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

 

by Geert ter Horst

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

by Geert ter Horst

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intermarriage and offspring are very interesting topics for investigating the broader and deeper inherent problems and viabilities of the diverse theological positions on Gentile Torah observance. Thus far, however, all proposed solutions — save only perhaps that one that simply keeps intact the since long accepted traditional distinctions and separations between Jews and Gentiles — seem to lead to rather puzzling and confusing consequences.

_____________

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

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

 

FFOZ’s New Theology of Divine Invitation

A Preliminary Investigation of a Recent Theological Shift

by Geert ter Horst

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

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

 

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

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.