van de rabbinale positie inderdaad sluitend? Het schijnt mij toe dat dit allerminst het geval is. In de eerste plaats is het onjuist om te stellen dat de Israelieten pas op de 16^de Niesan het land konden betreden wegens de Jom Tov van de 15^de. Ze hadden volgens het relaas van de voorafgaande hoofstukken de Jordaan immers al overgestoken en waren dus reeds in het land. En is uit Dt. 16:1 af te leiden dat “de volgende dag na het Pesach” de 16^de Niesan is? Deze afleiding is op zijn minst zeer twijfelachig. Er is daarentegen in de Torah zelf een rechtstreekse aanwijzing te vinden voor wat de uitdrukking “de volgende dag na het Pesach” [mimacharot haPesach] betekent. In Num. 33:3 vinden we exact dezelfde uitdrukking: “Zij reisden dan van Raméses; in de eerste maand, op de vijftiende dag van de eerste maand, de dag na het Pesach [mimacharot haPesach] trokken de kinderen Israels uit door een hoge hand, voor de ogen van alle Egyptenaren”. Volgens deze tekst is de dag na het Pesach de 15^de en niet de 16^de Niesan.

 

Wegens de exact gelijkluidende uitdrukking in de Torah zelf lijkt daarom de uitleg voor de hand te liggen dat de volgende dag na het Pesach in Joz. 5:11 de 15^de Niesan is. De moeilijkheden die hiertegen gemaakt worden in verband met Lev. 23:14 zijn gemakkelijk op te lossen. Niet het eten van graan en graanprodukten zondermeer, maar het eten van de nieuwe oogst, wordt door deze tekst verboden vóórdat de Omer is afgesneden en ten offer gebracht. De Israelieten aten echter op die dag niet van de nieuwe oogst maar van het overjarige koren van het land, zoals de tekst zegt. Dat het hier inderdaad om de 15^de Niesan gaat is temeer aannemelijk wegens het bijgevoegde “juist op dezelfde dag”. De aanhangers van de rabbijnse traditie willen ons doen geloven dat deze uitdrukking in verband staat met het “tot op die dag” van Lev. 23:14, en er dus op zou wijzen dat “de dag na het Pesach” hier de dag is waarop de Omer wordt gebracht. Volgens de rabbijnse uitleg zou dat natuurlijk de 16^de moeten zijn. Maar veel waarschijnlijker is, dat het “juist op dezelfde dag” van Joz. 5:11 een reminiscentie is aan Ex. 12:41, alwaar we exact dezelfde uitdrukking aantreffen als in Joz. 5:11, b’etzem hajom. Deze uitdrukking is echter niet geheel en al gelijkluidend met die in Lev. 23:14, ad etzem hajom. In Ex. 12:41 gaat het om 15^de Niesan, en wordt beklemtoond dat de Israelieten juist op de dag af na 430 jaren uitgetrokken zijn uit Egypte. In Joz. 5:11 wordt beklemtoond dat zij juist 40 jaren na de uittocht uit Egypte, opnieuw op de dag af, van het (overjarige) koren van het land gegeten hebben; “juist op diezelfde dag”, en dus op 15 Niesan.

 

 

6. Het beroep op de Septuagint

 

Met name christelijke of messiasbelijdende voorstanders van de rabbijnse data voor de Omertelling en het Wekenfeest hebben zich vaak voor de teksten uit Lev. 23 beroepen op het getuigenis van de Septuagint (LXX) vertaling. Dit beroep is echter in hoge mate een vergeefse zaak, daar de LXX, zoals we zullen zien, inhoudelijk sterk overeenstemt met onze tot nog toe op de masoretische tekst gebaseerde bevindingen. Hoewel de LXX in Lev. 23:15 “volkomen weken” heeft in plaats van “volkomen Sabbatten”, en zo dus een opening lijkt te bieden voor de rabbijnse opvatting, heeft deze editie in :15, net als de masoretische tekst, “de dag na de Sjabbat” (epaurion ton sabbatoon). In de vertaling van de LXX wordt bovendien het terminologische onderscheid tussen de Sjabbat en de feestdagen scherp gehandhaafd en worden de feestdagen geen ‘Sjabbat’ genoemd. Het griekse ‘Sabbatoon’ wordt gebruikt voor het hebreeuwse ‘Sjabbat’ en het griekse ‘Anapausis’ voor het hebreeuwse ‘Sjabbaton’. In 23:15 bestaat er dus in de LXX geen verwarring over de questie waar ‘Sabbatoon’ naar verwijst. Dit kan alleen de wekelijkse Sjabbat zijn.

 

De enige tekst die in de LXX een reëel probleem oplevert is Lev. 23:11. In plaats van “de volgende dag na de Sjabbat” heeft de LXX hier: “de volgende dag na de eerste” (tei epaurion tes prootes), en deze aanduiding lijkt inderdaad de rabbijnse Niesan 16 theorie te ondersteunen. “De eerste” verwijst dan naar “de eerste dag” (hemera te proote) van :7.

 

Uit deze tekst alleen kan echter niet afgeleid worden dat de LXX de rabbijnse theorie bevestigt. Verre van dat. Deze tekst bewijst hoogstens dat de LXX op dit punt geen duidelijkheid verschaft, of misschien ook inconsistent is. Het “de volgende dag na de eerste” (tei epaurion tes prootes) van Lev. 23:11 neemt immers niet het “de volgende dag na de Sjabbat” (tes epaurion toon sabbatoon) van 23:15 weg. Deze twee teksten kunnen moeilijk met elkaar in overeenstemming gebracht worden, maar waarom zou men deze ene tekst (23:11) zo’n groot gewicht geven dat het hierboven geconstateerde consequente taalgebruik doorheen de tekst van Lev. 23 wat betreft ‘Sjabbat’ (Sabbatoon) en ‘Sjabbaton’ (Anapausis) erdoor zou worden ontkracht? We weten dat de LXX allerlei revisies heeft ondergaan en het is niet uitgesloten dat het conflict rond de Omer ook in deze vertaling zijn sporen heeft nagelaten, zodat de rabbijnse opvatting zich mogelijkerwijze heeft kunnen geldend maken in Lev. 23:11. Het is echter evenmin uitgesloten dat Lev. 23:11 een geval van gewoon tekstbederf is, en dat er oorspronkelijk een uitdrukking heeft gestaan die de dag na de Sjabbat met de eerste dag (van de week) vereenzelvigde, zoals nu een pleonastische lezing van deze tekst zou doen door ‘epaurion’ in gedachten met ‘tes prootes’ te vereenzelvigen’. Hoe dit ook precies zij, duidelijk is dat het niet mogelijk is aan de tekst van de LXX een doorslaggevend of ook maar een krachtig argument te ontlenen om de rabbijnse Omertheorie te ondersteunen.

 

 

7. Welke Sjabbat? Een messiaanse interpretatie

 

De vraag die telkens gesteld wordt aan degenen die de Omer willen beginnen op de dag na de wekelijkse Sjabbat, luidt: Na welke wekelijkse Sjabbat moet worden begonnen met tellen? Deze vraag wordt zelfs tot inzet gemaakt van overwegingen die de bedoeling hebben de rabbijnse theorie alsnog als de enig juiste of althans als de enig praktisch uitvoerbare voor te stellen. Immers, indien er geen overtuigend antwoord gegeven kan worden op deze vraag, lijkt de rabbijnse opvatting — zelfs indien ze niet in overeenstemming kan worden gebracht met de tekst van de Torah — althans het voordeel te genieten van de duidelijkheid, zij het ook de duidelijkheid van een duidelijke fout.

 

In de Torah wordt de begindatum van de Omer in sterke mate aan agrarische omstandigheden gekoppeld. Uit de volgorde van de feesten in Lev. 23 wordt duidelijk dat de Omer niet geteld kan worden voorafgaande aan Pesach en er is ook geen traditie die deze gedachte ondersteunt. Er is echter niet een heel nauw verband tussen de passage over Pesach en het Matsotfeest (Lev. 23:5-8), en de passage over de Omer (Lev. 23:9-16). Met 23:9 begint een nieuw gedeelte van de tekst, dat niet direct aansluit bij het voorafgaande. Deze stand van zaken en het gewicht van de agrarische factor worden bevestigd door de instructies aangaande de Omer in Dt. 16:9. “Zeven weken zult gij u tellen; van dat men met de sikkel begint in het staande koren, zult gij de zeven weken beginnen te tellen.” Het beginpunt van de Omer wordt door deze tekst gefixeerd op “van dat men met de sikkel begint in het staande koren”. In verband met Lev. 23:9-11 ziet men hier in ieder geval een bevestiging van de Sadducese opvatting dat de Omer op een zondag begint. De bepaling van Dt. 16:9 is niet goed verenigbaar met de aanname van een vaste datum. Zodra het koren geschikt was om er de sikkel in te slaan kon de Omer worden gebracht. De Sjabbat waarna of de zondag waarop dit gebeuren moest kon blijkbaar variëren, afhankelijk van de toestand van de velden, maar zou uiteraard altijd vrij dicht volgen op Pesach.

 

De agrarische traditie wordt ook bevestigd door de gegevens van het Nieuwe Testament. In de eerste plaats is daar de belangrijke tekst van Lk. 6:1, waarover al veel te doen is geweest. “En het geschiedde op de tweede eerste Sjabbat, dat hij door het gezaaide ging; en zijn leerlingen plukten de aren, en aten ze, die wrijvende met de handen.” De uitdrukking “op de tweede eerste Sjabbat” (en sabbatooi diaporeuesthai) is natuurlijk zeer eigenaardig. Hoe kan er een tweede eerste Sjabbat zijn?

 

Sommige voorstaanders van de Farizese traditie leggen deze tekst zo uit dat de eerste Sjabbat hier de Jom Tov van Pesach is en de tweede Sjabbat de eerste wekelijkse Sjabbat na de Jom Tov. Anderen menen dat bedoeld is de eerste Sjabbat na de tweede dag van het Matsotfeest, dus de eerste Sjabbat na de 16^de Niesan. De eerstgenoemde uitleg heeft echter het nadeel dat ze niet overeenstemt met het taalgebruik in het NT. Niet alleen de Tenach, ook het NT maakt nauwkeurig onderscheid tussen een Sjabbat en een Jom Tov, en de jaarlijkse feestdagen worden in het NT niet ‘Sjabbat’ genoemd. Indien we acht slaan op dit gegeven worden reeds tevoren een aantal uitlegmogelijkheden buitengesloten, en lijkt een verband met Lev. 23 en de Omertelling zich op te dringen, temeer omdat de tekst refereert aan de oogsttijd. De tweede uitleg heeft het nadeel dat het niet langer om een verband tussen twee Sabbatten gaat, dat toch door de uitdrukking lijkt te worden gelegd.

 

Indien de Omertelling altijd op een zondag begint is er echter alle reden om rond Pesach twee bijzondere wekelijkse Sabbatten te onderscheiden welke beide in zekere zin de eerste zijn. Namelijk de Sjabbat die onmiddellijk voorafgaat aan het brengen van de Omer en de Sjabbat die de eerste Sjabbat is van de zeven Sabbatten die geteld moeten worden. Op de Sjabbat onmiddellijk voorafgaande aan de Omer was het niet toegestaan van de nieuwe oogst te eten, en daarom vermeldt Lukas dat het in het in Lk. 6:1 verhaalde om de tweede eerste Sjabbat ging, namelijk om de Sjabbat die de eerste was van de reeks van zeven. Aangezien die Sjabbat na de Omer viel was er geen belemmering meer om van de oogst te eten voorzover het om het voorschrift van Lev. 23:14 ging. Het vervolg van Lukas’ verhaal gaat dan ook niet over die questie maar over de Sabbatswet als zodanig.

 

De tekst uit Lukas geeft ons echter geen precies antwoord op de vraag na welke wekelijkse Sjabbat de Omer werd gebracht. En sinds de verwoesting van de tweede Tempel speelt de agrarische factor uiteraard geen rol meer. De Omer garve kan niet meer worden gebracht en er zijn geen Tempelautoriteiten die de datum kunnen vaststellen. Wel is bekend dat de oude Sadducese traditie er de voorkeur aan gaf de Omer te offeren op de eerstvolgende zondag na Pesach in de strikte zin, dus op de eerste zondag na het brengen van het Pesachoffer van de 14^de Niesan. En deze traditie lijkt in overeenstemming te zijn met de grote gebeurtenissen in het Nieuwe Testament die zich rondom Pesach afspelen in het leven van de Messias: zijn dood op de dag voorafgaande aan Pesach (14 Niesan), en zijn opstanding op de eerstvolgende zondag daarna. Vanuit een messiasbelijdend oogpunt moet in die gebeurtenissen de definitieve sleutel te vinden zijn voor de questies rond de Omer en het Wekenfeest.

 

De Messias werd volgens alle evangelien gekruisigd op de dag voorafgaande aan de Sjabbat (Mt. 27:62; Mk. 15:42; Lk. 23:54; Joh. 19:31), dus op een vrijdag. Deze vrijdag was in dat jaar tevens de dag voorafgaande aan het Pesach- of Matsotfeest. Dit blijkt uit Joh. 18:28 en 19:14. De kruisiging vond dus plaats op 14 Niesan, de dag waarop de Pesachlammeren werden geslacht ter herdenking van de Uittocht uit Egypte. De Messias werd op die dag gekruisigd als het ware Pesachlam, waardoor wij uitgeleid worden uit deze wereld en op weg gaan naar de komende wereld. Hij werd begraven juist vóór het ingaan van de Sjabbat die tevens de eerste Jom Tov dag van Pesach was.

 

De Messias zou volgens de lijdensaankondigingen in de evangelien verrijzen op de derde dag (Mt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mk. 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Lk. 9:22; 18:33). Paulus bevestigt deze traditie van de verrijzenis op de derde dag (1 Cor. 15:4). Op die dag werd Yeshua, zonder bederf gezien te hebben (Hd. 2:31; 13:34-37) door de Vader uit de doden opgewekt als de eersteling van de ontslapenen (1 Cor. 15:20), als eersteling van geheel de oogst. De opstandingsdag was volgens alle NT getuigenissen een zondag, de dag na de Sjabbat (Mt. 28:1-7; Mk. 16:1-9; Lk. 24:1-7; Joh. 20:1-23). Deze zondag viel op 16 Niesan, en kan geen andere dag geweest zijn dan de eerste dag van de Omer.

 

Op het eerste gezicht lijken deze gegevens erop te wijzen dat de Sadducese en de Farizese traditie gelijkelijk bevestigd worden door de data van de dood en opstanding van Yeshua. Indien de kruisigingsdag 14 Niesan immers op een vrijdag viel, dan viel de Jom Tov dag van Pesach, 15 Niesan, samen met de wekelijkse Sjabbat. De daaropvolgende dag zou dus zowel de dag na de wekelijkse Sjabbat zijn, volgens de Sadducese interpretatie van Lev. 23:11 als de dag na de feestdag, volgens de Farizese interpretatie.

 

Deze gevolgtrekking is echter beslist onjuist. We hebben immers eerder reeds vastgesteld — en wel op grond van gegevens van de Torahtekst alleen — dat de dag van het brengen van de eerstelinggarve, de eerste dag van de Omertelling, altijd een zondag moet zijn, en bovenal dat de Farizese opvatting in flagrante strijd met de Torahtekst is. Op grond van de tekstgegevens van de Torah alleen is dus de Farizese interpretatie reeds geheel en al uitgesloten. Het enige overblijvende onduidelijke punt, dat nog om opheldering vroeg, was op precies wélke zondag de Omertelling  dient te beginnen. We hebben gezien dat de Torahtekst daarover geen definitief uitsluitsel geeft, omdat het begin van de telling afhankelijk is van agrarische factoren. De oude priesterlijke traditie is echter dat de Omer bij voorkeur dient te worden gebracht op de eerste zondag na Pesach in de strikte zin, dat wil zeggen de eerste zondag na het slachten van het Pesachlam. Dit is dus de eerste zondag na 14 Niesan. Deze zondag is de dag van de verrijzenis van Yeshua, die op 14 Niesan als het ware Pesachlam werd geslacht.

 

In de toekomst van het Messiaanse Rijk zal het begin van de Omer opnieuw afhankelijk zijn van agrarische factoren, aangezien dan de Tempel opnieuw zal functioneren. Maar die tijd zal ongetwijfeld zo gezegend zijn dat het land op tijd zijn opbrengst zal voortbrengen. We kunnen er dus gevoeglijk van uitgaan dat in die tijd de Omer altijd op het ideale tijdstip, de eerste zondag na 14 Niesan, zal kunnen worden gebracht. De messiaanse interpretatie van het juiste tijdstip, die door Yeshua’s dood en verrijzenis wordt bepaald, zal dan definitief bevestigd worden.

 

 

8. Besluit: De stellingname van Beth Yeshua

 

De belangrijkste fout die in de artikelen in Melach HaArets wordt gemaakt is de terminologische verwarring betreffende de wekelijkse Sjabbat en de jaarlijkse feestdagen, de Yamiem Toviem. Nergens in heel de Heilige Schrift worden de jaarlijkse feestdagen Sjabbat genoemd, zoals we uitvoerig hebben aangetoond — behalve in het uitzonderlijke geval van de Grote Verzoendag, die om goede redenen Sjabbat Sjabbaton wordt genoemd. Indien men dit voor ogen houdt is de Farizese interpretatie van Lev. 23:11 reeds uitgesloten, en is men voor het begin van de Omer gebonden aan de zondag. Wanneer nu in Joh. 19:31 staat dat de dag van die Sjabbat groot was, betekent dit in het geheel niet, zoals in het laatst geciteerde Melach artikel wordt gesteld  dat hier ‘Sjabbat’ wordt gebruikt in plaats van ‘Sjabbaton’. Het evangelie van Johannes bedoelt daarentegen te zeggen dat die dag (15 Niesan) een grote Sjabbat was, omdat in dat jaar die dag de wekelijkse Sjabbat en de jaarlijkse feestdag van de eerste Jom Tov van Pesach samenvielen. Deze fout wordt in de hand gewerkt door een vertaling als die van Dasberg, die in Lev. 23:11 en 15 — althans de eerste maal dat dit woord in het laatstgenoemde vers voorkomt — het woord ‘Sjabbat’ door ‘feestelijke rustdag’ vertaalt. Dit is een tendentieuze vertaling.

 

Een tweede fout is de gedachte dat ‘Sjabbat’ de betekenis kan hebben van week. Deze betekenis is echter hoogstens een afgeleide betekenis en wordt in de Torahtekst zelf niet gevonden. Vanzelfsprekend telt men een reeks weken wanneer men een reeks Sabbatten telt, maar dit feit maakt Sabbatten nog niet tot weken. Ook het latere spraakgebruik om de dagen van de week naar de Sjabbat te herleiden (de eerste dag van de Sjabbat, de tweede dag van de Sjabbat, &c) betekent niet dat ‘Sjabbat’ met ‘week’ gelijkgesteld wordt. Dit spraakgebruik vooronderstelt immers steeds de wekelijkse Sjabbat als het oriëntatiepunt voor de plaats van de andere dagen. De term ‘Sjabbat’ behoudt hier dus zijn betekenis van wekelijkse Sjabbat. Ook deze fout wordt in de hand gewerkt door de Dasbergvertaling, die het woord ‘Sjabbat’ in Lev. 23:15-16 vanaf de tweede maal dat dit woord in deze passage voorkomt door ‘week’ vertaalt, wat in combinatie met de bovengenoemde vertaling door ‘feestelijke rustdag’ niet alleen tendentieus maar ronduit misleidend is.

 

Op grond van heel het voorafgaande, en in het bijzonder op grond van het daarin gegeven bewijs dat de Omertelling volgens de Torahtekst altijd op een zondag dient te beginnen, zou ik de messiasbelijdende  gelovigen van Beth Yeshua en andere gemeenten, die in dezen de rabbijnse traditie volgen of geneigd zijn te volgen, in overweging willen geven om de houdbaarheid van deze traditie nog eens te bezien in het licht van de Torah zelf. Het gaat hier per slot niet om een punt van ondergeschikt belang maar om een Torahgebod. Alleen indien dit gebod op de juiste wijze wordt uitgevoerd, wordt het tot een proclamatie van het licht van de Verrijzenis, waarvan het een afbeelding is.

A Messianic Service for Counting the Omer

 

[From the orthodox Siddur] Behold, I’m prepared and ready to perform the commandment of counting the Omer, as is written in the Torah [Lev. 23:15-16]: and ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering seven Sabbaths shall be complete: Even unto the morrow of the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meal offering to HASHEM. [Ps. 90:17] And the glorious Majesty of the Lord our G-d be upon us: prosper thou the work of our hands upon us, O prosper thou our handy-work.

Blessed art Thou, O HASHEM, our G-d, King of the universe, who hath sanctified us with His commandments and hath commanded us to count the Omer.

[According to the instruction of Lev. ch. 23 both the days and the Sabbaths are counted. One proceeds in the following manner:]

Today is *** day(s) (which are *** Sabbath(s) and *** day(s)) of the Omer.

[Some examples: On the first day of the Omer one says: “Today is one day of the Omer”. On the seventh day: “Today is seven days, which are one Sabbath, of the Omer”. On the eight day: “Today is eight days, which are one Sabbath and one day, of the Omer”.]

The Merciful One, may He return for Israel the service of the Temple to its place, through Yeshua the Messiah, may he return speedily, in our days. Amen, Selah.

Psalm 67
To the chief Musician on Neginoth, A Psalm or Song.
G-d be merciful unto us, and bless us; and shew us the light of his countenance, and be merciful unto us; Selah. That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O G-d; yea let all the people praise thee. O let the nations rejoice and be glad; for thou shalt judge the folk righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Selah. Let the people praise thee, O G-d; let all the people praise thee. Then shall the earth bring forth her increase; and G-d, even our own G-d, shall give us his blessing. G-d shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.
Doxology: [Bow at “Blessed art Thou”] Blessed art Thou, [straighten up at “O HASHEM”] O HASHEM, the Lord G-d of Israel; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

We beg thee! With strength of the greatness of thy right hand, untie the bundled sins. Accept the prayer of thy people, strengthen us, purify us, O Awesome One. Please, O Strong One, those who seek thy Unity, guard them like the pupil of an eye. Bless them, purify them, shew them mercy, may thy righteousness always recompense them. Powerful One, Holy One, with the abundance of thy goodness guide thy congregation. Unique One, Exalted One, turn to thy people, which proclaimeth thy holiness. Our entreaty accept, and our cry hear, O Knower of mysteries.

Blessed is the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.

[From the Messsianic Siddur of John Fischer, adapted:]
Master of the universe, as we (begin to) count the days of the Omer, we recall the time when our people [or: the people of Israel] lived in the land of Israel and the firstfruits were presented to thee. May this observance serve as a reminder to reclaim the Holy Land so that it may again flow with milk and honey. May our love for Israel’s land quicken our love for the Torah, Israel’s heritage. As in the past, may Eretz Yisrael become the center of our spiritual life, and may thy word go forth from Zion, O Lord, revealing thy will to all men.

Let us see the days of our Messiah when these things shall take place. Speedily cause the offspring of David, thy servant Yeshua, to flourish, and lift up his glory by thy divine help because we wait for thy salvation all day long. Blessed art Thou, O HASHEM, who causest the pride of salvation to flourish.

[From the orthodox Siddur, adapted]
Master of the universe, thou commanded us through Moshe, thy servant to count the Omer in order to cleanse us from our crusts of evil and from our defilements, as thou hast written in thy Torah [Lev. 23:15-16]: ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering seven Sabbaths shall be complete: Even unto the morrow of the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days, so that the souls of thy people may be cleansed from their defilement. Therefore, may it be thy will, O HASHEM, our G-d and G-d of our forefathers, that I may be cleansed from whatever transgression. Through the Messiah’s sacrifice may I be cleansed and sanctified with the holiness from on high, and through the Messiah’s resurrection may abundant bounty flow in all the worlds. [1 Thess. 5:23] May our whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah. And may he remove all crusts of defilement from our bodies, souls and spirits; may he cleanse us and sanctify us with thine exalted holiness. Amen, Selah.

A Messianic Service for Havdalah after the Sabbath of Passover (I)

 

This service is for the Sunday of the Resurrection, which is the first day of the Omer. The Omer is counted from the first Sunday that occurs after Passover in the strict sense, i.e. from the first Sunday after Nisan 14. Under the Sabbath of Passover is therefore understood here the Sabbath that coincides with — or else the first weekly Sabbath that follows — Nisan 14. This service is only meant for those years in which the first day of the Omer doesn’t coincide with the first Yom Tov of Pesach. There is another service for the special case that the first day of the Omer falls on Nisan 15.

 

The Synagogue is completely dark. Before kindling light recite: [Gen 1:1-3a] In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Ruach of G-d moved upon the face of the waters. And G-d said, Let there be light:

 

Now kindle the havdalah candle, which for this occasion should be big. After kindling continue:

[Gen. 1:3b] And there was light!

 

Now let the light of the candle shine on one’s fingernails and continue:

[Gen. 1:4-5] And G-d saw the light, that it was good: and G-d divided the light from the darkness. And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning: Day one.

 

In Shul the officiating celebrant [Rabbi] says:

[The following passages are adapted from the Book of Common Prayer]

Dear friends in Messiah: On this most wondrous night, in which our Lord Yeshua passed over from death to life, the Assembly of Messiah invites her members, dispersed throughout the world, to gather in vigil and prayer. For this is the Passover of the Lord, in which [If there is a Scripture reading at Ma’ariv, add: by hearing his Word] and [If Communion is served during Ma’ariv add: celebrating his Sacraments], we share in his victory over death.

 

The celebrant then says the following prayer:

Let us pray:

O G-d, through thy Son thou hast bestowed upon thy people the brightness of thy light: Grant, we beseech thee, that in this Paschal feast we may so burn with heavenly desires, that with pure minds we may attain to the festival of everlasting light; through Yeshua the Messiah our Lord. Amen.

 

The celebrant carries the havdalah candle through the Synagogue, pausing three times and singing or saying:

 

Celebrant:          The light of Messiah!

People:         Thanks be to G-d.

 

If there exists a custom of distributing candles to the members of the congregation these are to be lighted from the havdalah candle at this time.

 

The havdalah candle is stated in its stand.

 

Then the Chazzan, or other person appointed, standing near the candle, sings (or says) the Exultet, as follows:

 

Rejoice now, heavenly hosts and choirs of angels,

and let thy trumpets shout Salvation

for the victory of our mighty King

 

Rejoice and sing now, all the round earth,

bright with a glorious splendour,

for darkness has been vanquished by our everlasting King.

 

Rejoice and be glad now, O Mother Israel,

and let thy holy courts, in radiant light,

resound with the praises of thy people.

 

All you who stand near this marvellous and wondrous flame, pray with me to G-d the Almighty for the grace to sing the worthy praise of his great light, Yeshua the Messiah our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with him, in the unity of the Ruach HaKodesh, world without end. Amen.

 

Chazzan         The Lord be with you

Answer         And with thy spirit

Chazzan         Let us give thanks to the Lord our G-d

Answer         It is meet and right so to do

 

Chazzan

It is truly right and good, always and everywhere, with our whole heart and mind and voice, to praise thee, the invisible, almighty, and eternal G-d, and thine only-begotten Son, Yeshua the Messiah our Lord; for he is the true Paschal Lamb, who at the feast of Passover paid for us the debt of Adam’s sin, and by his own blood delivered thy faithful people.

 

This is the night, when all who believe in Messiah are delivered from the gloom of sin, and restored to grace and holiness of life.

 

This is the night, when Messiah broke the bonds of death and hell, and rose victorious from the grave.

 

How wonderful and beyond our knowing, O G-d, is thy mercy and loving-kindness to us, that to redeem a slave, thou gave a Son.

 

How great is this night, when wickedness is put to flight, and sin is washed away. It restores innocence to the fallen, and joy to those who mourn. It casts out pride and hatred, and brings peace and concord.

 

How blessed is this night, when earth and heaven are joined and man is reconciled to G-d.

 

Holy Father, accept our evening sacrifice, the offering of our prayers in honour of the light of the Resurrection. May it shine continually to drive away all darkness. And may Messiah, the Morning Star who knoweth no setting, give his light to thine whole creation, who now liveth and reigneth for ever and ever. Amen.

 

Other lamps and candles in the Synagogue may be lit now, preferably from the havdalah candle. The congregation recites:

[Zech. 14:6-9] HaShem my G-d shall come, and all the saints with him. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: But it shall be one day, which shall be known to HaShem, not day nor night, but it shall come to pass that at evening time it shall be light.

 

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Yerushalayim: half of them toward the former sea; and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And HaShem shall be King over all the earth: in that day HaShem shall be One and his Name One.

 

In Shul the Chazzan continues with the blessing over wine. At home first say the following passage:

[From the regular Siddur] Behold! G-d is my salvation; him will I trust, and not be afraid. For my strength and song is Yah, and he shall be my succour. And ye shall draw water from the fountains of salvation. Unto HaShem is salvation; on thy people be thy blessing, Selah! HaShem of hosts is with us; the G-d of Jacob is our refuge, Selah! With the Jews was light, and joy, and gladness, and honour. Such be the case with us. The cup of salvation will I raise, and upon the Name of HaShem will I call.

 

The cup is lifted with the right hand and the spices with the left, and the blessing over wine is recited:

Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, our G-d, King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit of the vine.

 

The spices are lifted with the right hand and the cup with the left and the blessing over the spices is recited:

Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, our G-d, King of the universe, the Creator of various kinds of spices.

 

The light of the havdalah candle should be seen through the fingers of both hands and the blessing over the radiance of fire is recited:

Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, our G-d, King of the universe, the Creator of the radiance of the lights of fire.

 

 

Then the havdalah blessing is recited:

Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, our G-d, King of the universe, who distinguishest between sacred and profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the other nations, between the Body of Messiah and the world, between the seventh day and the six days of labour. Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, who distinguishest between sacred and profane.

 

At home, before continuing first drink from the havdalah cup. In shul the Chazzan drinks from the havdalah cup.

 

The following prayers are said:

 

In honour of the resurrected Messiah. This prayer is said at every weekly havdalah:

[From the Book of Common Prayer, adapted] O G-d our King, by the resurrection of thy Son Yeshua the Messiah on the first day of the week, the day after the Sabbath, thou conquered sin, put death to flight, and gave us the hope of everlasting life. We beseech thee: Redeem all our days by this victory; forgive our sins, banish our fears, make us bold to praise thee and to do thy will; and steel us to wait for the consummation of thy Kingdom on the last great Day; through the same Yeshua the Messiah our Lord. Amen.

 

For the coming week. This prayer changes every week:

[From the Book of Common Prayer, adapted]

O G-d, who for our redemption didst give thine only-begotten Son to the death of the Cross, and by his glorious resurrection hast delivered us from the power of our enemy: Grant to us so to die daily to sin, that we may evermore live with him in the joy of his resurrection; through the same thy Son Yeshua the Messiah our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Ruach HaKodesh, now and forever. Amen

 

For this night of the Resurrection:

[From the Book of Common Prayer, adapted]

O G-d, who didst make this most wondrous and marvellous night to shine with the glory of the Lord Yeshua’s resurrection: Stir up in thy people that spirit of adoption which is given to us in him, that we, being renewed both in body and mind, may worship thee in sincerity and truth; through the same Yeshua the Messiah our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Ruach HaKodesh, now and throughout all ages, world wihout end. Amen.

 

The havdalah candle should not be extinguished, as usual, but kept burning. A hymn may conclude the service.

 

[From: Hymns Ancient & Modern, no. 135, adapted]

 

Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

 

The strife is o’er, the battle is done;

Now is the Victor’s triumph won;

O let the song of praise be sung: Alleluia!

 

Death’s mightiest powers have their worst,

Yeshua hath his foes dispersed;

Let shouts of praise and joy outburst: Alleluia!

 

On the third morn he rose again

Glorious in majesty to reign;

O let us swell the joyful strain: Alleluia!

 

Lord, by the stripes that wounded thee

From death’s dread sting thy servants free,

That we may live, and sing to thee: Alleluia!

 

Then follows Ma’ariv, and the Omer is counted.

The Pesach Seder and the Lord’s Supper: Explorations on the Messianic Interpretation of the Afikoman

 

 

by Geert ter Horst

 

 

1. Introduction

 

A tradition that has developed in Messianic Judaism is to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at the Pesach Seder. This tradition is based on the interpretation that views Yeshua’s Last Supper as a Passover Seder meal. A more particular tradition that has developed in conjunction with this interpretation is to celebrate the Supper at the Tzafun part of the Seder, and to use the Afikoman matzah and the the cup of thanksgiving — i.e. the third cup of the Seder, over which Birkat HaMazon is recited — as the two elements of the Lord’s Supper.

 

In his Messianic Jewish Manifesto David Stern endorsed this way of celebrating the Lord’s Supper and the theological interpretation of the Afikoman on which it is based. Stern wrote: “If we use the found half of the Afikoman and the third cup of the Passover Seder for Communion, non-Messianic Jews may object; but we can defend ourselves on the ground that this is what the Messiah did. If we point out that the three matzot represent Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the broken middle matzah represents Yeshua’s body, broken for us, we have theological grounds for what we do. In fact, there is good chance we have historical grounds; many scholars believe that these customs were started by Messianic Jews and invested with the meanings we have noted here, but somehow the customs were absorbed into non-Messianic Judaism and stripped of their Messianic significance” (pp. 171-172).[i] He adds a  valuable remark about modifications in ceremonial, or in the interpretation of ceremonial practices: “It would be wise for us to make such modifications only after much thought and prayer. For we are dealing with ceremonies weighted with intellectual, emotional and spiritual meaning. Ad hoc changes are likely to prove tasteless, offensive, theologically erroneous, or all three” (ibid.).

 

In his Glossary of Hebrew Words and Names at the end of his Manifesto Stern gives the following explanation of the term ‘Afikoman’: “the half of the middle matzah which is hidden at the beginning of the Seder and recovered at the end to be the final food eaten before after-dinner prayers. Messianic Jews regard it as symbolizing Yeshua the Messiah, who appeared two thousand years ago and will again appear in the acharit-hayamim but is hidden now” (p. 269).

 

In the March/April 1997 issue of First Fruits of Zion magazine another symbolic meaning is applied to the Afikoman. It is said to be “a picture of Yeshua both in his burial and resurrection”  The word ‘Afikoman’ is explained here as “He came” (p. 37).[ii]

 

Stern’s remark about ceremonial modifications cannot take away the fact that the interpretation he gives of the Afikoman ceremony of the Pesach Seder is to all probability historically incorrect and theologically erroneous. Historically it is very dubious whether there existed a proceding order of the Seder as we know it in Yeshua’s time. Prior to the time of the Mishnah there may not have been a fixed liturgy for the Seder night. There were of course the Korban Pesach, the matzah, the maror and the telling of the story of the Exodus. Pre-Mishnaic sources such as Philo and Josephus mention these elements, but they don’t mention a specific liturgical structure of the Seder. Because of this lack of early sources it may well be that in second Temple times the mitzvot of Passover night were performed in a free style manner, and did not follow a strict liturgical format.

 

It is even more dubious whether an Afikoman ceremony as we now have it was part of the Pesach Seder in second Temple times. As Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin points out in his famous work, The Festivals in Halachah: “The original and essential mention of Afikoman is in a negative sense. The Mishnah tells us, “After [the eating of] the Pesach sacrifice, one may not add an Afikoman”. That is to say, the feast of Pesach night may not be concluded with a dessert, or Afikoman, since it is forbidden to eat anything after the meat of the Pesach sacrifice. In our time when there is no Pesach sacrifice, it is a matter of disagreement among the Amoraim whether or not one may “add an Afikoman” after the matzah. The Halachah is that one may not; one finishes the feast with a kazayis of matzah, after which one may not eat at all. This final kazayis is considered either a reminder of the matzah that was eaten with the Pesach sacrifice, or a reminder of the sacrifice itself, which had to be eaten on a full stomach, i.e. at the end of the meal. In the course of time, the term Afikoman came to be applied to this final piece of matzah itself, the reason being, according to Beis Yosef, that after it no Afikoman may be added” (820-821).[iii]

 

If the Afikoman of the Seder as we now have it is a reminder of the Pesach sacrifice, or of the matzah that was eaten with it, then obviously there was no need for an Afikoman in those times when the Temple was standing — except perhaps in diaspora situations — which could mean that there was no Afikoman ceremony in Yeshua’s times, and that Yeshua did not use it to institute his Supper. Against this it can be argued that Yeshua may have used the matzah that was eaten with the korban Pesach to institute his Supper. For our days this would imply that the returned Afikoman — which reappears at the end of the Shulchan Aruch of the Seder — should be used to symbolize Yeshua’s body in the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper would thus find its proper place in the Tzafun part of the Seder.

 

In the following I’ll try to explore some difficulties inherent in this opinion. In these explorations I’ll assume pro tempore and for the sake of the argument that Yeshua’s Last Supper was a Passover Seder. Although this can be heavily doubted, and doesn’t reflect my own position, for the investigation at hand this has to be our working assumption.

 

 

2. Problems of the Common Practice

 

If one chooses to celebrate the Tzafun part of the Seder as the Lord’s Supper, as is common among Messianics, then the first problem we face is that haMotzi doesn’t occur at that moment, but long before, at the beginning of the Seder meal (after the Maggid). In all accounts of the Lord’s Supper in the NT, however, the words of the institution are said in close conjunction with the haMotzi blessing, and cannot easily be separated from it. It seems that Yeshua took bread at the beginning of the meal and said the blessing haMotzi over it, and added the words: “This is my body being given for you” (Lk. 22:19). Luke gives a more detailed account of the procedure followed at the Supper than the other Synoptics. He mentions a first cup (probably a kiddush) in 22:17-18. Then follows what seems to be haMotzi (in 22:19): “And taking a loaf, giving thanks, he broke, and gave to them, saying, This is my body being given for you. Do this for my remembrance”. Thus it seems that Yeshua did not take the Afikoman matzah to institute the Supper but instead the loaf of bread used at the beginning of the meal, over which haMotzi is recited.

 

The second problem is that the returned Afikoman is only a part of a matzah, which therefore seems unfit to symbolize the unity of the Body of Messiah signified by the fact that a whole loaf or matzah is taken to say the blessing haMotzi and the words of the institution over it. Paul says (1 Cor. 10:16-17): “The bread which we break, is it not a partaking of the body of Messiah? Because we, the many, are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread”.

 

And there is a third problem: If the Afikoman is used for the Lord’s Supper then the Seder meal itself (the Shulchan Aruch part) is no longer in between serving the bread of the Lord’s Supper and serving the cup of thanksgiving. For the cup of thanksgiving (the third cup of the Seder) follows immediately after Tzafun. Both the serving of the bread and the serving of the cup are now placed after the meal, whereas in the accounts of Luke and Paul only the cup is after the meal, and the bread is before it. Luke 22:20 has: “In the same way the cup also, after having supped, saying…”. 1 Cor 11:25 has: “In the same way the cup also, after supping, saying…”.

 

One can try to solve these problems by having the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper switched to the beginning of the Seder meal, at haMotzi-Matzah. In that case there is a whole matzah over which haMotzi and the words of Yeshua (“Take, eat this is my body…”) can be recited. And also the Seder meal is now in between the serving of the matzah signifying Yeshua’s body and the serving of the cup of thanksgiving signifying Yeshua’s blood, in accordance with the order reported above by Luke and Paul.

 

It may be asked, however, whether this solution doesn’t have the disadvantage that the Afikoman ceremony — which uniquely refers to the korban Pesach and to its fulfilment in Yeshua — now loses its typical relevance for the Lord’s Supper. The whole Seder is now a celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the Supper is no longer reserved for the Tzafun part. Does the Afikoman not lose its function by shifting the institutional words of the Lord’s Supper to the haMotzi-Matzah part of the Seder?

 

In a sense the proposed solution is logical, for the Afikoman stands for the absent korban Pesach — or for the matzah accompanying it — and is only a substitute reminder of it. That doesn’t take away the fact that the korban Pesach obviously refers to Yeshua and his sacrifice, but it was not the korban Pesach over which Yeshua’s words: “This is my body …” were spoken. The ceremony of the Afikoman seems to symbolize the Pesach lamb which once was, in Temple times, and will be, in future Temple times, but now is absent. In a Messianic context this symbolism can be applied to Yeshua, who once was here and was the true korban Pesach, and in the future will appear again, in the Messianic Kingdom, but in the meantime is absent. It may even be that the symbolism of the Afikoman can also refer to the death and resurrection of Messiah, although the resurrection normally is not to be celebrated at the Seder — which in liturgical time occurs between the death and the resurrection of Messiah — but at its own proper liturgical time, which is the first day of the Omer.[iv] (However, the resurrection can be silently hinted at, in a anticipatory manner, by means of the Afikoman ceremony.) All elements of the Seder point to Yeshua and his sacrifice in one way or another, but that doesn’t mean that they all have an institutional relation to the Lord’s Supper. As being said, the existence of an Afikoman ceremony in Yeshua’s days may be doubted.

 

Now, if one chooses to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in conjunction with the Pesach Seder, perhaps the best way to to so is to have haMotzi in conjunction with the words of the institution of the Supper, and so have the Seder meal in between the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper. In this way the Lord’s Supper is a real meal. If one chooses for the other option, then the Supper is somewhat dissociated from the meal, because the words of the institution are now separated from haMotzi.

 

 

3. An Additional Problem

 

A specific demand that presents itself in celebrating the Lord’s Supper at the Passover Seder is that one should take care to invite only believers to the Seder. Paul warns us that partaking of the Lord’s Supper requires self examination (1 Cor. 11:26-29): “For as often as you may eat this bread, and drink this cup, you solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord, until he shall come. So that whoever should eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, that one will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and let him drink of the cup; for the one eating and drinking unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord”.

 

These words of Paul may in fact plead for a distinction between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover Seder. Unbelievers in Messiah (e.g. orthodox Jewish family members) and children, and all those who are unable to “discern the body of the Lord”, are by these words apparently excluded from the Supper, while at the same time it is clear that they are not excluded from the Seder. The only Scriptural exclusion the Seder knows about is the exclusion of the non-circumcised stranger (ger) from eating the korban Pesach, as was recently pointed out in a paper by Daniel Lancaster. Paul’s words, and his account of the institution of the Supper, also seem to imply that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is exclusively a congregational matter. This is not the case with the Seder, which is primarily a family affair.

 

 

4. Messianic Afikoman Speculation Refuted

 

It has to be said here that a lot of mystification regarding the Pesach Seder and the  Afikoman has occurred in Messianic circles. Under the influence of biblical scholars such as Robert Eisler and David Daube many Messianics have accepted a speculative derivation of the word ‘Afikoman’ from ‘afikomenos’, the aorist of the Greek verb ‘afikomenai’, ‘to come’. Thus the ‘Afikoman’ in ancient times would be a reference to the yet to come Messiah, and mean: ‘the coming one’. And this thought was then connected with an even more speculative Trinitarian idea about the reason for the traditional number of three matzot used at the Seder. The middle matzah, from which the Afikoman is taken, was viewed as a representation of Yeshua and the other two matzot consequently were related to the Father and the Holy Spirit as Yeshua’s co-members in the Trinity.

 

Such ideas are pure speculations, without any real theological or historical basis. Even apart from the fact that the Scriptures don’t know a doctrine of the Trinity, there is an easy halachic explanation why there are, traditionally, exact three matzot, and not one or two, in the Passover Matzah Tasch. In Tractate Pesachim 116a of the Babylonian Talmud we find that the matzah referred to as the bread of poverty (lechem oni) in Dt. 16:3 should be broken because it fits a poor person to eat only pieces of bread, not a whole bread. According to the Tosafot, however, the requirement for two whole loaves on Shabbat and Yom Tov (lechem mishneh) is not diminished because of the broken matzah of lechem oni. That is the reason behind the traditional requirement of three matzot at the Seder. Two are designated as lechem mishneh, and one as lechem oni.

 

This conclusion was not followed by all, and there were some who followed a different practice, and this difference in practice still exists today. Rambam judged that only two matzot are required, and the Vilna Gaon followed his opinion. There is a real halachic conflict here because the Vilna Gaon not only followed the opinion of the Rambam in deviation from the custom adopted by the majority of the people, but he disqualified the traditional practice of using three matzot. The Gaon argued that this traditional practice undermines the lechem oni requirement of Pesachim 116a. By having two whole matzot, and a broken matzah, the set of lechem mishneh of the Seder night becomes superior to the lechem mishneh of all the other Yamim Tovim, whereas the purpose of the requirement of lechem oni is to have an inferior set of lechem mishneh.[v]

 

Here we have before us a consistent halachic explanation for the traditional practice of having three matzot. This practice is not related to Trinitarian theology in whatever manner. Such a relation would lead us to assume that the minority practice of those following the Rambam and the Vilna Gaon is related to Binitarianism, which is simply ridiculous. If the number of divine Persons were to be symbolized by the number of matzot used at the Seder, we could only have one matzah in the Tasch which never was to be broken!

 

In a similar manner the ‘afikomenai’ explanation of the word ‘Afikoman’ is mistaken. If one tests this explanation by substituting ‘the coming one’ for ‘Afikoman’ in the traditional text of the Haggadah recited over the Afikoman, “eyn maftirin achar haPesach afikoman”, one easily sees that this doesn’t make sense. The text clearly wants to say that one may not have an Afikoman, i.e. a dessert or other post-meal delicacies (and activities), after the consumption of the korban Pesach. Thereby it is indicated that ‘Afikoman’ is not derived from ‘afikomenai’ but from ‘epi komios’, ‘for a dessert’. This derivation also explains why the Hebrew text is missing a preposition here, for it says literally: “One does not send off [the guests] at the end of the Passover meal afikoman”. The missing preposition is in the ‘epi’ of ‘epi komios’. And thus the text should be read as: “One does not send off [the guests] at the end of the Passover meal for (or ‘to’) a dessert”.[vi]

 

Notice that this doesn’t deny that the Afikoman in a specific manner refers to Yeshua. But this reference, which from a NT perspective is clear, should not be based on a mistaken derivation of the word ‘Afikoman’. It should instead be sought in the inherent symbolism of the Afikoman matzah. If this matzah symbolizes the korban Pesach, and if the korban Pesach symbolizes the crucified Yeshua, then obviously the Afikoman matzah too symbolizes our crucified Master.

 

 

5. A New Argument for the Common Practice

 

Because of the strong Messianic symbolism inherent in the Afikoman ceremony one could, at this point of our explorations, see in this symbolism a new argument for the option to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at a distinct part of the Seder, at Tzafun. An interesting spiritual or symbolic argument presents itself in favour of this option because of a halachic problem contained in Tzafun itself.

 

In the order of the Seder the Afikoman is separated and hidden right at the beginning of the Seder, and thus long before haMotzi. This legitimately raises the question whether the blessing haMotzi, which is said later on, also applies to the Afikoman. To my knowledge there is no (other) halachic example of saying haMotzi over hidden bread. In all normal cases haMotzi is said over bread that is visible and actually on the table. This is even more clear from the halachah of the Kiddush ceremony. The Kiddush over wine at the beginning of a meal can only be said if the bread is covered. For if it were not covered, the bread would have the prerogative of being first in having the required blessing said over it. It must be hidden — so that in a sense it is absent — to delegate that prerogative to the cup, which occurs in solemn and festive meals. This seems to imply that if there is still some bread hidden while haMotzi is being said, this hidden bread is not part of the meal because the haMotzi blessing didn’t apply to it. Yet this rule is not followed in case of the Afikoman of the Seder, for according to the Haggadah the haMotzi blessing is not repeated when the Afikoman is eaten.

 

The halachic solution of this problem is that it is declared that the eating of the Afikoman was indeed implied by the earlier haMotzi blessing because the intention to eat it is an inherent part of the Seder, and may be presupposed. It is an uncostested halachic rule that bread may never be eaten without a blessing. Therefore one must assume that the Afikoman, although it was not on the table at haMotzi-Matzah, was “covered” by the blessings recited at that point of the Seder.

 

The absence of the necessity to repeat haMotzi at Tzafun may have still another reason, a spiritual or symbolic reason relevant for a Messianic interpretation. It may be that haMotzi is not recited in order to accentuate the symbolic fact that the Afikoman “is” not bread, but “stands for” the korban Pesach. Therefore the attention should not be drawn to what the Afikoman is (bread), but to what it represents. In this way the Afikoman shows a resemblance of the function assigned to the bread of the Lord’s Supper. For in the Supper the bread “is” not bread, but “stands for” the Lord Yeshua’s body. If these considerations make sense then the Afikoman ceremony shows the first traces of the later development of the Lord’s Supper becoming a distinct “Sacrament”. It certainly goes too far to call the Afikoman ceremony a Jewish transsubstantiation, but yet there are conspicuous resemblances in it of the “Holy Communion Service” of later Church history; for instance the requirement that the Afikoman should be eaten uninterruptedly and silently, in a pious and reverent manner.

 

One should realize that the option to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a distinct part of the Seder, at Tzafun, subtly implies that the Supper may eventually be completely severed from a meal and be held as a ceremony on its own. For by being separated from haMotzi and the Seder meal the real ties that connect the symbols of the Supper, bread and wine, to a meal in between, are already enfeebled. This separation needn’t to be wrong. It could be just a legitimate practical development in celebrating the Supper. My point is that one should be aware of the implications and consequences of one’s preferred option of celebration.

 

If one prefers to celebrate the Supper at Tzafun, one should not recite a new haMotzi blessing over the Afikoman. For, as I said above, the Afikoman is already “covered” by the blessings recited at haMotzi-Matzah. The only thing required of the returned Afikoman according to this option is to have the words of the institution (“This is my body…&c”) recited over it. If one prefers to celebrate the entire Seder meal as the Lord’s Supper one has to recite the institutional words earlier, at haMotzi Matzah.

 

 

6. Comparison of the Two Options and Conclusion

 

By comparing the two options hitherto considered we see that they are not completely equivalent. The haMotzi-Matzah option is the more comprehensive of the two and seems to be more in line with the procedure followed by our Master at his Last Supper than the Tzafun option accepted by so many Messianics. Duly considered, the haMotzi-Matzah option doesn’t exclude the unique function of the Tzafun part of the Seder. For one of the consequences of the fact that the Afikoman is comprehended in the haMotzi blessing of haMotzi-Matzah is that it is also comprehended in the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, if these words are said at haMotzi-Matzah. In other words, if the words of the institution are said at haMotzi-Matzah, then every piece of matzah eaten at the Seder, including the Afikoman, is designated as Yeshua’s body, and in this case the whole Seder is a celebration of Lord’s Supper. The specific function of the Afikoman in this case is still to accentuate Yeshua’s role as the fulfilment and final purpose of the korban Pesach.

 

The Tzafun option is the more exclusive one, and, as already noticed, this option separates to a high degree the Seder from the Supper. In this case the Supper is only a small — and particularly sacred — part of the Seder. This may lead some to think that this option is the better one because by partly separating the Supper from the Seder itself the Supper seems to be better “protected”, in a way, against eating it an unworthy manner.

 

Yet it must be acknowledged that both options have the serious disadvantage of excluding Jewish family members who don’t believe in Yeshua from the family Seder. And since the Seder is primarily a family celebration — in contradistinction to the Lord’s Supper, which is a congregational “for believers only” celebration — the best solution seems to be to regard the Seder and the Supper as two distinct observances, not to be mingled together. This solution is supported by the considerable evidence from the Synoptic Gospels that Yeshua’s Last Supper was not a Passover Seder but a meal that preceded the Seder and was held at the night of Nisan 14, not at the Seder night, Nisan 15.[vii]

 

My conclusion thus far is that the identification of the Passover Seder with the Lord’s Supper is not without problems. It is not so easy as it seems at first to find an appropriate place for the Lord’s Supper within the sequence of the Seder. There is a theological problem involved: The Supper is only for believers, while the Seder is for all Israel. From a Scriptural viewpoint the eating of the korban Pesach, or the matzah that accompanies it, is primarily bound to halachic rules and restrictions, while the eating of the Lord’s Supper is primarily bound to a restriction of faith, since it requires explicit faith in Messiah Yeshua. There is also a historical problem involved: The Pesach Seder in Yeshua’s time had not developed to the more or less final form it now has. Seders in Yeshua’s times probably didn’t have an Afikoman ceremony. Yet the later historical development of such a ceremony, after the destruction of the Temple, raises strong Messianic associations and overtones for believers in Yeshua. This state of affair should remind us Messianics of the importance of developing 1) a consistent halachah for our liturgical practices and, 2) a consistent theology of interpreting them.

 

---

[i] David H. Stern, Messianic Jewish Manifesto, Jewish New Testament Publications — Jerusalem (Israel) · Clarksville, Maryland (USA) 1991 (1988).

[ii] First Fruits of Zion March/April 1997

[iii] R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, The Festivals in Halachah, Mesorah Publications Ltd (New York) in conjunction with Hillel Press (Jerusalem) — Brooklyn 1999 (1981)

[iv] There is one obvious exception. When the 14^th of Nisan happens to fall on a weekly Shabbat the first Yom Tov of Pesach and the first day of the Omer coincide.

[v] Cf. R. Josh Flug, “The Mitzvah of Achillat Matzah” In: Weekly Halachic Overview at: http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/The%20Mitzvah%20of%20Achilat%20Matzah.pdf

[vi] Philologos, “Some Belated Thoughts About Afikoman” In: The Jewish Daily Forward: Online home of the weekly Forward newspaper, May 19, 2006, at: http://www.forward.com/articles/1363/

[vii] We’ll study this evidence in another article.

A Messianic Service for Havdalah after Shabbos

 

The following service is only applicable when Shabbos is not followed by a Yom Tov.

 

While it still dark, before kindling light recite:

[Gen 1:1-3a] In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Ruach of G-d moved upon the face of the waters. And G-d said, Let there be light:

 

Now kindle the havdalah candle. After kindling continue:

[Gen. 1:3b] And there was light!

 

Now let the light of the candle shine on one’s fingernails and continue:

[Gen. 1:4-5] And G-d saw the light, that it was good: and G-d divided the light from the darkness. And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning: Day one.

 

Other lamps and candles may be lit now, preferably from the havdalah candle. Recite:

[Zech. 14:6-9] HaShem my G-d shall come, and all the saints with him. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: But it shall be one day, which shall be known to HaShem, not day nor night: but it shall come to pass that at evening time it shall be light.

 

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Yerushalayim: half of them toward the former sea; and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And HaShem shall be King over all the earth: in that day HaShem shall be One and his name One.

 

In Shul continue with the blessing for wine. At home first say:

[From the regular Siddur.] Behold! G-d is my salvation; him will I trust, and not be afraid. For my strength and song is Yah, HaShem, and he shall be my succour. And ye shall draw water in gladness from the fountains of salvation. Unto HaShem is salvation; on thy people be thy blessing, Selah! HaShem of hosts is with us; the G-d of Ya’akov is our refuge, Selah! With the Jews was light, and joy, and gladness, and honour. Such be the case with us. The cup of salvation will I raise, and upon the name of HaShem will I call.

 

Lift the cup with the right hand and the spices with the left, and say the blessing over wine:

Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, our G-d, King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit of the vine.

 

Lift the spices with the right hand and the cup with the left and say the blessing over the spices:

Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, our G-d, King of the universe, the Creator of various kinds of spices.

 

Let the light shine through the fingers of both hands and say:

Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, our G-d, King of the universe, the Creator of the radiance of the lights of fire.

 

Recite the havdalah blessing:

Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, our G-d, King of the universe, who distinguishest between sacred and profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and other nations, between the Assembly of Messiah and the world, between the seventh day and the six days of labour. Blessed art Thou, O HaShem, who distinguishest between holy and profane.

 

Before continuing first drink from the havdalah cup.

 

Recite a  blessing in honour of the resurrected Messiah:

[From the Book of Common Prayer, adapted.] O G-d our King, by the resurrection of thy Son Yeshua the Messiah on the first day of the week, the day after the Sabbath, thou conquered sin, put death to flight, and gave us the hope of everlasting life. We beseech thee: Redeem all our days by this victory; forgive our sins, banish our fears, make us bold to praise thee and to do thy will; and steel us to wait for the consummation of thy Kingdom on the last great Day; through the same Yeshua the Messiah our Lord.

 

Recite a blessing for the coming week (which is the collect to be included in the daily prayers. This blessing varies every week, and is related to the liturgical year and the portions of Scripture to be read. The following is an example.)

[From the Book of Common Prayer, adapted.] Gracious Father, whose blessed Son Yeshua the Messiah came down from heaven to be the true bread which giveth life to the world: Evermore give us this bread, that he may live in us, and we in him; who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Ruach haKodesh, world without end.

 

Extinguish the havdalah candle, and conclude with a song:

[From Hymns Ancient & Modern nos. 30 & 35, adapted.]

 

Our day of praise is done;

The evening shadows fall;

But pass not from us with the sun,

True Light that lightenest all.

 

Around the Throne on high,

Where night can never be,

The white-robed harpers of the sky

Bring ceaseless hymns to Thee.

 

Too faint our anthems here;

Too soon of praise we tire;

But oh, the strains how full and clear

Of that eternal choir.

 

Yet, Lord, to Thy dear Will

If Thou attune the heart,

We in Thine Angels’ music still

May bear our lower part.

 

‘Tis Thine each soul to calm,

Each wayward thought reclaim,

And make our life a daily psalm

Of glory to thy Name.

 

A little while, and then

Shall come the glorious end;

And songs of Angels and of men

In perfect praise shall blend

 

Bow when concluding:

Therefore unto Thee we sing

O Lord of peace, Eternal King;

Thy love we praise, Thy Name adore,

Both on this day and evermore.

“…until he no longer knows…” A Purim Riddle?

 

 

by Geert ter Horst

 

« Since wine served as a catalyst throughout the saga of the Purim miracle — Vashti lost her position at a wine feast, Esther was granted her [throne], and similarly, Haman’s downfall came about through wine — our Sages obligated us to drink wine and become intoxicated. [Megilloh 7b] ordains, “A person is obligated to become so drunk on Purim that he does not know the difference between ‘Cursed be Haman’ and ‘Blessed be Mordechai’. » (Ganzfried 142:6)[1]

 

This precept of the Sages raises a question. Duly considered, the two sentences ‘Cursed be Haman’ and ‘Blessed be Mordechai’ are logically equivalent. For, in the context of the Purim saga, the cursing of Haman implies the blessing of Mordechai, and, vice versa, the blessing of Mordechai implies the cursing of Haman. The two sentences thus are two expressions of the same state of affairs, of basically the same fact.

 

Consequently, it seems that the drinking of wine is not needed at all to be in a state of not knowing the difference between these sentences. Why then, we may ask, did the Sages establish this as a measure for the amount of wine to be drunk at the festival? Is their precept itself perhaps a Purim riddle?

 

A possible solution of this riddle seems to be that at Purim we drink out of excessive joy, because the Jewish nation was in mortal danger and was miraculously saved. This excessive joy is thus not the result of our drinking, but the motivating cause of it. We are already ‘drunken’ of joy before we drink. And by drinking wine at this time we do not get drunk but instead  become ‘sober’, able to see and experience things as they really are. And we do see and experience things as they really are, if we see and experience them as they are made by HaShem, who redeemed his people on this day. What thus is the measure of our drinking at Purim? Our measure should be based on the experience of redemption of the Jewish people. As it is said, « The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour » (Est. 8:16). We cannot be honourable or see the light if we ‘are tight’. Nor are we able then to experience true joy and gladness.

 

Things are turned upside down at Purim. The order of this world is disturbed. Things raised high are cast down, and things cast down are being raised up. The order of the World to Come shines through these miraculous events. We already get drunk in a sober state and become sober by drinking wine.

 

This explanation of Megilloh 7b accords with the words of Rabbi Shneur Zalman, in his Shulchan Aruch (529) where he says: “It is impossible to serve HaShem either in levity or drunkenness”. One of the final authorities on halachah, the Chafetz Chaim, in Mishnah Berurah (695), states clearly that the proper thing to do is not to drink to intoxication, but rather to drink just a bit more than is customary — which would be a glass or two of wine — and go to sleep. This is the proper way to fulfil “not distinguishing between ‘cursed be Haman’ and ‘blessed be Mordechai’”.

 

Gut Purim!

 

________________

 

[1] Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, Kitzur Shulchon Oruch. A new translation with notes and diagrams by Rabbi Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing Corporation — New York, Jerusalem 1991.

The Oral Torah and the Messianic Jew

Moshe received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets. And the prophets handed it on to the men of the Great Assembly…

 (Pirkei Avot 1:1)

 

by Reb Yhoshua

[Note of Messianic613: This article has formerly been published on an Orthodox Jewish site that later on seems to have disappeared from the web. Since then, we have unsuccessfully tried to contact the author and ask him permission to republish his valuable article. As we are quite willing to obtain this permission, we invite the author to contact us. On his request we will immediately remove the article, if he has objections against a republication in general or on Messianic613’s Weblog specifically. We also invite our readers to inform us if they should know about the author’s whereabouts on the web.]

Messianic Jews tend to take the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, very seriously. A quick count of the number of Messianic translations of the Bible can demonstrate the Messianic Jewish love of Scriptures. There is The Com-plete Jewish Bible, the Living Scriptures, The Scriptures, and many more. It is re-markable that a group of New Testament believers who number only in the hun-dreds of thousands has produced so many translations, not to mention commentar-ies, on the Bible. Messianic believers have even gone where mainstream Christian scholars have not by producing New Testament translations that use both historical and extrapolated Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts as their source texts. These translations are invaluable in understanding Jesus’ more difficult teachings, many of which can only be properly understood in the context of the Semitic languages they were spoken in.[1] The Church is deeply indebted to Messianic believers for their scho-lastic efforts. Messianics have born a lot of fruit because of their reliance on Scrip-ture alone, but with that commitment has come a difficulty understanding some of the precious things that they have inherited from their parent religion.

The doctrine of the Oral Torah is one of the defining beliefs of traditional Judaism. Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides) included it among his Thirteen Principles of the Jewish Faith, [2] all of which a Jew must believe in order to be religiously identified with the people of Israel. Most Messianic Jews reject it as mere tradition, but for Orthodox Jews, it is the backbone of halakha, Jewish Law. It is the flesh on the liv-ing frame provided by the Pentateuch. In his introduction to Mishnah Torah Maimon-ides wrote, “All the precepts which Moses received on Sinai were given together with their interpretation.”[3] Contrary to the perception of many Messianic believers, the Oral Torah is not believed by Orthodox Jews to be the collective teachings of the Rabbinical Sages. Traditional Judaism holds that it was divinely revealed to Moses, and passed down to the sages by word of mouth until it was partially codified by Yhudah HaNasi, who gathered it into the Mishnah.[4] Further codification was resisted at first. The oral Torah was meant to be oral. But when it became clear that the transmission process was decaying even more, Rav Ashi gathered the tradition into the Gomorrah.[5] Together the Gomorrah and the Mishnah comprise the Talmud, the modern embodiment of the Oral Torah. The Talmud, however, is not simply a book filled with laws. It was written in very compact language that was designed to keep the Oral Torah largely oral. Nobody can study the Talmud on his own, and the proc-ess of passing the teaching on from teacher to student is still an important part of the transmission of the Torah.[6]

For Messianic Jews, the idea of an enigmatic tradition slipping beneath the radar of history and appearing suddenly and dramatically in the form of the Mishnah seems unlikely. Their disbelief is not unprecedented. There was controversy in Judaism it-self concerning the Oral Torah centuries before Jesus was even born. In the first century, the Sadducees and Boethusians denied its very existence. Named for Zadok and Boethus, two students of the famous Talmudic rabbi Antigonus of Sokho, the two sects were created when their founders broke away from Pharisaism because of a misinterpretation of Antigonus’ famous statement, “Do not be like servants who serve their Master only for reward, but be like servants who serve their master not just to receive a reward. And let the fear of Heaven rest on you.”[7] Zadok and Boethus understood Antigonus’ teaching to mean that there was no afterlife, and they re-jected belief in eternal reward. They reasoned that their teacher had abandoned belief in the afterlife because the dogma of eternal reward and punishment did not appear in the written Torah. As a result, they also rejected any other doctrine that was not clearly found in the Five Books of Moses. The Oral Torah fell into that cate-gory.[8] By the time of Jesus, most of the priests and aristocrats were Saducees, but the general public tended to align itself with the Pharisees and remained uninter-ested in the sect.[9]

The Karaite sect of the eighth century also rejected the validity of the Oral Torah, though they voiced allegiance to the entire Hebrew Bible, which the Saducees and Boethusians did not. The Karaites resembled modern Torah observant Messianic Jews in a lot of ways. They called themselves, “Followers of the Bible,” and they rejected many of the same traditional Jewish practices Messianic Jews reject now: shekhita, the ritual slaughtering of cattle; separation of meat and dairy; and the au-thority of rabbinical decrees.[10] Though European Karaites won themselves many more civil rights than their traditional counterparts, they were completely ejected from the Jewish community. Today there are only a few thousand Karaites living in small communities in the State of Israel.

Messianic Jews typically take a stand beside the Saducees and Karaites and hold that the written Torah interprets itself. Among those Messianic groups that believe the written Torah remains intact even today, the rejection of the Oral Torah, second only to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, is the defining difference they see between themselves and traditional Judaism.[11] There are a few exceptions. Dr. Michael Brown shocked many of those who listened to his tape series, Let’s Get Truthful, a rebuttal of Rabbi Singer’s famous anti-missionary tape series, Let’s Get Biblical, when he re-fused to engage Rabbi Singer over the issue of the Oral Law. Brown conceded the point by simply saying, “There’s something to the Oral Law.”[12] Other Messianic leaders have also taken the minority view. Dr. Stern, former Jews for Jesus board member and popular translator of the Jewish New Testament and Complete Jewish Bible, gave limited support to the idea of an Oral Torah in his Messianic Jewish Manifesto. “There could never have been a time when tradition of some sort was not a neces-sary adjunct to the written Torah,” he writes. “For the written Torah simply does not contain all the laws and customs needed to run a nation.”[13] Despite the respect af-forded these two scholars within the Messianic Jewish community, their views are not widely accepted. For the most part, Messianic Jewish leaders are resistant and even hostile to the notion that G-d gave Moses anything other than the written text of the Pentateuch at Mount Sinai.

On the opposite pole from Brown and Stern’s accepting positions are the views of vehemently anti-Oral Torah Messianic Jews. One Messianic Jew is reported to have asked an unnamed rabbi, “If you are not a missionary, then why have you rabbis lawlessly wrested authority from the kohanim and are now missionizing Jewish peo-ple away from the faith squarely founded on true Biblical, apocalyptic Torah Judaism as taught by the Jewish Bible?”[14] In addition to the position that the Oral Torah is a result of a rabbinical highjacking of the Jewish faith, others have contended that it is the result of superstitions carried back to Israel from the Babylonian Exile, or a result of, “Inflated ideas of rabbinic authority…motivated by self-aggrandizement and po-litical ambitions.”[15]

There are, of course, calmer voices. Most Messianic Jews view the Oral Torah as simply a mistaken doctrine of traditional Judaism. They are not willing to accept it, but neither are they prepared to level incendiary accusations at those who hold to it. An interesting centrist position among Messianic Jews is that an Oral Torah was given at Sinai, but was meant only for that generation. It was not meant to be bind-ing forever, and its usefulness lasted only a short while.[16]

The matter of the Oral Torah is obviously important and controversial. Different stances on the issue divide the Messianic community and cause additional bitterness between Messianic believers and traditional Jews. What is needed is an objective study of the issue. Any number of factors can cause believers to resist or accept the idea irrationally. Some may reject the Oral Torah simply because the idea is foreign. Most Messianic Jews come to Messianic Judaism from mainstream Protestantism. To a Protestant, the notion that another authority exists beside scripture is high heresy. While many Messianic believers are willing to risk ridicule for believing the written Torah still provides a valid and holy way of life, few are willing to take a stand that would send them careening so far out of the mainstream that their neighbors would begin to whisper cult. Another reason for rejecting the Oral Torah without a hearing would be what psychologists call Entrapment. Entrapment is a process that takes place when a person grows more and more committed to an idea simply because they have sacrificed something for the cause. Many of the more extreme anti-Oral Torah Messianic believers may not be capable of questioning their stance because, after they have stood so firmly against the Oral Torah doctrine, it would be too emo-tionally traumatic for them to rationally consider recanting.

There is an opposite extreme as well. There are those Messianic believers who feel that by accepting the Oral Torah they will intern be accepted by mainstream Juda-ism. Some have fantasies of the State of Israel suddenly granting all Messianic Jews the Right of Return once they all accept the authority of the Oral Torah. Visions of believers in Jesus walking down Ben Yehudah Street in Israeli army uniforms and yarmulkes cloud their eyes and interfere with their capacity to see the merits of rea-soned arguments against the doctrine. In the end, however, the issue should not be about the acceptance of Protestantism or Orthodoxy, but about which train of thought is correct. G-d is truth, and nothing false can ever get one closer to Him, even if it does make life easier. If the truth is to be found, it can only be through searching for it in the pages of history and the Bible.

1. History of the Oral Torah

Historians do not agree on how or when the doctrine of an Oral Torah entered Juda-ism. Though some claim it only arose after the Babylonian exile, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. The apocryphal book Tobit was regarded as Scripture by many Jews, until it was officially rejected and cast out of the canon by a Rabbinical decree in 90AD,[17] and it is still a part of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Bibles. Tobit is an adventure story set shortly after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and it contains some of the earliest references to the Oral Torah in non-canonical, non-rabbinical, Jewish literature. There are references to the duty to bury the dead[18] (Tobit 1:17) as well as the ban on digging or burying the dead on festivals[19] (Tobit 2:4). Neither of these mitzvos[20] appears in the Pentateuch, but are important acts of piety in the Oral Tradition. There are also references to demons, and to marriage contracts.[21] Neither of these appears in their traditional form in the written Torah, but also became important parts of later Judaism. Because the heroes of Tobit are first generation exiles from the Northern Kingdom, the creation of the Oral Torah tradi-tion had to have taken place before the exile of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BC.

The Qement, a group of Ethiopian Jews, also testify to the antiquity of an Oral Torah doctrine in ancient Judaism. The Qement practice a paganistic form of Judaism that resembles the biblical description of the idolatry of the Northern Kingdom. According to Ethiopian tradition, they, as well as the Falashas, another tribe of Ethiopian Jews, are the products of an encounter between King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba around 950BC. Though the Qement violate many parts of the Torah, they still retain a few vestiges of Judaism. Among their practices is a form of slaughter known as shekhita, a butchering technique not directly mentioned in the Pentateuch, but de-scribed in the Oral Torah.[22] If an animal is not slaughtered in this manner, the Qement will not eat it.

Finally, digs at the sight of the Essene community of Qumran, near the Dead Sea, have unearthed tefillin, or phylacteries, made exactly as they are prescribed in the Oral Torah. In eleventh century France, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzakhi (Rashi) and his grandson Rabbenu Tam, inheritors of the Pharisaic tradition, both claimed to be the latest link in the direct line of the Oral Torah’s transmission from Moses. They dis-agreed, however, on the manner in which phylacteries should be made. Rashi in-sisted that four passages from the Torah be inserted into the phylacteries in a cer-tain order; Rabbenu Tam reversed the order of the last two parchments. Some of the phylacteries found at Qumran were made according to Rashi’s description, and some according to Rabbenu Tam’s. There were no other variations. The discovery of the Qumran phylacteries proved that Rashi and Rabbenu Tam were, in fact, the re-cipients of an oral tradition at least a thousand years old.[23] The discovery of the phy-lacteries also proved that the Pharisees and the Essenes, two very different Jewish sects, shared a common extra-biblical tradition explaining, “You shall bind them a signs upon your hands.” (Duet. 6:8)

But all of the historical evidence simply demonstrates early Hebrew apostasy if there is no trace of the Oral Torah in the Bible. Certainly, the Hebrews were guilty of other forms of religious perversion very early on. They molded the golden calf even as the Torah was being transmitted. It is very possible that the concept of the Oral Torah is just another example of their reprobate hearts going astray.

The formation of a degenerate tradition would have needed to happen very early in the biblical period of Jewish history to affect the Ethiopian Jews, Tobit, and the Essenes. The earliest example of an extra biblical tradition being used by a group of Jews is the example of the Qement and shekhita, dating the development of this example from the Oral Torah to the tenth century BC at the latest. Several hundred years had passed since the revelation at Mount Sinai. Outside of Scripture, history offers very few records of Israelite life before then, so there are limits to the useful-ness of a historical search for the Oral Torah. Records simply do not go back far enough to confirm or deny its existence. If conclusive evidence for or against the Oral Torah is going to be found, it must be found in scripture.

Unfortunately, a scriptural search for the Oral Torah is very difficult. Until Saducean Judaism developed, Jews in the early Rabbinical Period referred to the Written and Oral Torahs collectively as “The Torah.”[24] There is no reason to believe the ancient Israelites would not have done the same. If it is assumed they did, then every verse that admonishes Israel to follow the Law becomes a proof text for the Oral Torah. If it is assumed they did not, then the opposite becomes true. Further, it would be futile to search the Pentateuch for examples of commands from the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah’s very nature would exclude their presence in the Pentateuch.

Scripture can shed light on the issue in two ways. If examples can be found of the Jewish people being condemned for following the extra-Biblical practices found in the Oral Torah, or if there are passages that say clearly that Moses only received text from G-d, then it can be assumed there is no valid Oral Torah. On the other hand, for the Bible to support the belief in the Oral Torah, it would have to be dem-onstrated that Scripture contains either examples of righteous people practicing pre-cepts from the oral Torah religiously, or passages that refer specifically to an oral tradition being given to Moses alongside the written Torah.

A problem arises with this approach, however. What is Scripture for us was not Scripture for any of the heroes of the Bible. Obviously when Jesus spoke with his contemporaries about Scripture, he did not quote from the Gospel of Matthew or the Epistle of James. These were not written yet. Likewise, the only Scripture in the times of any of the Old Testament characters was the Pentateuch. Acceptance of any other authoritative writings began only after the Babylonian exile. Therefore, if the Bible describes King David acknowledging a portion of the oral tradition, it would be anachronistic to believe that King David was doing so because a similar practice was mentioned in Joshua. The book of Joshua was not Scripture during the reign of King David. If characters in both Joshua and 1 Samuel mention a certain practice not found in the Pentateuch, they are not drawing on each other’s authority, but on an extra-biblical source known to both of them. With those guidelines in mind, it should be possible to begin the Scriptural search for some clue regarding the existence, or non-existence, of an oral tradition from Moses.

2. Oral Torah In the Old Testament

When looking in the Old Testament for proof texts for or against the oral Torah, the immediate evidence seems damning. One encounters several verses in the Torah itself that apparently condemn the idea of an accompanying tradition. “Moses wrote down all of HaShem’s words,” (Ex. 24:4) and, “You shall not add to what I command you or take away from it, but guard the commands of HaShem your G-d that I give you today.” (Duet. 4:2). Together these verses seem to make it clear that there is no oral Torah. There is also the testimony of Joshua, “There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel….” (Joshua 8:35). If Joshua read every word that Moses commanded, then there could not have been an oral tradition that accompanied the written Word. Nothing oral can be read. Very early in the Old Testament, the very idea of an oral Torah seems to be debunked.

The case, however, is more complicated than it at first appears. Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add to what I command you,” cannot be taken as proof against the oral Torah. The oral Torah is not believed to be a legislated addition to the text, but a divinely revealed clarification. If it is, then “What I command you…” would include those details that were not written down. “Moses,” however, “Wrote down all of HaShem’s words;” (Ex. 24:4) and could not have committed any special details to memory to be passed down later. But the Torah does not specify whether at that time Moses recorded every word in the entire Torah, or just all of the words that had been spoken to him until then. Many more commandments were given to Moses after Exodus 23, and Moses could not have written them all down at that point. The verse still provides for the possibility of an Oral Torah.

However, the conjunction and can also mean then in Hebrew. If the verse is trans-lated, “Then Moses wrote down all of HaShem’s words,” it could be understood as an introductory sentence beginning the tale of how Moses came to transcribe every-thing HaShem said to him, and the verse would again become proof that he did not receive an oral Torah. There is room for doubt in either direction.

Joshua 8:35 also leaves room for doubt. In context, it can’t be clear what is meant by, “There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel.” (Joshua 8:35) Joshua 8 tells the story of what happened when Joshua divided Israel and stood six of the tribes on Mount Gerizim and the other six on Mount Ebal. The narrative states that, “He read all the words of the Teaching, blessings and curses, according to all that is written in the book of the Teaching.” (Josh 8:34)[25] The people were commanded in Deut. 27:11-26 to stand on the two mountains and listen to the teachings concerning the rewards for obedience and the punishments for disobedience. Thus, when the Bible says, “There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read,” it cannot be certain whether there was not a word of all that Moses commanded in the Torah, or whether there was not a word of all that Moses commanded to be read (Deut 27:11-28:68), that Joshua did not read before all of Israel. The evidence against the oral Torah is not so damning that it does not leave reasonable doubt.

There seems to be a possibility that there was an oral Torah, but the possibility is not enough to prove its existence. There is also some evidence that it did not exist. Exodus 24:4 and Joshua 8:35 can still be interpreted to condemn the belief that Moses received anything on Sinai besides a written text. Is there any evidence that he did receive an oral tradition?

There are many examples of Biblical characters following and advising others to fol-low commandments that are not specifically mentioned in the written Torah. The Torah commands, “A woman is not to wear men’s clothing, and a man is not to put on women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to HaShem your G-d.” (Duet 22:5 CJB)[26] The Hebrew is more ambiguous than its English translation, and the word translated clothing more accurately means gear or equipment.[27] The oral Torah understands men’s equipment to include not only masculine clothing, but also weapons and war implements.[28] Women were forbidden to even carry swords or armor, and were certainly excluded from military service.[29] Two famous, biblical hero-ines apparently received a similar tradition. Deborah, the only female judge, held near absolute power in Israel for over forty years (Judges 4:4-5 and 5:31); but when it was time to fight against Israel’s enemy, Sisera, she called on a man, Barak, to lead the troops. Barak, however, refused to go to war unless Deborah went with the army. She reluctantly agreed, but prophesied, “HaShem will hand Sisera over to a woman.” Though Deborah accompanied the army, she wouldn’t go into combat, and sent Barak in her place. (Judges 4:14) Barak routed Sisera’s army, and Sisera was forced to flee on foot to friendly Kenite territory. Jael, the Hebrew wife of a Kenite named Heber, offered Sisera sanctuary.[30] Once he fell asleep, she killed him. Though Sisera was running from a battle, and was undoubtedly heavily armed, Jael felled him with a tent peg rather than his sword. (Judges 4:21)

The prophet Samuel also demonstrated a knowledge and acceptance of the oral To-rah. According to the written Torah, sacrifices were not permitted anywhere but at the Tabernacle. (Lev 17:1-5) The oral Torah, however, allowed several leniencies for different eras.

Before the Tabernacle was erected, the High Places were allowed…. When the Tabernacle was erected, the High Places were banned…. They came to Gilgal, [and] the High Places were allowed…. They came to Shiloh, [and] the High Places were banned…. They came to Nob and Gibeon, [and] the High Places were al-lowed…. They came to Jerusalem, and the High Places were banned and never allowed again.
(Mishnah Zebahim 14:4-8)

Scripture seems to be much more stringent. After the Tabernacle was erected the written Torah does not seem to endorse the High Places at all. (Lev 17:8-9) One of the most startling proofs that an oral Torah existed is that the prophet Samuel con-tinued to sacrifice at the High Places after the Tabernacle had been built. When Saul first met Samuel, Samuel was preparing a sacrifice at one of the High Places. (1Sam 9:12-13) Later in Israel’s history, Israel would be strongly rebuked for sacrificing at such cult sites, but because the Tabernacle was not at Shiloh or Jerusalem, the text of 1 Samuel seems to defer to the oral Torah, and allows the apparent transgression to pass without comment. The Bible’s lack of rebuke is surprising in the light of Le-viticus‘ warning, “When someone from the community of Israel or one of the for-eigners living with you offers a burnt offering or sacrifice without bringing it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to HaShem, that person is to be cut off from his people.” (Lev. 17:8-9) The only explanations possible are that either a leni-ency existed that was not mentioned in the written text of the Pentateuch, but was ordained by G-d and known to Samuel; or that Samuel was spiritually severed from Israel on the same day that he met Saul. Because Samuel continued to serve G-d and Israel for many more years, it is doubtful that he had been spiritually cut off from his people.

The special exemption that Samuel took advantage of is not the only case of a bibli-cal hero benefiting from a leniency in the oral Torah. The kingship of King David, and thus of the Messiah, was also only possible through a traditional softening of the written Torah’s rigor. The written Torah makes it clear that, “No A’moni [Ammonite] or Mo’avi [Moabite] may enter the assembly of HaShem, nor may any of his descen-dants down to the tenth generation ever enter the assembly of HaShem.” (Deut 23:3) Mo’avi, the Hebrew word for Moabite, is in the masculine. In Semitic lan-guages, the masculine form of a word is usually the neuter form as well. Mo’avi would normally be seen as referring to all Moabites, both male and female; but the oral Torah interprets the word Moabite, in this case, in the more narrow sense of only Moabite men. Moabite women, it says, may convert at any time. Ruth, the grandmother of David, was the most famous beneficiary of the oral Torahs special dispensation to Moabite women. If there were no oral Torah, King David would not have been considered an Israelite.

Some have made the claim that David would have been considered an Israelite through Boaz even though Ruth was a Moabite.[31] There is a common misconception that, biblically, Jewish ethnicity was passed through the father, and the Rabbis changed the system of reckoning because it cannot always be certain who a baby’s father is. Dr. Brody writes, “Biblically a person is Jewish if his father was a descen-dant of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.”[32] This just isn’t so. The matriarchs are often used to prove that Judaism was passed patrilinealy. They came from non-Jewish house-holds, but their children were considered Jewish because the children’s Fathers were Jewish.

It is hard, however, to find a criterion by which the matriarchs were any more or less Jewish than their husbands. Hagar also confuses the issue. She did not have a line-age any more or less tainted than Sarah, but her child was considered a Gentile. Before the Sinai experience, the written Torah is simply not clear on the issue; nor does it clarify its stance in later chapters. In the Torah, being Jewish in the early years of the Patriarchs was not a matter of being part of a chosen people, but of being a chosen individual. Even among twins, one could be Jewish and one not, as in the example of Jacob and Esau. According to Chazal[33] however, the oral Torah has always taught that minhag, tribal affiliation within Israel, is determined patrilinealy; but whether an individual is Jewish or not has been reckoned matrilinealy since the revelation at Sinai. Scripture shows that this was Ezra’s understanding.

When the Jewish people returned from the Babylonian exile, Ezra demanded that the men who had intermarried send away their foreign wives and the children that had been produced by their illegal unions. (Ezra 10:3) It is hard to understand why Ezra would demand that Jewish children be sent to live in an idolatrous culture unless, of course, they weren’t truly Jewish. Moreover, Ezra’s stance is said to be, “In accor-dance with the Torah.” (Ibid.) The written Torah never says that the children of for-eign women and Israelite men are foreigners; nor does it demand that men divorce their foreign wives. The only Torah that Ezra could be acting in accordance with would be an oral one. The same Oral Torah the Apostle Paul obeyed when he cir-cumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman and a Gentile man. (Acts 16:2)

The prophet Jeremiah also made a ruling that demonstrates a Scriptural belief in the oral Torah. Keeping the Sabbath was very important in Jeremiah’s day. Today’s common practice of simply avoiding activities that feel like work was not sufficient in his era. Desecrating the Sabbath was a breach of civil as well as religious law in an-cient Israel, and was considered a capital offence. (Ex 31:14) For public harmony, the laws of the Sabbath had to be clearly defined. The Pentateuch forbade certain activities: lighting fires (Ex 35:3), leaving one’s dwelling (Ex 16:29), and gathering sticks (Num. 15:32-36); but it left the definition of work strangely ambiguous. Some feel that this was done purposely, to allow for individual interpretation; but the oral Torah clarifies the issue with a list of 39 categories of forbidden labor. The oral To-rah interpreted, “Keep my Sabbaths and venerate my sanctuary,” (Lev. 19:30) to mean that the Israelites were responsible for keeping the Sabbath on the seventh day, and building the tabernacle on weekdays. Thus, it reasoned, the 39 categories of work that were uniquely necessary to build the tabernacle were the types of labor forbidden on the Sabbath. It is a very strange form of reasoning, and one of the oddest categories enumerated in the oral Torah is the thirty-ninth form of forbidden labor – carrying an object from a private domain to a public domain and vice versa.[34] As peculiar as the rule is, the prophet Jeremiah rebuked Israel for breaking it. “If you value your lives…don’t carry anything out of your houses on Shabbat.” (Jer. 17:22) In all the passages in the Pentateuch regarding the Sabbath, none of them ever forbids carrying objects out of one’s dwelling. The ban on the thirty-ninth form of forbidden work is found exclusively in the oral Torah. According to the book of Jeremiah, however, Jerusalem was destroyed for violating this oral tradition. “But if you will not obey me and make the Shabbat a holy day and not carry loads through the gates of Jerusalem on Shabbat, then I will set its gates on fire; it will burn up the palaces of Jerusalem and not be quenched.” (Jer. 17:27)

There is more evidence for an oral tradition dating back to the early Old Testament era. The most common examples of the Old Testament acknowledging the oral To-rah’s authority are also the most commonly over looked. They occur so many times, that it is almost never noticed that the Five Books of Moses never mention them. It is often forgotten that the written Torah never instituted either the calendar or the Temple.

3. The Calendar

After the Communist party took control of Russia, the government immediately de-cided it was time to bring the newly formed Soviet Union in step with the rest of the world. One of their first acts was to abolish the archaic Julian calendar, which Russia had been using since Orthodox Christianity took hold, and replace it with the Gregor-ian calendar, which had been in use in the rest of the world for centuries. The change immediately improved the Soviet Union’s capacity for interaction with the rest of the world. Banking was easier. A Soviet businessman did not have to write a different date on a check drawn on a foreign bank anymore. Diplomacy was simpli-fied. Russian embassies no longer had to arrange conferences using two different calendars. The Soviet Union was now literally keeping in time with the rest of the world. There was a minor draw back, however. Red October, the anniversary of the Revolution, had not taken place in October according to the Gregorian calendar. It had happened in November. The Soviets changed the date accordingly, but kept the old name. Much to the amusement of the rest of the world, until the fall of the So-viet Union, the Soviet government celebrated a holiday called Red October at the beginning of every November.

For the ancient Hebrews, a calendar change was not so simple. Accurate time keep-ing was a matter of life and death. Holidays, appointed times to meet with G-d, were set for specific dates. If the Israelites celebrated Yom Kippur, the only day the High Priest was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, on the wrong day the High Priest would die when he entered the most sacred area of the Tabernacle. Keeping the holidays at the right times was an urgent necessity, and unauthorized calendar re-form was out of the question. There was a problem, however. While the written To-rah gave clear dates as to when the holidays were to be observed, it gave no indica-tion on how to calculate those dates. It gave no system for tracking the months or even the years. It would be easy to assume that when G-d spoke of the first day of the seventh month (Lev 23:23), he was imposing a date on an already existing cal-endar; but the Hebrew calendar does not resemble any calendar in use in the area at that time.

The Hebrew calendar used by Jews today isn’t the same as the one used by their biblical counterparts. The modern Jewish calendar is a mathematical clock invented when the great Sanhedrin realized the Christian emperor, Constantanius, was going to forcibly disband it.[35] Today’s calendar was designed to keep the holidays from creeping out of their proper seasons until the year 2240AD.[36] The biblical calendar was much more complex.

In the ancient world, there were four methods that peoples used to calculate time: by the sun (solar), by the moon (lunar), by the stars (stellar), and arbitrarily. The Hebrew calendar used all four methods. The days were calculated according to the sun, and the weeks were set to a seemingly arbitrary seven-day cycle.[37] The months were determined by the phases of the moon, and the year was set according to the Zodiac’s rotation. It was so necessary for the months to stay timed with the proper astrological sign, the Sanhedrin had the power to declare an extra month when the months started to misalign. For ancient Jews, the Zodiac had a G-d given purpose apart from its pagan corruption. It taught them about the holidays.

Because the ancient Egyptians worshiped sheep, and abhorred shepherds (Gen. 46:34), when G-d freed Israel from slavery, he did it in the month of Nissan. On the first night of Nissan, Aries, the lamb, appears on the eastern horizon and ascends through the sky the entire month.[38] G-d ordered the enslaved Jews to wait until the fourteenth of Nissan, the day Aries, the god of the Egyptians, had ascended to the zenith, to slaughter the Passover lamb. (Ex. 12:18-21) When the Egyptian god was apparently at its most powerful, the Jewish slaves slaughtered its earthly representa-tion; and the Jewish G-d slaughtered the Egyptian firstborn in mockery of their fertil-ity god’s alleged power. The imagery was so powerful and important that the calen-dar allowed for the insertion of an extra month right before Nissan if Passover wasn’t going to correlate with the ascent of Aries.

The spring festivals weren’t the only ones that required synchronism with the Zodiac. According to Jewish tradition, Tishrei, the month of the fall holidays, was when G-d judged mankind every year.[39] As with Nissan, Tishrei was heralded by a sign in the sky. Libra, the scales, ascends on Rosh Hashanah to warn the world that its deeds are being weighed.[40]

None of these unique features of the Hebrew calendar, such as the added month in leap years or the number of days in each month, are mentioned in the written To-rah; and they are all so unique that it is clear that G-d did not set the holidays ac-cording to a previously existing calendar. Yet all the Biblical characters followed the Hebrew calendar when they celebrated the feasts. If there was no oral Torah given to Moses, then the Hebrew calendar was invented by men very early in Israel’s his-tory, and the holidays have been off schedule since the conquest of Canaan. Not one of the prophets or kings or, most importantly to the Messianic believer, Jesus him-self, could have possibly observed the holidays correctly if the calendar in use was different from the calendar ordained by G-d.

4. The Temple

The Temple too was a product of the oral Torah. The written Torah never acknowl-edges Jerusalem as the proper place for worship, and only briefly mentions that the L-rd will someday chose a special place for Himself. (Lev. 18:6) Only the oral Torah identifies the chosen place as Jerusalem, yet David knew where he wanted to build the Temple. The written Torah also gives detailed instructions for how to build G-d’s sanctuary. It was to be a tent erected by the priests. Even if one assumes that David knew through prophecy that Jerusalem was the place the L-rd had chosen, there is no provision in the Torah for a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle. It was forbidden to add or detract from the commands that G-d gave to Moses (Duet. 4:2), and Moses never wrote down any plan for the Tabernacle to be permanently folded up and put away. If G-d did not pass his plan to someday have a Temple on to Moses, than all of Israel’s worship from the reign of Solomon on was invalid. Be-cause Jesus frequented the Temple, Messianic Jews, as believers in Jesus as sinless, can be sure this too was clearly not the case.

5. The Oral Torah in the New Testament

For Messianic Jews, there is no higher authority than Jesus, himself. Becoming like Jesus is one of the life goals of every Messianic Jew. In the matter of the oral Torah, committed Messianic Jews must follow Jesus just as in every other matter, to be doctrinally consistent. Because of his frequent altercations with the Pharisees, the alleged keepers of the oral tradition, many assume that Jesus did not follow the Oral Torah. It is easy to overly simplify Jesus’ relationship with Pharisaic Judaism by anachronistically projecting modern Protestant doctrine into the New Testament. Scholars, however, have noticed that, “The teachings of Jesus show the closest affinity to that of the Pharisees.”[41] The fact that Jesus also had differences with the Sadducees, the virulent anti-Oral Torah sect, is often downplayed; as is the fact that whenever he disagreed with them, it was because he held to a doctrine found only in the oral Torah – resurrection from the dead.[42] As in the Old Testament, the New Testament’s view of the Oral Torah is much more complicated than is commonly assumed.

Jesus and his disciples clearly held to at least some of the oral Torah. Jesus warned his disciples against making their tefillin wide. (Mt 23:5) Tefillin are leather boxes containing scripture verses that are worn by observant Jewish men in accordance with Deut 6:8, “Tie them [the commandments] on your hand as a sign, [and] put them as frontlets between your eyes.” Most Christians take the verse figuratively. Dr. Daniel Botkin, a respected Messianic leader and publisher of Gates of Eden maga-zine, understands the commandment to be metaphorical as well. “Since there is no actual instructions to make leather boxes,” he writes. “It is highly doubtful that this commandment really means, ‘Thou shalt make for thyself little leather boxes to strap upon thy hand and thy head when thou prayest.’”[43] Dr. Botkin also points out that the Karaites, too, abandoned the literal interpretation of the mitzvah. However, abandon is the most accurate term for their decision not to follow the custom. Their practice of not wearing tefillin was unique, and not an outgrowth of a previously existing be-lief. Before the destruction of the second Temple, Judaism split into over twenty different sects, or according to some opinions, 200, and all of them wore tefillin. Tefillin were worn so universally among Jews that the Sadducees, who rejected the oral Torah, never thought to question their validity. Even some modern Messianic Jewish scholars accept the practice. Dr. Stern, in his Complete Jewish Bible, trans-lates Duet. 6:8, “Tie them on your hand as a sign, put them at the front of a head-band around your forehead.”

Jesus also seems to have regarded the oral Torah’s interpretation of the written pre-cept as the correct one, otherwise it would be difficult to explain why he would criti-cize hypocrites for making tefillin wide when, without an Oral Torah, they really should not have made them at all. Many would assert that it is not wrong to wear tefillin, only unnecessary.[44] However, while it is certainly not wrong to wear leather boxes as a fashion statement, Deut 4:2 makes it very clear that making up unauthorized religious requirements is forbidden. Jesus was not afraid to tell the Pharisees when he thought their customs were man made (Mt 15:7), but he did not condemn them for wearing tefillin. When he commented that the cases should not be made wide, he acknowledged that they should be made, albeit smaller than some of his contemporaries made them. He also acknowledged his acceptance of at least that portion of the oral Torah.

Jesus and his disciples also held a standard of kashrut, proper eating, that was con-sistent with the Oral Torah. For ancient Jews eating was a religious act, and the early Judeo-Christian believers were no different. The awesome sanctity of eating was so ingrained in the minds and heart of the early believers that even though Paul downplayed it by saying, “Now food will not improve our relationship with G-d – it will be neither poorer if we abstain nor richer if we eat;” (1Cor 8:8) three of the four commandments that the Jerusalem Council insisted all believers observe immediately upon becoming Jesus believers dealt with food. (Acts 15:20&29; 21:25) Two of these came from the oral Torah: not to eat things sacrificed to idols,[45] and not to eat things strangled.[46] The written Torah does not forbid either of these types of food, yet Jesus, in Revelation, is portrayed as strongly rebuking the communities of Perga-mum and Thyatira for breaking the ban on their consumption. (Rev 2:14 & 20) The authority of the Oral Torah in the lives of early Messianic believers cannot be doubted when half of the commands the Jerusalem council required of Gentiles were from the Oral Torah.

Jesus also demonstrated a belief in the oral traditions in his most beloved set of teachings – the Sermon on the Mount. More than a few biblical scholars have noticed that the morality demanded by Jesus in Matthew 5-7 far exceeds that which is writ-ten in the five Books of Moses. The Decalogue forbids adultery; Jesus forbids adul-terous thoughts. The decalogue forbids murder; Jesus forbids anger. Many see this as an example of Jesus’ higher calling, but few acknowledge the question his words create. If Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids adding to the commandments, wouldn’t Jesus be sinning by demanding so much more than the written Torah asks, something com-pletely inconsistent with Christian and Messianic theology?

It is easy to dismiss the question by relying on the doctrine that Jesus was G-d and reasoning that as such he could do anything he wanted. Such reasoning ignores that Christian and Messianic doctrine also maintains that he was the Son of G-d, and a man bound by his Father’s law. Nobody would suggest that if Jesus murdered some-one it would not be a sin. Thousands of protesters gathered in front of movie thea-ters when they believed The Last Temptation of Christ suggested he had committed sexual sins with Mary the Magdalene. Everybody understands that if Jesus could do whatever he liked without it being counted a sin, the claim that he was sinless would be meaningless. It is a basic New Testament teaching that when Jesus walked the earth he was perfectly obedient to G-d’s will. That obedience would have to include not adding to the Torah. (Deut 4:2)

Yet if G-d only gave Moses the Written Torah, the Sermon on the Mount would not, as Christianity and Messianic Judaism clearly hold, be a sterling example of Jesus’ brilliance and authority. It would be a demonstration of his sinfulness in violating Deut. 4:2. His claim to be anything more than a mere sinner would be condemned by his most cherished teachings. However, careful study reveals startling similarities between Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount teachings and teachings Jews believe had been passed down orally from Moses. If Jesus was teaching from an authoritative oral revelation given to Moses, then he did not disobey G-d by adding to His word during the Sermon on the Mount.

Many scholars have struggled with Jesus’ teaching, “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ And I tell you that a man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mat 6:27) It seems to demand something impossible of men, something the written Torah never asked. Even Jewish scholars have questioned its source. Conservative Jewish Rabbi Joseph Telushkin writes concerning Jesus’ words, “Judaism’s attitude is that the deed, not the thought, is what counts. That’s why the Seventh of the Ten Commandments legislates, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’”[47] However, Jesus was not arbitrarily adding an unnatural stringency to the Torah; he was teaching from a tradition Moses received at Sinai, “Not only is he who sins with his body considered an adulterer, but he who sins with his eye is also considered one.”[48]

Jesus’ comments, “If your right eye makes you sin, gouge it out and throw it away…If your hand right hand makes you sin, cut it off and throw it away,” (Mat 5:29-30) have also tormented readers for thousands of years. Some, understanding that vv. 27-30 are all teachings on lust, have suggested Jesus condoned castration. Origen, for example, castrated himself to fulfill Jesus’ command. Nietzsche too as-cribed to Origen’s interpretaition when he mocked the verse by saying, “It is not precisely the eye that is meant.”[49] Unfortunately for Origen, neither he nor Nietzsche was familiar with rabbinical literature.

Jesus certainly didn’t mean for his followers to emasculate themselves. G-d forbade the Israelites to subject even their animals to painful castration. (Lev. 22:24) Men-tion of cutting off one’s hand within the context of a teaching on lustful thoughts and improper glances was simply a quote from the oral Torah, “The hand that fre-quently touches [the genitals]…in the case of a man, should be cut off.”[50] Jesus was using the same hyperbole with his audience that G-d used with Moses to communi-cate the sinfulness of masturbation. It is extremely unlikely that he ever intended for any kind of amputation to take place.

Jesus’ ideas on prayer mirror those in the oral Torah, as well. He taught his disciples not to babble when they prayed (Mat. 5:7), and advised them to never stop praying for something they really needed. (Luke 18:1-6) What Jesus called babbling, Chazal labeled calculating, purposely making one’s prayers long so that they would be an-swered. Calculating, or babbling, was forbidden by the Oral Torah;[51] and just as Jesus advised his disciples to continue asking G-d for what they wanted, the oral Torah commanded the Israelites, “If a man realizes that he has prayed and not been an-swered, he should pray again.”[52]

6. The Oral Torah Then and Now

It is clear that early believers believed in an Oral Torah. Jesus taught from it during the Sermon on the Mount, and the Apostles commanded even Gentiles to keep por-tions of it. When rumors circulated that Paul had apostatized from the Torah, the other apostles took measures to confirm he had not been, “Telling them [Jewish believers] not to have b’rit-milah for their sons and not to follow the traditions.” (Acts 21:21 emphasis added) But was the oral Torah Jesus and his disciples ascribed to the same as the one modern Judaism possesses. It would be very nice if it were. As complicated as the Talmud is, at least it is in writing and still very much extant. If the Talmud is the embodiment of the tradition Moses received at Sinai, it is in exis-tence today, and available for study. If the earliest believers knew of an Oral Torah different from the one that is preserved in the Talmud, then Messianic Jews are faced with the very difficult project of recovering it.

Some Messianic Jewish leaders have already suggested that option. “A Messianic Jew who realizes that the Torah still is in force under the New Covenant ought to be full of questions,” writes Dr. Stern. “One can imagine creating a body of New Testa-ment case law much like the Talmud, the Codes and Responsa of Judaism.”[53] Is there such a need?

Spiritually speaking, the easy route never seems to be the proper, or even the avail-able one. The road is always hard and the gate is always narrow. (Mat.) With the Oral Torah, the case is the same. There is considerable evidence that though Jesus and his disciple did believe in an Oral Torah, it was not the Oral Torah, i.e. the one embodied in the Talmud. Jesus’ Oral Torah seems to have possessed explanations the Talmud lacks, and to not have had ones the Talmud does.

Immersion is one such example. Jesus approached John by saying, “Let it be this way now, because we should do everything righteousness requires.” (Mat 3:15) There is no commandment in the written Torah to be immersed for the remission of sins, nor does the Talmud possess such a mitzvah. Why Jesus and John felt that righteousness required immersion is a mystery for many modern scholars. Jews of the time, including the Pharisees, Essenes, and Saducees, required periodic immer-sions in a mikvah, a body of naturally gathered rainwater; but the immersion was only for the removal of ritual impurity, and had to be repeated. Outside of the early Messianic community, no first century Jewish sect practiced a ritual involving a one-time immersion for the cleansing of sins. The Talmud does mention a story that may indicate where the idea came from. According to legend, after Adam and Eve sinned and were evicted from Eden, they stood in a river up to their necks to remove the stain of sin. Also, a proselyte to Judaism was said to be a new person when he im-merged from the mikvah. Naturally, because he was a brand new person, all of his previous sins were expiated. However, this was only true of Gentiles coming into the Jewish faith. For Jews to try to reap the same reward from the mikvah would have been an innovation.

If the examples of Adam and Eve and proselytes were the sources for John and Je-sus’ idea of immersion for the remission of sin, than it would still be possible for the Oral Torah they knew to be identical with the one that is preserved today. What’s more, because Jesus believed himself sinless, his immersion could not have been for repentance. There is a passage in the Talmud that indicates Jesus’ immersion was not for remission of sins and not an innovation without precedent. According to the Oral Torah, a King should be anointed at a river so that his reign would be long like the river itself.[54] If John saw his immersion of Jesus as a way of recognizing Jesus as king, then the immersion was done in a manner keeping with Oral Torah. Immersion for the remission of sins, however, was either the result of a reinterpretation of the significance of the mikvah, or the product of a tradition separate from the one pre-served in modern Judaism. It is unclear which was the case. The difference be-tween the Messianic communities’ understanding of the Mikvah and the traditional understanding is not great enough to preclude the possibility that they are both the product of the same oral tradition.

The significance given to immersion by the early believing community is not the only example of an early Messianic practice diverging from its Pharisaic counterpart only enough to point to a possible difference in the core tradition. The manner in which the early Messianic believers accepted new comers to the faith was done largely in accordance with the Oral Torah as preserved in the Talmud. Pharisaic Judaism too immersed new comers before accepting them as members of the community. Unlike traditional Judaism, however, the early Messianic community did not demand that Gentile new comers become circumcised, a necessity according to the Talmud. How-ever, there were opinions even within Pharisaic Judaism that circumcision was un-necessary for people wanting to join the community; and James’ reluctance to make Gentile believers circumcise themselves may have also been due to another aspect of the oral Torah – Gentiles were not to be allowed to become circumcised and con-vert after the Messiah came, and James firmly believed he had.

There are, however, passages that make it clear that the Oral Torah Jesus and the apostles knew was not the one that the Talmud embodies. Jesus’s concept of what was permitted on the Sabbath was different from what the Talmud preserves as the law. Jesus did not seem to consider plucking grain one of the forms of work forbid-den on the Sabbath. (Mat. 12:1-8) He also seemed to regard human well-being, not just human life, as a cause for breaking the Sabbath.[56] That compassion would take precedent over the Sabbath seems obvious to most people, but the issue is not just one of compassion. It is certainly one of tradition. The Pharisees, too, were con-cerned with compassion; but the controversy was over which acts were truly com-passionate.

Christianity maintains a belief in a spiritual world and a physical world. Judaism and other ancient religions, such as Hinduism, blur the line between the two. The physi-cal world is not seen as a separate reality from the world of the spirit, but as the spirit world’s exposed edge that pokes through into the realm of our perceptions. When the Pharisees forbade healing on the Sabbath (except in the case of mortal danger), they were not saying that the Sabbath was more important than curing human suffering. They were holding to a tradition that taught that the damage done in the spiritual world by breaking the Sabbath would, in the end, create more human suffering than waiting until after Shabbat to cure a person would.

Of all the differences between the New Testament and the Talmud, perhaps the most interesting is Jesus’s words to the Pharisees, “Which one of you wouldn’t raise his sheep from a hole on Shabbat?” Rescuing the sheep would be a violation of the Sabbath according to modern Jewish law.[57] The verse seems to indicate that even the group of Pharisees Jesus was speaking to held a different tradition than the one pre-served in modern Judaism.

That different groups would have different versions of the Oral Torah is absolutely consistent with the doctrine. If a tradition is passed on from generation to genera-tion it is only natural for the transmission to result in discrepancies. Judaism solved the problem by reasoning that whatever the majority of people received as the tradi-tion was probably closer to the original than the minority view. Even in Judaism, it is accepted that the majority was not always correct. Sometimes, the majority believed G-d gave Moses an interpretation he had not. However, even when this was the case, the majority was still followed. Otherwise, the minority would always believe the majority was wrong, and continue practicing according to its opinion. Sects and schisms would appear, and the survival of the Jewish people would be threatened. Because the sages believed that the Judaism’s survival was more important than being correct on every single aspect of the Torah, the majority was always followed, even when it was known to be wrong.[58] Jesus’ view, as well as that of those Pharisees who would have rescued the sheep, was a dissenting opinion. Deut. 7 makes it clear that after the law was codified as it is today, it is a Torah requirement to keep it.

7. Conclusions

It is clear that there was an Oral Torah given at Mount Sinai. Tribes separated from Judaism since the first Temple period keep parts of it, and righteous members of the exiled Northern Tribes observed at least a segment of it. The Judges and Prophets made it a part of their lives, and the Apostles even instructed Gentile new comers to the fledgling Messianic faith to keep two of its commands. But what is its relevance for Messianic believers today?

For those who accept that the New Testament never abrogated the older one, it is clear that they should keep the Oral Torah with as much devotion as they observe its written counterpart. It is one Torah, given by the same G-d. Until the Saducees arose to question the validity of the oral half, righteous Jews simply referred to both pieces as, “The Torah.” (Pirkei Avot 1:1) With the scriptures so clear, it seems Bibli-cally mandated that Jews of every ilk to follow its teachings.

Jesus told his disciples, “The Torah teachers and the P’rushim [Pharisees]…sit in the seat of Moses. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don’t do what they do, because they talk but don’t act.” (Mat 23:2-3 JNT) The particular Pharisees Jesus was talking about mouthed Pharisaic doctrines while swallowing widows houses and praying for show. (Mat 23:14) It would seem that it is their negative actions, not their traditionalism that he condemned; their works not their beliefs. Even when he chastises them for being extra scrupulous with their tithes while neglecting mercy and justice, he tells them, “You should do the latter without neglecting the former.” (Mat 23:23) He was not opposed to their acts of piety, but to the hypocrisy some of them displayed. Should Messianic Jews practice the Oral Torah as passed down by the Pharisees even though it does not appear to be the one Jesus knew?

The differences between the two aren’t great. Jesus and his disciples appear to have shared a common tradition with the Pharisees regarding kashrut, tefillin, and moral-ity. On the Sabbath that they diverge; but only on the issue of whether the Sabbath should be violated to protect human life or also to enrich it. However, if they clearly diverged over the Sabbath, where did they differ that we no longer know about? Perhaps it is time for the code of New Testament Case Law that Dr. Stern spoke of to be written. In any case, Messianic Jews must begin the process of education. “Any scribe who becomes a scribe for the Kingdom of Heaven is like a something that brings forth new treasures with the old,” Jesus said. (Mat. 13:52) Messianic Judaism needs a few such scribes.

_________________

[1] David Blivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr. Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, (Shippensburgh, Pa: Destiny Image Publishers, 1994), p67

[2] Maimonides, Commentary to Mishnah, (Sanhedrin ch. 10). Maimonide does not use ‘Oral Torah’ in his Ani Maamin. It is universally accepted that Principles eight and nine refer to both the Written and Oral Torahs.

[3] Isadore Twersky. A Maimonides Reader. (New York: Luhrman House, Inc. 1972), p35

[4] Ibid p36

[5] Ibid p37

[6] Jacob Neusner, An Invitation to the Talmud. (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973), Foreward p.xi

[7] Pirkei Avos 1:3 

[8] Reuban Kaufman. Great Sects and Schisms in Judaism. (New York: Jonathan David Publishers.), 1967. P24

[9] Josephus. Antiquities XVIII. 1, 4

[10] Kaufman, Sects, pp40-42.

[11] Carol Calise. “Messianic Judaism versus Rabbinic Judaism” (www.bethemanuel.com/messj.htm)

[12] Dr. Michael L. Brown. Let’s Get Truthful, tape l

[13] Dr. David H. Stern, Messianic Jewish Manifesto. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1991) p148

[14] Anonymous, How to Point to Moshiakh In Your Rabbi’s Bible, (Artist’s for Israel International, 1995).   

[15] Dan Levine, “Is the Oral Torah Binding for Jewish Believers in Jesus?” Gates of Eden, Jul-August 2000, vol 6 No.4, p. 18. In keeping with the Gates of Eden copyright policy all Gates of Eden articles sited will be reproduced in their entirety as endnotes. Letter to the Editor are sited under Fair Use.     Daniel Botkin has bimonthly publication, Gates of Eden. For a sample issue, write to PO Box 2257, East Peoria, IL 61611-0257

[16] Ariel and D’vorah Berkowitz, Torah Rediscovered. (Lakewood, Co: First Fruits of Zion, 1996), p. 87.

[17] James Beasley, An Introduction to the Bible. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1991) pp. 55-56.

[18] Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5

[19] Mishnah Shabbos 7:2

[20] Mitzvots are good deeds or commandments.

[21] Marriage Contracts, or ketubot, are not a part of the Oral Torah, but were instituted as part of a rabbinical decree meant to protect women from frivolous divorce. The custom seems to have had its origin much farther back than the decree and is universally known among the scattered Jewish communities. See Babylonian Talmud, Ketubos 39b

[22] Graham Hancock. The Sign and the Seal. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.)  p. 246.

[23] Hosit, “Teffilin”, The Encyclopedia Judaica.

[24] See Pirkei Avos 1:1 where the oral Torah is simply called, “The Torah.”

[25] I have translated the Hebrew word, Torah, as Teaching rather than Law. Not only is this a more accurate translation, it also helps illustrate the ambiguity present in the meaning of the Hebrew text.

[26] Stern, Complete Jewish Bible. (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. 1998). Here and elsewhere, where Stern translates the tetragramaton A/donai­, it is rendered HaShem.

[27] W. Gunther Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary. (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981) p. 1485.

[28] Women’s gear was defined as feminine clothing, hair dye, cosmetics, and anything women usually use to beautify themselves. On a recent trip to Jerusalem, a sales clerk informed the author that men are permitted to dye their hair unnatural colors such as pink and blue because this is not considered ‘beautifying’. The author was able to confirm this with several lower level yeshiva students, but not with a rabbi or higher-level scholar. One yeshiva rebbe flatly denied it, and his opinon should be followed. Piercings are permitted wherever the prevailing culture considers them gender appropriate and there is no risk of infection. 

[29] Theodore Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament. (New York: Harper and Row, 1969) pp. 316-318.

[30] Judges does not specifically say that Jael was a Hebrew, but her name is Hebrew for “The L-rd is G-d,” and it is hard to see why a native Kenite would have a Hebrew name or attack a needy ally.

[31] It is inaccurate to say that Ruth was a Moabite. While she was certainly born a Moabite, it is clear that she converted to Judaism and became fully Jewish. Evidently she had converted when she married Naomi’s son, or she would not have been allowed to marry Boaz under the law of Halitzah (Deut 25:5-10) as Israelite men were not permitted to take foreign wives. (Ezra 9:2)[32] Harold Brody, “Who is a Rabbi, Who is a Jew,” Petah Tikvah. (Rochester, NY)

 

[33] Chazal is a Hebrew acronym for Our Sages of Blessed Memory, and is used to refer to the sages of the Talmud.

[34] Mishnah Shabbos 7:2. The Mishnah forbids carrying anything from one domain to another. The classes of domains are more complex than the simple difference between private and public property. For example, everything within a walled city is considered one domain; however, apartments in an apartment building are different domains.

[35] Anonymous, “The New Moon and the Power of Judaism” sited from: (www.beingjewish.com/yomtov/chodesh/newmoon.html 

[36] 2240AD is the year 6000 on the Hebrew calendar, the date the Rabbis calculated as the latest the Messiah could possibly come. They expected him to restore the Sanhedrin’s power to declare the beginning of the months and the leap year, and they didn’t bother adding more features to the calendar to fortify it indefinitely against seasons’ creeping. The average Hebrew year is .0046 days longer than the average solar year; so the holidays will creep out of their proper seasons in 6880AD.

[37] The seven-day, biblical week is so common today that few people realize how arbitrary it is. The Bible reports that it’s length is in memory of creation (Gen. 2:1-4 & Ex 20:11), but other cultures, which did not share a belief in the biblical creation account, used other periods for their week. The Roman week had eight days, some Africans use five days, and the Yoruba week lasts sixteen days. Anthony Aveni, Empires of Time. (New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1989), p107

[38] Gad Erlanger, Signs of the Times: The Zodiac in Jewish Tradition. (New York, NY: Feldheim Publishers, 1999), p. 27.

[39] Edward Chumney, The Seven Festivals of the Messiah. (Shippensburgh, PA: Treasure House, 1994.), p. 105.

[40] Erlanger, p. 121.

[41] Wilson, Abraham. P. 40.

[42] The Talmud says that the resurrection from the dead actually does appear in hidden form in the written Torah. Daniel (Dan 12:2) also contains references to resurrection, however, the canon of the Old Testament past the Torah (called the Nakh in traditional Judaism) is the product of a Rabbinical Injunction made in 90AD, and can’t be considered authoritative in an argument that took place c.28 AD. In any case, in Jesus’ time, the Nakh was considered holy only by Pharisees, and was much larger than the present day Hebrew Bible. The “Bible” of Pharisaism in Jesus’ time was very similar to the Catholic Old Testament, which is why the Sadducees mocked the book of Tobit (Tob 3:8), a book in the Pharisaic canon, when they attacked Jesus for holding to the hope of resurrection, a Pharisaic doctrine. (Mt 22:23-28; Mk 12:18-22)

[43] Dr. Daniel Botkin, “Magic Squares, 666, & The Mark of the Beast,” Gates of Eden, vol. 6 no.2, March-April 2000, p. 13.

[44] Botkin, “Magic Squares, 666, & The Mark of the Beast.” p. 13. 

[45] Mishnah Avodah Zorah 2:3

[46] Mishnah Chullin 1:2. If the disciples at the Jerusalem synod used ‘strangled’ in the same way Chazal did, they actually forbade meat slaughtered with all but the sharpest knife and greatest care.

[47] Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Wisdom. (New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc., (1994), p. 136.

[48] Leviticus Rabba 23:12

[49] Robert Sheaffer, The Making of the Messiah. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991),  p. 17.

[50] Mishnah Nidah 2:1.

[51] Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b.

[52] Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b.

[53] Stern, Manifesto, p. 158.

[54] Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:10.

[55] Babylonian Talmud, Yebemos 46a and b.

[56] Compare Mat. 12:12 and Talmud, Shabbos 132a.

[57] Stern, Manifesto, p. 112.

[58] Talmud, Bava Metzia 59b.

 

 

About the Author
Reb Yhoshua is a man of very small stature, and fancies himself the Yiddishe Martha Stewart, without the insider trading. He is author of several articles on Messianic Judaism and its relationship to Torah and history, and is translator and author of The Illuminated Tikkun Chatzos, which nobody has ever read except himself.
He liked it.