Many messianic congregations have adopted the orthodox Jewish practice of an annual Torah reading cycle. In Orthodox Judaism the Torah is read in a lectio continua and the sequence of the weekly sections is only interrupted at the major feasts, which have their own Torah portions. According to the traditional practice a second lesson, taken from the prophets, concludes the Sabbath morning reading service. In messianic congregations this Haftarah reading is often followed by a third reading taken from the Apostolic Writings.

The traditional practice is recommendable, and should not be lightly set aside. Yet it has some disadvantages and problems. Its principal disadvantage is that only a small section of Holy Scripture is publicly read. While the Torah is completely covered, only some fragments of the majority of the other Books are heard in the weekly Sabbath liturgy.

In a messianic setting there are three important aspects to the question what to read which could lead to a reconsideration of this orthodox liturgical lectionary. The first of these is our emphasis on the primacy of all Scripture, not just of the Books of the Torah, in communicating G-d’s revelation to us. The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: “All Scripture is given by the inspiration of G-d, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of G-d may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (II Tim 3:16-17). The messianic emphasis on Scripture as the prime and supreme source of divine revelation conflicts with the orthodox theological model, which has elevated the Oral Torah, i.e. rabbinic authority, to a position of overriding authority, at least in practice. For Messianics it should only be natural to undergird their emphasis on Scripture by customs of public reading that are in line with their doctrine. Although this doctrine doesn’t necessarily lead to a schedule that has all the Scriptures read in the Synagogue, it should be acknowledged that there are important arguments in favour of it.

If we as Messianics want to be a biblical people, devoted to the exclusion of selective, one-sided and erroneous theological developments, then an excellent way to do so is to stimulate a culture of scriptural study in the broadest sense of the word. More specifically this means that no part of Scripture is negligible for the discipline of interpreting and applying the precepts of the Torah. Oftentimes one sees Messianics jumping to principles found in talmudic and post-talmudic halachic sources, without duly considering the possibility that other parts of Scripture, for instance the Book of the Proverbs, may contain important clues or interpretional principles for the study of the Torah. This is not to say that the Talmud or later halachic sources shouldn’t be consulted. It is to say that Scripture comes first and that the post-scriptural and non-scriptural sources should be given their due place under the primacy and authority of Scripture.

A second aspect to be given due attention is the fact that one of the criteria of the traditonal selection of Haftarot has been the deliberate exclusion of all passages that could easily lead to Christian associations or interpretations. Almost nothing can be ascertained here with rigid historical proof, but it is remarkable that passages which have a prominent meaning for Messianics, such as Isaiah’s chapters LIII and LXI (cf. Luke 4:16-20), were left out of the later Synagogue liturgy. This is especially noteworthy in the case of Isaiah 61:1-2, because the chapters closely preceding and following it were made part of the seven Haftarot of Consolation, which are read after the Fast Day in Commemoration of the Destruction of the Temple, Tisha B’Av. The sixth of these is Is. 60:1-22 (Haftarah Ki Tavo) and the seventh is Is. 61:10-63:9 (Haftarah Nitzavim). It is completely legitimate for Messianics to seek a correction of this state of affairs in some way or other. And an impartial way of doing is by endorsing a non-selective reading of the prophetic books.

A third aspect to be considered by Messianics in this context is the question what passages should be read from the Apostolic Scriptures. If traditional Judaism has made its choice of Haftarah passages, should Messianic Judaism do the same with the Apostolic Writings? Or should we perhaps follow a less selective policy and read them all? However, if it should appear that we are unable to make a convincing liturgical selection, and instead decide to read them all, should we then not apply the same procedure to the Prophets, and also to the third category of Scripture contained in the Tanach, the Writings? And if it is our best option to read all the Scriptures, how are we to put this into practice? Many congregations nowadays have an overloaded schedule of readings already, caused by the addition of a third reading, taken from the Apostolic Scriptures, to the readings of the Sabbath morning service. From a traditional halachic viewpoint, a third reading during Shacharit causes certain technical inconveniences. It is problematic, for instance, to recite the traditional Haftarah blessings. These blessings indicate that the reading section of the service is concluded. Adding a third reading is a denial of this and requires the abrogation or modification of these blessings and the introduction of new ones specifically relating to the apostolic readings. It also demands for some corresponding modifications in the concluding blessings of the entire reading section, when the Torah Scroll is returned to the Aron HaKodesh.

Another question that has to be answered is: Is it possible to develop a consistent program of reading all Scripture, and yet to be faithful to the format of the liturgical year by having the passages read in their proper seasons? Naturally, this particularly applies to the readings from the Gospels, since Messiah’s life is the spiritual centre or axis of the entire orbit of the liturgical year. Diverse congregations try to find tenable solutions for this problem. The following outline is a detailed proposal for your consideration. As is obvious, it has its own presuppositions, some of which may not be shared by all Messianics.

At Messianic613 we favour a liturgical model which includes the celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the evening services of Shabbat, New Moon (Rosh Chodesh), and the major annual festivals. According to a long-standing Christian tradition in these eucharistic services two passages of the Apostolic Scriptures are read — which by their traditional names are called the “Epistle” and “Gospel” readings.

We discovered that the practice of having the Apostolic Scriptures read in the evening service has the advantage of not overburdening the Sabbath morning service with additional readings. Due to the Torah and Haftarah readings, and the Mussaf prayers, this service is already of considerable length.

The first problem we had to solve was: How should we read the Torah, in a one-year or a three-year cycle? Since both traditions have their ancient roots as well as their specific merits, we have sought to combine them and have found the following solution. During the Shmittah- or Sabbath-years we follow the annual cycle of Orthodox Judaism. During the six normal years we follow the triennial cycle. Thus we have always two triennial cycles alternated by an annual cycle. This solution has the merit of giving a distinctive mark to the Shmittah-years. Below we’ll see that it also has certain advantages as an architectural principle for ordering the remainder of the scriptural readings.

For the Haftarah reading we propose a schedule of reading all the prophetic books in sequence. Now, because the prophets are a large body to read, it is obvious that this cannot be done in one year on a weekly basis. We have made a timeframe of seven years, based on the twofold division we find in the prophetic books: the former or early prophets (i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), and the later prophets (i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) which are concluded by the so called 12 minor prophets (i.e. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). The former prophets are to be read as Haftarot during the first triennial Torah cycle, the later prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, during the second triennial cycle. The minor prophets should according to this schedule be read as Haftarot during the year of the annual cycle, i.e. during the Shmittah years.

The next problem for us was how and when to read from the other Scriptures, the Writings or Ketuvim. After some trial and error we developed the proposal to read from these Scriptures during the Sabbath and festival Minchah services. Several of the Books of the Ketuvim already have an annually fixed season of public reading. According to this the Book of Canticles should be read during Passover, Ruth at Shavuot, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah at Tisha B’Av. The Book of Ecclesiastes is to be read during Sukkot, and Esther is the Megillah to be read at Purim. If we add to this that it is appropriate to read the Book of Daniel during Chanukah (at Maariv), the books that remain are Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. From these the Psalms can be excluded from public reading, however,  since they are already used in the liturgy as the main hymnal. We have developed a format for the daily Shacharit and Minchah services in which the Book of Psalms is used in a manner that follows its traditional division into thirty sections, according to the maximum of days of the Jewish month. The Psalms are thus recited or sung in a monthly cycle. And in the Maariv services of Shabbat and Yom Tov Psalms are used as intermediate hymns between the Epistle and Gospel readings.

According to the chiastic structure of the Writings as found in the Jewish canonical order, it would be proper to have Proverbs and Job read at Minchah during the first triennial Torah cycle, and Ezra-Nehemia and Chronicles during the second triennial Torah cycle. This leaves open the question what to read during the Sabbath Minchah service of the Shmittah year. We would suggest for this the traditional Haftarot of the annual cycle. This is in accordance with the tradition that in the early times of the Synagogue the Haftarot were read at Minchah.

Now about the reading schedule of the Apostolic Scriptures. In order to follow the liturgical year and to have the reading sections in harmony with the major festive seasons (Yamim Tovim) of Messiah’s birth (at Sukkot), his death and resurrection (at Pesach), and the outpouring of the Ruach HaKodesh after his Ascension (at Shavuot), the readings from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles have to be divided over the two halves of the year. Our proposal is to read each year one of the Gospels in a lectio continua during the first half of the year (from Shabbat Bereisheet to Pesach), thus covering Messiah’s earthly life, and to read the Acts of the Apostles during the second half of every year (from Shavuot to Rosh HaShanah), thus covering Messiah’s post-resurrection activity. The seven Sabbaths of the Omer can be used to repeat important Gospel lessons (e.g. the parables of the Kingdom in the Gospel of Mathew) in preparation of the festival of Shavuot. We intend the Yamim Tovim to keep the privilige of having their own distinctive readings and on these days the lectio continua schedule is to be interrupted. However, the normal Shabbat readings should properly lead up to the major feasts and from one festive season to next.

The above made alternation between the triennial and annual Torah cycles can be used as a key for allotting the Gospels their place in our liturgical framework. The main distinction in the Gospels is between the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. This would suggest that the Gospel of John should be read during the Shmittah years and that the three Synoptic Gospels should be read in tune with the triennial cycle. This results in two cycles of readings from Matthew, Mark and Luke successively, alternated with a year in which the Gospel of John is read. In this manner each Gospel has its own years of reading.

The reading of the Epistles allows for a similar division. The Epistles can be divided in three sections: the general Epistles and Hebrews, the earlier Epistles of Paul, and the later or prison Epistles of Paul. According to this division each group of Epistles can be assigned to one of the synoptic Gospels: The general Epistles, including Hebrews, to the Gospel of Matthew; the early Epistles of Paul to the Gospel of Mark, and the prison Epistles of Paul to the Gospel of Luke.

The only remaining book which has yet to find a place is the Apocalypse of John. I suggest its reading as replacing the Epistle reading during the Shmittah year, thus accompanying the reading of the Gospel of John.

While it is clear that this whole schedule is not a necessary consequence which follows from undisputed and universally accepted principles, yet we think that it should be given due weight and consideration. It shows both simplicity and elegance in combining the two demands of having all of Scripture read and of having an order of reading which is in harmony with the seasons of the liturgical year.

It remains to be seen of course whether this schedule is practical enough to maintain and whether its details can be ordered in such a manner as to establish sensible connections between the diverse cycles of reading interfering with each other. Will it be possible to have the four readings — Epistle, Gospel (or Acts), Torah, and Haftarah — occuring on any given Sabbath to illuminate each other under the conditions of a lectio continua? We hope to explore this question further in our efforts to develop a truly messianic liturgy.

by Geert ter Horst

For many believers who once were Trinitarians, the discovery that Scripture doesn’t support the traditional Christian teaching that Messiah is G-d, has the initial effect of a certain disenchantment, an experience of their Lord and Saviour being relegated to a less exalted status. Oftentimes, their first reaction is: So Yeshua is a mere man?

Although this reaction is understandable, it is by no means correct. To describe Yeshua as “a mere man” is detrimental to his unique position. It evokes the wrong suggestion that — perhaps apart from his sinlessness — Yeshua wasn’t importantly different from other human beings or from the other prophets who had a divine mission to fulfil in Israel.

To get a better perspective on Yeshua’s position, we have to distinguish between the essential features of human nature, which are shared by Yeshua and us alike, and the specific prerogatives of the office of Messiah, which are uniquely his, and which imply huge differences between him and all other human beings, because of the gifts bestowed upon him by the Father.

It is well-known that after his resurrection Yeshua was given all power in heaven and earth (Mt. 28:18). And already during his earthly life he was not only the perfect man through the property of sinlessness. He was granted the power to work miracles and to forgive sins, as appears from the Gospels (Mt. 9:1-8).[1] He was also granted special knowledge (Mt. 17:24-27 & Jn. 1:47-51), although he was by no means omniscient (Mk. 13:32).

Before and after his resurrection, however, all the special powers and prerogatives of Yeshua were and are derived from G-d.[2] The Messiah sent by G-d is always totally dependent on the Father (Jn. 5:19). The essential difference between G-d and creature is thus fully maintained in the case of Yeshua. Only creatures are dependent beings, G-d never is dependent on anything in whatever way.

There are thus some perfections found in Yeshua, which are not normal human perfections, such as knowing things about the future, having the power to resurrect the dead and to be the Judge of all men, &c (Jn. 5:25-27). These are perfections Yeshua received because of his special position of being the Messiah, the second Adam, the cornerstone of the new creation. These perfections do however not in any manner imply that Yeshua himself is G-d. As I said, all these perfections are received —  and thus created — perfections.

The perfections and prerogatives bestowed upon Yeshua can be called “divine”, because they are in themselves superhuman, or supernatural. The prophets did at times share in some of them. Think for instance of Moses, to whom were given special miraculous powers when he appeared before Pharao. Yet it is clear as daylight that the “divine” powers that were shared by Moses in no way elevated him to the status of Deity. These powers indicated that he fulfilled a divine mission, i.e. a special mission proceeding from G-d. Similarly, the divine prerogatives and powers shared by Yeshua don’t make him G-d. They make him the special agent of G-d.

Since, ultimately, Yeshua is our only Mediator with G-d, the only one through whom we can receive atonement for our our sins and restoration to the status of being in full communion with G-d, he has a position which is incomparable to any other prophet. All the blessings relevant for our spiritual life come to us through him. Only on account of his merits are we able to become the children of G-d.

Being a creature thus in no way diminishes Yeshua’s unique status or his high exalted position.[3] It makes him the perfect agent of G-d, the one and only Mediator for all mankind.

_____________

[1] Cf. “If Jesus Isn’t God, How Did He Forgive Sins?” at: Biblical Unitarian.

[2] Cf. “How Did Jesus Do the Amazing Things He Did?” at: Biblical Unitarian.

[3] Cf. “Does the Teaching that Jesus is the Son of God, Not God Himself, Demean Him?” at: Biblical Unitarian.

Today, the 11^th day of the month Cheshvan, is the Yahrzeit, the annual remembrance day of Rachel Imeinu (i.e. the Matriarch Rachel). Many in Israel travel to Bethlehem on that occasion and say prayers at her tomb. There is a story connected to this practice, which attempts to give a deeper motive why Rachel was buried there and not in Hebron, where all the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried. The story tells us that this happened with a purpose. When in their later history the Israelites were led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, they would pass Rachel’s tomb and have the opportunity to say prayers there. Rachel would hear her children praying at her gravesite and she would cry and plead to G-d on their behalf [1].

A disturbing thing about this story is the mentioning of a dead person pleading to G-d on behalf of the living. This is not a concept found in Scripture. It is wholly contradictory to the teachings of Scripture. The Bible tells us again and again that the dead are really dead and not alive [2]. They cannot intercede for us with G-d or help us in any way. Only living people can help others or intercede for them in prayer. Accepting the concept of the dead pleading for the living easily leads to the acceptance of the closely related concept of the living praying to dead saints as intermediaries with G-d. This last mentioned concept is expressly and definitely prohibited in the Torah (Dt. 18:11).

Praying at a gravesite of a dead saint with the intention that these prayers should be heard by him in order to gain his intercession is dangerously close to transgression of the prohibition of praying to the dead, even if one directs these prayers to HaShem. The first error, that the dead are somehow alive and can help the living through intercessory prayers, naturally leads to the second, that it is proper to seek the intercession of the dead and ask them to act as intermediaries with HaShem [3].

If one wants to avoid the error of praying to the dead, one should first avoid the misconception that the dead are somehow alive, having knowledge and being able to interfere in the affairs of the living. The biblical teaching is that the dead have no knowledge or power at all. Death according to Scripture is simply the end of existence. For that reason, all practices that suggest otherwise or that can lead to misunderstanding and confusion should be avoided.

At this point it is perhaps good to remind ourselves that, from a Torah viewpoint, a gravesite is an unclean place and a major source of uncleanness. One can ask oneself what sense it does make to perform the ritual of handwashing (Netilat Yadayim), required before prayer, and then to say one’s prayers at a place of unclean contamination. [4].

It is certainly proper to honour the memory of the faithful departed, and to remember the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of Israel is a way of fulfilling the commandment to honour one’s parents (Ex. 20:12). It is also proper to honour the memory of the deceased of one’s family or nation. There is nothing wrong with observing their Yahrzeit and marking this day by burning a Yahrzeit candle. But one should avoid erroneous or confusing practices. One should not pray for the deceased. This is senseless, since the deceased are no longer in existence. For the same reason, and because of the prohibition found in the Torah, one should not pray to the dead. One should also avoid all prayers which seek the intercession of the deceased.

A proper prayer for the occasion of a Yahrzeit consists in thanksgiving for the lives of the deceased persons and for their contributions to the life of later generations.

It is by no means excluded by the foregoing that HaShem grants us blessings because of the faithfulness, piety and righteousness of saints who lived in earlier generations. And accordingly, HaShem may still answer prayers which they in their time offered on our behalf. But these things are secrets of which we cannot have accurate knowledge. It is sufficiently certain, however, that we can no longer actively seek the assistence and intercession of the departed. Their earthly tasks and responsibilities have ended. They have gone out of existence and will not be restored to life again before the resurrection [5].

The only person who can now intercede for us is Messiah Yeshua, our living High Priest in heaven, who is always prepared to pray to the Father on our behalf. That’s why we should offer our prayers to G-d the Father in his name.

Rachel the Matriarch is connected to Yeshua’s life through the terrible event of the slaughter of the innocent children of Bethlehem by the cruel king Herod. In his account of this Mattityahu quotes the prophet Yirmeyahu (31:15):

Mt. 2:17-18: Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Yirmeyahu the prophet, saying, In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Rachel is introduced here in a figure of speech, as a personification of the nation of Israel, because she is a mother of Israel and because her tomb is situated in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, in Ramah. Israel is the intended mother of this personification, bereft of her children through exile and slaughter. Rachel died in giving birth to Benyamin, and thus she literally gave her life for one of her children. Her self-sacrificing care for her children would grow utterly bitter and without purpose, if these children, or their posterity, should be murdered or sent into exile.

About the time of the Maccabean revolt and the rise of Pharisaism, belief in the immortality of the human soul was introduced in Judaism. And thus it became possible to interpret Yirmeyahu’s words, cited above, in a literal manner and to understand them as speaking of the immortal soul of Rachel. This interpretation afforded the foundation for making the person of Rachel into a kind of national mediatrix with G-d for Israel. This was a wrong spiritual development in Judaism, which shows uncanny analogies to the excesses of later Catholicism as to the status and position of Miryam, the virgin mother of the Messiah.

We should avoid all these excesses, and honour the memorial of our ancestors on a biblical basis and within the limits provided by the Torah. This we can do by not only giving due attention to their Yahrzeit days, but above all by following their walk and example of faithfulness. We believe that the following Yahrzeit Prayer is in accord with this duty.

Yahrzeit Prayer:

O G-d, the King of saints, we praise and magnify thy Holy Name for all thy servants who have finished their course in thy faith and fear; for the blessed Virgin Miryam, the Mother of our Lord; for the holy Patriarchs and Matriarchs, for Rachel the Matriarch; for the Apostles and Martyrs; and for all other thy righteous servants known to us and unknown;  and we beseech thee that, encouraged and inspired by their examples we may with them be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, in that great Day of the Appearing of our Lord and Saviour Yeshua the Messiah, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Ruach HaKodesh, world without end. Amen. [6]

____________

[1] “11 Cheshvan – Rachel Imeinu Passes Away” at: Orthodox Union.

[2] View the article:  “The dead are dead until the Rapture or Resurrection” at: Truth or Tradition.

[3] That the intercession of Rachel is actually sought is clear from the following quote from the Kever Rachel Imeinu website: “Since the time of her burial- more then 3000 years ago,  the Tomb of Rachel has always been a special place for prayer.  To this very day, men and women go to Rachel’s Tomb to shed tears and beg “Mother Rachel” to intercede with G-d on their behalf — for the health of a loved one or for Divine Intervention for those in need.”  “Rachel’s Tomb. The Jewish Second Holiest Site.” at: Kever Rachel Imeinu.

[4] Cf. Rav David Brovsky, “Washing Hands upon Waking and before Prayer” at: The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash.

[5] View footnote [2].

[6] An adapted version of the prayer found on page 489 of The Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church, Edition 1979, The Seabury Press.

[Footnotes and additional information on Welch's works will follow.]

Charles Henry Welch (1880-1967) was born and raised in London, in an areligious and atheistic home. In November 1900 he attended an address on the subject “Sceptics and the Bible”, given by an American, Dr. L.W. Munhall, m.a., d.d., at Exeter Hall, Strand. In a second address by the same Dr. Munhall the Gospel was preached and Welch accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour. Shortly afterwards, his father also came to faith and in the course of time his mother and sisters followed.

Welch soon became an ardent student of Scripture and discovered that, contrary to what was taught in traditional Church doctrine, the restoration of Israel and the coming of the Millennial Kingdom were a main theme of the New Testament, not of the Gospels only but also of the Acts of the Apostles and many of Paul’s letters. By his biblical studies he came to conclusions that were very similar to results earlier obtained by Ethelbert W. Bullinger, an Anglican clergyman who emphasized that “the Church” — meaning the Assembly of believers which is now and which historically became separated from the Jewish nation — did not legitimately begin at Acts ch. 2, but at Acts ch. 28.

Bullinger had discovered that during the time of the Acts of the Apostles the Millennial Kingdom, which was offered to Israel during the earthly ministry of the Lord Yeshua, was re-offered to them by the resurrected Messiah and his Apostles. When this offer was finally rejected and national repentance did not occur, the verdict of Isaiah ch. 6 was solemnly pronounced by Paul in Acts 28:25-27, and it was declared that from then on “the salvation of G-d is sent unto the Gentiles” (Acts 28:28). According to Bullinger this declaration implied the setting aside of the nation of Israel. In his interpretation it was a dispensational boundary that marked the starting point of the predominantly Gentile Christian Church.

Although Welch had once seen a copy of Bullinger’s monthly journal: Things to Come, he arrived at these conclusions largely independently from Bullinger’s works. When later on he saw again an issue of Things to Come and found an article which could have been composed from his own notes, he started a conversation with Bullinger about the consequences of the hypothesis that Acts 28 was the starting point of “the Church” for the interpretation of Paul’s letters. Welch saw an inconsistency in Bullinger’s approach. If Bullinger was correct and the verdict of Acts 28 marked the end of the Kingdom Offer and the beginning of a new dispensation of “the Church of the One Body” as he called it, then — Welch pointed out to him — Paul’s epistles could no longer be treated as one corpus. The conclusion was inevitable that they belonged to two groups. Under that presupposition the epistles written before Acts 28 were written at a time when the Kingdom Offer was still in force. The epistles written after Acts 28 — the prison epistles — however, reflected a theological situation in which the Kingdom Offer had expired and the new reality of a Church in which the national prerogatives of Israel had been set aside was initiated.

Bullinger’s and Welch’s discovery of a Kingdom Offer during the period of the Acts is of the utmost importance for Messianic Judaism. It makes clear that the New Testament Scriptures continue the story of Israel not only during the earthly ministry of Messiah recorded in the Gospels, but also during the Acts of the Apostles. Acts ch. 2 doesn’t report the birth of the later Church. It reports the birth of an entirely Jewish Assembly of Messiah, which functions as a missionizing agency with the purpose of bringing Israel to national repentance from its sin of crucifying Messiah, in an effort of convincing the nation to accept him after all.

Welch’s main contribution to the idea of a re-Offer of the Kingdom during the Acts was his keen insight that this idea required a division of Paul’s letters into two groups which would have to show different features and accents. The merit of his contribution may be that Welch perhaps shaped a useful tool for reconciling some apparent discrepancies within the corpus of Paul, a tool that seems particularly relevant for those whose study of Paul is guided by a Torah-observant perspective. This aspect of Welch’s work still awaits further study and evaluation.

A shadow-side to their discoveries is that both Bullinger and Welch erred in interpreting the Kingdom Offer and the boundary of Acts 28 within a dispensationalist hermeneutical framework. Both concluded that between the verdict of Acts 28 and the future national restoration at the Second Coming Israel was no longer G-d’s people. Consequently they interpreted the status of the present community of believers (“the Church”) as one wholly separated from the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants. They forgot what so many have forgotten, that Paul’s announcement of the verdict of Isaiah 6 operated within the context of the covenantal blessings and punishments of the Torah and that for that reason his announcement pre-supposes the continuing existence of Israel as G-d’s nation.

Bullinger and Welch didn’t adequately distinguish between the basic constitution of Israel as G-d’s nation since the Exodus and Sinai events, which always remains intact and is not subject to change, and its fruitful instrumental role in fulfilling G-d’s purposes in bringing in the Kingdom Age, which is subject to change and failure. Through disobedience Israel can temporary fail in being useful for HaShem in bringing in the Kingdom. But this fact doesn’t change its basic constitution of being G-d’s chosen nation.

Despite these errors there remains much to be admired and explored in Bullinger’s and Welch’s writings which could be relevant to the present conundrums faced by the messianic world. One of these is the never-ending discussion on Jewish and Gentile identity. If we re-interpret Welch’s vision of the present Church in a non-dispensational and pro-Torah context, a picture emerges according to which the Assembly of Messiah is composed of individual Jews and Gentiles on a basis of strict equality. The nation of Israel (i.e. the Jewish people) is another thing. It exists apart from this Assembly and cultivates the preservation of Jewish identity in its separation from the community of believers. Both communities are partial realizations of the full reality of “Israel”, and will not merge before the Second Coming of Messiah, when the Millennial Kingdom will be established.

Welch’s writings deserve a careful study and interpretation. By his analytical exploration of the Bullinger’s idea of the Kingdom Offer, Welch has contributed to a better understanding of the New Testament Scriptures. When his works are studied in a context which is detached from their original dispensationalist setting, fruitful insights are to be expected. That’s the reason for drawing attention to his Yahrzeit here.

Charles Welch died on November 11, 1967, which according to the Hebrew calendar was the 8^th of Cheshvan, 5728. Upcoming Shabbat is his 44^th Yahrzeit. May his memory, and the study of his works, be a blessing.

Yahrzeit Prayer:

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

by Geert ter Horst

Classical Dispensationalism is a theological framework which is characterized by a strict separation between the nation of Israel and the Christian Church. According to dispensationalist criteria all believers in Yeshua between the Pentecost of Acts ch. II and the future national restoration of Israel, whether they be Jews or non-Jews, essentially belong to the Church and are “free from the Law”. While during the dispensation of the Law Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes to be included in the people of G-d, nowadays Jews have to join the predominantly Gentile Church for the same purpose.

The recent theology of “Bilateral Ecclesiology” — a term coined by Mark Kinzer [1] — changes important aspects of this schedule from a successive temporal order into a static order of simultaneity. Israel and the Church are now perceived as co-temporal divine institutions, and Messianic Jews exist alongside Gentile Christians. Gentile Christians belong to the Church, Messianic Jews belong to Israel and are the believing remnant of the Jewish nation. Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians are spiritually united by their faith in Yeshua and together they are the Assembly or Body of Messiah, yet they are bodily or physically separated. Their unity cannot be a practical or physical unity because according to Bilateral Ecclesiology the Gentile believers are not part of Israel. Essentially the Gentiles have the status of Noachides and this status is not changed by their faith in Yeshua.

At first sight the theology of Bilateral Ecclesiology seems to be a justified and much needed correction to traditional Christian Supersessionism or Replacement Theology. Instead of making the Church the successor and rightful inheritor of the position of the Jewish nation as G-d’s people, it makes it the Noachide part of the Assembly of Messiah. The other part of this Assembly is the faithful remnant of Israel, the Messianic Jews. Taken together, these parts are perceived as center and periphery. The relation between Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians in the messianic community is essentially of the same nature as the relation between Jews and Noachides in the non-messianic world.

After due consideration, however, it appears that this theological model is deeply flawed. One of its most blatant internal contradictions is that it accepts the current Christian Church and its standards of practice and worship, without recognizing that the Church and her standards are the resultants of a historical process which itself has deep roots in Replacement Theology. This Church would not be what it is without its anti-Jewish (and some pagan) roots: Sunday observance, the Christian holy days, the observance of the seasons of Advent and Lent, the Gregorian Calendar, Child Baptism, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the teaching that we are destined for an eternal existence in heaven, and numerous other theoretical and practical aspects of Church culture, shared by Catholicism and Protestantism alike, are the direct or indirect consequences of the pernicious basic premise of Supersessionism. [2]

The proponents of a Bilateral Ecclesiology accept the results of this problematic historical development without accepting its anti-Jewish premise, and they simply try to limit the terrible damage Replacement Theology has done by what could be called a theological containment policy. The containment here consists in declaring that the practice and doctrine of the Church are sound and acceptable for Gentile Christians but not for Messianic Jews. Messianic Jews should commit themselves to the Torah and Jewish culture and should therefore keep a healthy distance from the culture of the Church. They should build their own congregations and institutions. Although they spiritually share common ground with Gentile Christians through their faith in Yeshua, this common faith doesn’t lead to a lifestyle and culture shared by all. The Jewish members of the Assembly of Messiah have a special calling and responsibility for the Torah, a calling and responsibility in which Gentiles are unable to share.

Unwittingly, thus a stunning aspect of a Bilateralist Ecclesiology reveals itself: Faith in Messiah Yeshua is presumably powerless to establish a real and practical sense of community. According to this ecclesiology the Assembly of Messiah is not a strong corporate unity and for that reason it can hardly be called “One Body”. As Jamie Cowen has remarked: “A corporate unity with separate organizations or congregations is a myth. Real unity is expressed in intimate relationships, which can only occur within one community. Pauls admonitions in both Romans and Galatians reflect this fact”. [3]

The division created by Bilateralism in fact amounts to the re-introduction of the dispensationalist divide between Israel and the Church within the very Body of Messiah. This divide is now sharpened, through its introduction on a simulteneous basis, into a practical schism within the One Body, in conflict with Paul’s admonition that there should be no such thing (I Cor. 12:25). From Paul’s letters it is abundantly clear that Jews and Gentiles should participate in one and the same local congregation and that their union reflects the unity created by Messiah’s death, by which both are reconciled unto G-d in One Body (Eph. 2:16). The unity of the One Body is a universal unity without internal divisions, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and under the authority of the apostles and prophets. Jew and Gentile are made effectively and practically equal in position:

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of G-d; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Yeshua HaMashiach himself being the chief cornerstone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of G-d through the Spirit.

(Eph. 2:19-22).

This is not a “spiritual” unity in an ethereal or Platonic sense. The Holy Spirit is the power of G-d giving life to the Body of Messiah, and its effect is a bodily, corporate, physical unity, the “one new man” (Eph. 2:15).

Bilateralism often seeks to soften its divise message by admitting (some) Gentiles to Messianic Jewish congregations for communal worship and by alowing them to take on a level of Torah observance. It is clear that by so doing it compromises its own principle of separation between Jews and non-Jews and opens the door for mixed marriages and other “unwanted” effects of communion.

But, more importantly, the basic reproach to any Bilateralist Ecclesiology should be that it says that Jewish believers should follow HaShem’s instructions as laid down in the Torah, and that Gentile believers are good enough to live under instructions and traditions that stem from an anti-Jewish, anti-Torah bias, and even from pagan roots.  This type of ecclesiology is devastating for the unity of the Body and a dishonour to Messiah’s prayer: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). Moreover, in its condoning of the culture of the traditional Church the new Bilateralism comes into conflict with its own Noachidic fundamentals. For according to Noachidism a Gentile is not permitted to create his own religion, or to introduce additional religious observances, above those revealed in the Noachide laws.

Gentile believers are not Noachides, they are called Abraham’s seed by Paul, because of their inclusion in Messiah: “If ye be of Messiah, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). For that reason the lifestyle of Gentile believers should be kept in that framework in which the promise is preserved and cultivated: the Torah. Bilateralist attempts to interpret the so-called “new perspective” on Paul in a crypto-dispensationalist fashion are not helpful for drawing the real consequences of Paul’s ecclesiology.

________________

[1] Cf. Kinzer, Mark S., Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People, Brazos Press — Grand Rapids 2005. A Synopsis of this work, by Jonathan Kaplan, can be consulted at: http://www.kesherjournal.com/pdf/Features/A-Synopsis-of-Mark-Kinzer-s-Post-Missionary-Messianic-Judaism.pdf

[2] Kinzer’s approach to these issues, including the authority of Scripture, seems to tend to a certain ecumenical pragmatism, at least on the trinitarian question. He writes: “The Christian Church, which is our partner, is a nicene Church. Bilateral ecclesiology calls us to a corporate commitment to this Church” (emph. mine). [Kinzer, Mark S., “Finding our Way Through Nicaea: The Deity of Yeshua, Bilateral ecclesiology, and redemptive encounter with the living God” In: Kesher Journal, Issue 24 (Summer 2010).] Kinzer’s pragmatism was also noticed by Tim Hegg: “It is clear that Mark Kinzer, for example, has accepted a hermeneutic of pragmatic contextualization in which certain texts are given privilige over others, depending upon what suits the current need. In short, when Paul’s “pastoral strategy” (of a multi-national ekklesia) seems out of step with the current desire to be accepted within the traditional Jewish community, it may be disregarded in favor of a more propitious alternative. It seems a very slippery slope indeed when, for the sake of a desired outcome, one engages in selective approbation of the Scriptures. I recognize that such a viewpoint may not be espoused by all who are opting for the new definition of Messianic Judaism. But it is at least honest of Kinzer to admit that the path forward for Messianic Judaism, at least as he sees it, cannot be reconciled with some of Paul’s teachings. It remains to be seen, therefore, how others will approach the Scriptures as they seek to achieve the same goal”. [Hegg, T., “One Law Movements. A Response to Russ Resnik & Daniel Juster, TorahResource May 2005, (pp. 29-30) at: http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/OLMResponse.pdf ]

[3] J. Cowen, “A Response to Dr. Mark Kinzer”, In: Kesher Journal 12, Winter 2001, p. 116.

by Geert ter Horst

There are not many Roman Catholic theologians who could make a legitimate claim of being worthy of having their Yahrzeit remembered by Messianic Jews and their co-religionists. And one would certainly not expect a priest of the Jesuit order to be an exception to this. However, if there is a Roman clergyman deserving to be an exception it is Manuel Lacunza (1731-1801), who can be regarded as the founder of modern Christian Zionism and Millenarianism. [1]

Manuel Lacunza Y Diaz was born in Santiago (Chile) as the son of Charles and Josefa Diaz. His father was a wealthy merchant in colonial trade between Lima and Chile. Manuel entered the religious life and joined the Jesuit order in 1747. He was ordained a priest in 1766. His daily profession was being a teacher in grammar at a school in Santiago. He seems to have enjoyed some fame as a pulpit preacher.

In 1767 Lacunza had to face the misfortune of the expulsion of the Jesuit order from the Spanish Americas by king Charles III. The specific reasons for this expulsion are still shrouded in an air of mystery. All we know with certainty is that the European monarchs felt threatened by Jesuit political power and were under the influence of Enlightenment secularism. The expulsion from Latin America was not an isolated phenomenon. In 1759 the Jesuits had been expelled from Portugal, and in 1762 from France.

The expulsion forced Lacunza and his fellow Jesuits into exile in Europe, first to Cadiz in Andalusia, and later to Imola, within the surroundings of Bologna. When in 1799 the Spanish Crown lifted the restrictions against the Jesuits, Lacunza did not return to Chile. He lived in Imola until his death in 1801. [2]

In 1773 Pope Clement XIV for political reasons dissolved the Jesuit order altogether. Against his will, and without any possibility of appeal, Lacunza thus found himself secularized by papal decree.

These events seem to have caused severe spiritual blows to Lacunza, who, to regain his peace of mind and to find consolation in the midst of the troubles of life, devoted himself to religious studies, especially of holy Scripture. He became gradually fascinated by the subject of prophecy. The main result of his studies was a book in three volumes, entitled La Venida del Mesías en Gloria y Majestad — which later (in 1826 or 27) was published in a two volume English translation by the Rev. Edward Irving (1792-1834) as: The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty. [3]

Lacunza’s work was completed in 1790 but the first Spanish edition was not printed until 1810 or 1811, about ten years after his death. The remarkable thing about the book is that it defends the idea of a future glorious restoration of the Jewish nation in a millennial Kingdom Age to be inaugurated by the return of Messiah Yeshua. It contains a fundamental criticism of the traditional doctrine of the Church on the Jewish people.

One of the famous passages deserving our attention is the following (Vol I, p. 326 of Irving’s edition):

The Jews may be considered in three states infinitely different: the first, is that which they were in before Messiah; the second, is that which they have held, and still hold, since the death of Messiah, in consequence of having  rejected him, and much more, of having obstinately persisted in their unbelief; the third is yet future, nor is it known when it shall be. In these three states are they frequently regarded and spoken of in scripture; and in each it regards them under four principal aspects.

In the first state, before Messiah, the scriptures regard them; First, as the owners and legitimate masters of all that portion of the earth which God himself gave to their fathers in solemn and perpetual gift: “All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever,” Gen. xv. 18. and xiii. 15. Secondly; it considers them as the only people of God, or which is the same as his church. Thirdly; as a true and lawful spouse of God himself, whose espousals were solemnly celebrated in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, Exod. xix. and Ezek. xxiii. Fourthly; it considers them as endued with another kind of life infinitely more valuable than natural life.

In the second state, after Messiah, it considers them; First, as disinherited of their native land, scattered to every wind, and abandoned to the contempt and derision, and hatred, and barbarity of all nations. Secondly; as deprived of the honour and dignity of the people of God, as if God himself were no longer their God. Thirdly; as a faithless and most ungrateful spouse, ignominiously cast forth from the house  of her husband, despoiled of all her attire and precious jewels, which had been heaped upon her with such profusion, and enduring the greatest hardships and miseries in her solitude, in her dishonour, in her total abandonment of heaven and earth. Fourthly; it regards them as deprived of that life which so highly distinguished them from all the living.

In the third state still future, but infallibly believed and expected, Divine Scripture regards them; First, as gathered again, by  the omnipotent arm of the living God, from among all the peoples and nations of the world, as restored to their own land, and reestablished in it, not to be removed for ever. “And I will plant them and not pluck them up,” Jer. xxiv. 6. “And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them,” Amos ix. 15. Secondly; it regards them as restored with the highest honour, and with the greatest advantages, to the dignity of the people of God, yea, even under another and an everlasting covenant. “And I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God…And I will make an everlasting covenant with them,” Jer. xxxii. 37,38,40. Thirdly; it considers them as a spouse  of God, so much beloved in other times, whose desolation, trouble, affliction, and lamentation, do at length move the heart of her husband; who, forgetting his wrongs and reconciled, recalls her to  her ancient dignity, receives her with the warmest welcome, forgets all the past, restores her to all her honours, and, opening his treasures, heaps upon her new and greater gifts; clothes her with new attire, adorns her with new and inestimable jewels, incomparably more precious than those which she had lost; Isa. xl. 49. Hos. ii. 18. Micah vii. Fourthly and finally; the scriptures consider them as resuscitated and reanimated with that spirit of life, of which, for so many ages, they have been deprived. These three estates of the Jews perfectly correspond to the three states of the life of holy Job, which we may regard as a figure, or as a history written in cypher of the three mighty revolutions of the people of God.

Lacunza adopted the Jewish pen-name Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, and posed himself in the work as a Jew converted to Christianity.  This was a tactical move to raise the curiosity of the Jews and to get the book accepted and read by them. [4]

In the Dedication of the work — which is “To the Messiah Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Son of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Son of David, and Son of Abraham” (ibid., p. 135) — Lacunza mentions three motives for its composition. First, he says that he wanted the Roman priesthood “to shake off the dust from their Bibles, inviting them to a new study and examination, a new and more attentive consideration of that Divine Book” (ibid.). Second, he wanted to prevent as many people as he could reach from slipping “towards the horrible gulf of infidelity” (ibid, p. 136). His third motive is that he wanted give the Jews “knowledge of their true Messiah whom they love, and for whom they sigh night and day without knowing Him” (ibid.).

I understand the first motive to mean that in the midst of the perils and revolutionary upheavels of his times Lacunza wanted improve the level of knowledge of the holy Scriptures of the priesthood in general and more specifically about the subject of biblical prophecy, with the purpose of strengthening the Church. This at least seems to be implied by the following passage: “What advantages might we not expect from this new study, were it possible to re-establish it among the priests, in themselves qualified, and by the church set apart for masters and teachers of the christian community!” (ibid., p. 136).

The second motive is tightly connected to the first. It seems that Lacunza thought that a genuine knowledge of biblical prophecy would give Catholic Christians a perspective that would be able to strenghten their faith and give them the consolation that the tumultuous course of world history was not something outside the scope of the divine purpose — or irrelevant to it — but was part of the very process by which the destination of all things in Messiah’s Kingdom was to realized. By knowing the outline of biblical prophecy, Lacunza hoped, Catholics would be withheld from adopting secular views and from the dangers of apostasy. Essentially, Lacunza thus held his work to be an answer to the devastating influences of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

The third motive is again tightly connected to the first and the second, and is essentially to give the Jewish people an opportunity to proper and scriptural knowledge of their Messiah, in preparation for the Second Coming.

Although these motives were in Lacunza’s mind related to efforts to maintain the Roman Church system, it is not difficult to discover in them a latent criticism of Catholicism. In fact his interpretation of biblical prophecy can be called the remote starting point of a dispensational type of eschatology. With some caution Lacunza can be considered as the father of modern dispensationalist millennialism. He offered an explanation for the recently diminished authority of the Church to traditional Christians and equipped them for the apocalyptic events which were to happen sooner or later and would lead to the return of Jesus Christ. The messianic kingdom couldn’t come without a temporary rise of evil, culminating in an anti-Christian regime, which in its turn would be destroyed by Christ at his Second Advent.

Despite its latent — and at times not so latent — criticism of Catholicism, Lacunza’s work was received by the Church’s authorities with a certain benevolency. Although it didn’t reflect the traditional Catholic teachings about the Second Coming and the end of the world, Rome found nothing wrong or heretical with Lacunza’s approach, as Ovid E. Need remarks in his Death of the Church Victorious (p. 48). [5] And it must be admitted that in a manner Lacunza continued and expanded an existing Catholic and Jesuit tradition of interpretation. When the Reformers accused the Papacy to be the Antichrist, and began to interpret the Book of the Apocalypse accordingly, the theologians of the Counter Reformation, particularly the Jesuits, tried to answer the Protestant charges by adopting futurist interpretations. It was a Jesuit, Francisco Ribiera (1537-1591), who took the position that the events described in John’s Revelation had nothing to do with the course of Church history but belonged to the distant future and were to happen immediately before the end of the world.

The new element in Lacunza’s interpretations was that he combined a futurist prophetic model with a literal interpretation of the texts of Scripture, and in this way he was led to the idea of a future restoration of the Jewish nation. He not only expanded the dynamics of the futurist interpretation model, but he also shattered the limits imposed upon it by the inherent constraints of Roman Catholicism.

The person who was asked to inspect Lacunza’s book and give advice to the ecclesiastical censor was a certain Fr. Paul, who gave his judgment not until after a long period of study and meditation. He confessed his great admiration for the author and his work:

[…] every time that I have read it over, my admiration has been redoubled in witnessing the profound study which the author had made of the Holy Scriptures; the method, order, and exactness which adorn his work; and, above all, the light which it casts upon the most deep mysteries and obscure passages of the sacred books.

The truth, the abundance, and  natural application of the  passages which he adduces from the sacred Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testaments, incline me in such a way to the understanding and reception of his system, that I dare take upon me to affirm, that, if what he says be false, never has falsehood  presented itself so attired in the simple and beautiful garb of truth, as this author hath set it forth in:  for the tone of ingenuousness and candour, the very simplicity of the style, the invitation which he always gives to read the whole of the chapter, or chapters he quotes from, as well as those which precede and follow the quotation, the exact correspondence, not only with the quotations, but with that sense of the sacred text which first strikes the mind; all this, I say, gives such strong presumption of truth, that it seems impossible to refuse one’s assent, unless through obstinate prepossession in favour of the contrary system. (Vol I, p.131)

Fr. Paul added that Lacunza’s system of interpreting prophecy was not new, but had firm roots in the ancient Church. He uttered only a single reservation:

Nevertheless, when I take into consideration the number of ages which have elapsed in the church, without even the mention of this system, otherwise than as a fabulous opinion; and advert to certain fathers and doctors, as Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, and to all the theologians since their day, who treat it with aversion, and some of them as positive error; I cannot help quaking and trembling, under the impression that there is less risk in erring with so many learned and very holy masters, than in venturing to aim at the mark by one’s own inclination and judgment. (ibid.)

His final conclusion was favourable, and he recommended the work should receive a permission to be printed:

[...] my judgement is; That in this work there is not contained any thing repugnant to our holy faith, but that it may be of good service in making known, and publishing abroad, many truths, whereof the knowledge, though not absolutely necessary in the first ages of the church, is become indispensable in the times in which we now live.

And with respect to customs, not only does it contain nothing contrary thereto, but on the other hand tends much to reform them by the motives which it brings forward; as will appear from what I shall slightly point out, First; by the magnificent idea which he gives of our Lord Jesus Christ, clothed with glory and majesty, and of his immense empire and power, he stimulates the soul to that fear and love of him, which is the fountain of all righteousness. He infuses, moreover, into the mind a profound feeling of the truth of the holy scriptures, and draws to the perusal of them all believers, and especially the priests, to whom above others belong the exact understanding and explanation of them. The hearts of true christians he fills with fear and trembling, by showing them how they themselves through the looseness of discipline, are threatened with that most fearful calamity which the Jews endure at present, of being cast out from the marriage chamber, which is the holy church, into the outer darkness of infidelity in which they shall perish, for ever lost to Christ Jesus the Saviour. Before the unbelievers and ungodly, who have renounced the profession of their faith, he sets forth with energy and truth, the horrible  lot to which they are reserved, if they renounce not with detestation their blasphemies and errors, and cease not to fight against the Lord, and his Christ. To all classes of men it may be profitable; because it turns their eyes inwards upon themselves, and leads them to consider their eternal destiny, and so to shun their own ruin, and the desolation of the whole earth, when, as God hath told us by the mouth of his prophet, “desolations, &c”. (ibid., pp. 133-134)

This verdict did not prevent the later prohibition of Lacunza’s book by the Roman Holy Office in 1824. The prohibition was repeated in a condemnation of Lacunza’s type of Millennialism in 1941. [6]

Meanwhile Lacunza’s work had drawn wider attention, and already in 1816 it appeared in London. Irving was so impressed by it that he translated it into English. His translation was published in 1827, with a critical introduction of more than a hundred pages, since Irving’s opinions differed in important respects from Lacunza’s. Although Irving believed in a future Millennium, he took a historicist position in many issues of prophetic hermeneutics. However, Irving was a preacher who was famous for his rhetorical skills and he enjoyed great popularity among the higher classes. The fact that his name was attached to Lacunza’s book did its work and within no time The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty obtained the status of a Christian cult book. [7] Prophetic conferences were organized to study and discuss its implications.[8]

The founder of the Plymouth Brethren, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) developed Lacunza’s thought definitely into the direction of a systematic dispensationalist theology. Darby separated the Church and Israel through the introduction of the (unbiblical) doctrine of a Secret, pre-tribulational Rapture of the Church. [9]

Notwithstanding Darby’s additions — or even perhaps because of them — it was through the enormous influence of the Brethren movement that large parts of orthodox Christianity, in particular in the US, were converted to Millennialism and accepted the idea of a restoration of the Jewish nation in a future messianic Kingdom.

We cannot agree to the theoretical framework and the presuppositions of Darby’s dispensationalist theology with its opposition between Law and Grace and its separation between Israel and the Assembly of Messiah, and certainly not to his introduction of a Secret Rapture. Yet we must acknowledge that it was through Darby and his followers that the idea of a future restoration of Israel, which is fundamental for all branches of Messianic Judaism, has spread over all the earth.

One of the implications of this idea, once it is detached from its dispensationalist limitations and errors and brought back to the framework of a covenantal theology, is nothing less than the necessity of a return to a Torah observant lifestyle for the whole Body of Messiah. There are thus enough reasons to honour the memory of an important initiator of it, Manuel Lacunza.

Lacunza was a great and creative theological thinker and a person of great spirituality, as is confirmed by his admirers and his opponents. He did not fall into despair because of the humiliations of his exile and his undeserved secularization. He led a life of prayer and study and served his Lord day and night. He saw his suffering as a means of sharing in the suffering of Messiah.

We may perhaps add that Lacunza’s sufferings have contributed to return to a biblical perspective on that time when Yeshua shall arrive “in glory and majesty” to accept his reign as the King-Messiah of all Israel.

During his exile in Italy Lacunza used to undertake solitary walks during which he thought and meditated. It is assumed that he died of natural causes during one of these. On June 18, 1801, he was found dead in a pit beside a road not far from Imola. On the Jewish calendar this was the 7^th of Tammuz of the year 5561. Upcoming Shabbat is his 210th Yahrzeit. May his memory continue to be a blessing.

I think it is proper for messianic congregations and individuals to keep in remembrance Manuel Lacunza and to pay attention to his Yahrzeit, especially those with historical roots in Catholicism, the Plymouth Brethren, or the Irvingites.

Yahrzeit Prayer:

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

Remark:

In case one wants to burn a Yahrzeit light during Shabbat care should be taken to kindle the Yahrzeit light before the Shabbat candles are lit. After Shabbat the Yahrzeit light can be used to kindle the Havdalah candle.

______________

[1] For an historical study of XIXth century Millennarianism, Christian Zionism, and Prophetic Futurism view: Sandeen, Ernest R., The Roots of Fundamentalism. British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930, The University of Chicago Press — Chicago & London 1970.

[2] For some biographical facts on Lacunza, view the Wikipedia article about him, at: Wikipedia: Manuel Lacunza. There is also a good article on Lacunza on an Adventist website, which gives a basic summary of his book, by Sergio Olivares, “Manuel Lacunza: The Adventist Connection”, at: College and University Dialogue.

[3] Ben-Ezra, Juan Josafat, The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, translated from the Spanish, with a preliminary discourse by the Rev. Edward Irving, A.M. Published by L.B. Seeley & Son, Fleet Street — London 1827 (J.G. Tillin, England 2000). This edition is in two volumes and is currently available as a web publication at the Birthpangs website: Volume I & Volume II.

[4] Others say that Lacunza adopted this pseudonym to hide himself before the authorities. Both possibilities are not mutually exclusive.  Sandeen remarks (p. 17-18): “His treatise, completed about 1791, was not published during his lifetime for fear of condemnation by the authorities, but manuscript copies circulated and some printed editions appeared in Spain and Latin America beginning about 1812. Shortly before Irving’s translation appeared, the work was placed on the Index, which was not surprising since Lacunza had concluded that the Catholic hierarchy and priesthood were the Antichrist”. Sandeen is not entirely correct here. Lacunza’s position was that the Catholic hierarchy would in the prophetic future develop into an anti-Christian power. Notwithstanding this nuance, there was obviously enough reason to fear the Inquisition.

[5] Need, Ovid E., Death of the Church Victorious. Tracing the Roots and Implications of Modern Dispensationalism, Sovereign Grace Publishers — Lafayette, Indiana 2002.

[6] For some details and for references to official Church documents on this condemnation, view Denzigers Enchiridion: The Lacunza case can be found under Denz. no. 3839 (ed. XXXVI).

[7] According to Sandeen (p. 17) “Irving spent the whole of the summer of 1826 on leave from his parish duties, translating a millenarian treatise by a Chilean Jesuit, Manuel Lacunza. The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty was a ponderous two-volume work, seldom cited by later British millenarians; in fact, many of Lacunza’s positions were rejected by the British school and by Irving himself. Yet the aura of mystery and providential intervention surrounding the book drew Irving into the labor of translation and seems to have stimulated a short period of popularity for its name if not for its substance”. The “providential intervention” mentioned by Sandeen refers to the coincidence that Irving had just learned Spanish when he received the work (ibid., p. 18): “Irving had not known any Spanish until a few months before he was sent a copy of Lacunza’s book. That he had begun learning Spanish (while trying to assist some Spanish refugees) just at the moment this startling work from the Catholic “underground” appeared at his door convinced him that he was being providentially prepared to present the work to the British public. Even though Lacunza’s prophetic interpretations often varied from the customary British views, he did make a strong case for the premillennial advent of Christ, and this was the aspect of his work that Irving and the British millenarians emphasized. Lacunza might have been confused on some points (so the defense ran), but notice the manner in which testimony from this Roman Catholic scholar reinforces our heralding of the imminent return of Christ”. Sandeen’s account suggests that Irving already held millenarian views before he got acquainted with Lacunza’s work. This is controversial. There are many voices insisting that Lacunza was influenced by Ribiera, Irving by Lacunza, and Darby by Irving. It is difficult, however, to find reliable sources about the actual historic development of movements like Millenarianism and Dispensationalism. According to Mark Patterson and Andrew Walker (p. 107) “the influence of Lacunza (and fellow Jesuits Alcazar and Reberia) upon nineteenth century millennianism may prove profound” [Mark Patterson & Andrew Walker, "'Our Unspeakable Comfort' Irving, Albury, and the Origins of the Pre-tribulation Rapture" In: Stephen Hunt (ed.), Christian Millenarianism: From the Early Church to Waco, Indiana University Press — Bloomington and Indianapolis 2001.]

[8] For example the Albury and Powerscourt conferences. Cf. Sandeen, pp. 18-22 & 34-38.

[9] It is disputed whether Darby can be called the originator of the concept of the Secret Rapture, or that others had preceded him. In any case, Darby systematized it by adopting a consequent dispensationalist hermeneutics, and in this form the concept became a part of the highly influential theology of the Plymouth Brethren.

by Geert ter Horst

A couple of weeks before Passover I purchased FFOZ’s Vine of David Haggadah and I have studied it with great interest. This Haggadah is beautifully designed and contains a lot of valuable suggestions on the messianic celebration of Passover within a format that is faithful to the traditional Seder and its liturgical rubrics as developed in Jewish tradition.

My study of this Haggadah brought a problem to mind, however, that is common to messianic Haggadot in general and which doesn’t seem to be easily solvable. It is a problem hardly acknowledged in messianic circles, but which in my opinion is important enough to deserve a fundamental discussion.

The problem I’m referring to is about the inclusion of “Holy Communion”, or the Lord’s Supper, in the Passover Seder. All the messianic Haggadot I have seen have — in a more or less explicit manner — the Lord’s Supper included in the Seder proceedings. And from the viewpoint, shared by many, which considers Yeshua’s Last Supper to have been a Passover Seder this inclusion seems only natural. The point which I want to make here, however, is that, independent from the historical question whether the Last Supper was in fact a Seder or not — and the whole controversy about it — there are perhaps theological and halachic difficulties involved in celebrating Yeshua’s Supper at the Seder.

The problem I’m referring to is largely independent of the liturgical question whether the words of Yeshua: “this is my body, &c” are to be recited over the Matzah at the beginning of the Shulchan Orech section, at HaMotzi Matzah, or that they should specifically apply to the Afikoman and thus be recited at Tzafun. As to the cup, I have not noticed any controversy about it and all seem to agree that it is the third cup, the cup of thanksgiving, over which Yeshua’s words: “this is my blood &c” should be recited.

The (unintended) consequence common to all messianic efforts to include the Lord’s Supper in the Seder liturgy seems to be the necessitated acceptance of what is commonly called “child communion”, since all participants in the Seder are to eat from the Matzah — both at HaMotzi Matzah and at Tzafun — and all are to drink from the third cup. This is the essential problem involved in including the Supper in the Seder. Although I’m fully prepared to investigate the question of child communion, and to consider the theological arguments in favour of it, for the time being I have my reservations, which are based on the following, more general ecclesiological considerations.

To me the Assembly of Messiah is a community to which one belongs on the basis of faith, not on the basis of natural birth or education, and I think this fact has to be honoured and marked by the manner in which the typical rituals of this community are performed. These typical rituals are primarily water immersion in Yeshua’s name, (i.e. what is traditionally called “Baptism”) and the celebration of Yeshua’s Supper (i.e. what is traditionally called “Holy Communion”). And it seems to me a matter of logic that the admission to the second ritual is dependent on the fact of having received the first. A person who isn’t baptized cannot partake of the Supper because he is not a recognized member of the community. And because Baptism is to be administered on the basis of personal faith, it has a status that is importantly different from many Torah rituals.

One can easily detect this difference. For the sake of simplicity let us limit ourselves here to the Jewish context and take, as an example, a Jewish boy whose parents are believers in Messiah and members of a Torah observant messianic congregation. This boy is to receive Brit Milah on the eight day and Pidyon HaBen on the  31^st — if he is the firstborn of his mother —, and to become Bar Mitzvah on his thirteenth birthday, simply because he is Jewish. These rituals are fixed by Torah laws and customs and wholly independent of the faith of the person who receives them. This is not so with Baptism. There is no fixed date set for it, and the only thing that matters about receiving it is a living faith and the personal decision to belong to Yeshua and follow him. As soon as a person is baptized he is a “professed” (i.e. confessing) member of Yeshua’s Assembly and admitted to the community meal of this Assembly, which is the Lord’s Supper. The celebration of the Supper always expresses — or at least should express — the unity of the Assembly as the mystical body of Messiah. This is an aspect of the Supper strongly present in Paul’s teachings on it (cf. I Cor. 10:17).

Therefore it seems to me that children or youths who are not yet baptized should not be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. They cannot legitimately partake of the Supper before having made the personal decision to belong to Yeshua and having expressed this decision by the public act of water immersion in Yeshua’s name. That’s the reason why I think the Supper and the Seder cannot simply be held to be one and the same. They are essentially distinct celebrations. For it is clear that Jewish children should participate in the celebration of the Seder, eat the Matzah and drink of the cups, since in importants respects the Seder is about them and concentrates on the role of children. To deny them particular features of the celebration, e.g. the Afikoman or the third cup, requires convincing halachic grounds and does not seem, at the outset, to be a viable option. On the basis of the Torah Jewish children are fully entitled to partake, for instance, of the Afikoman, by which is signified the now absent Korban Pesach.

Although I’m personally of the opinion that the historical Last Supper was not a Passover Seder — but was held shortly before Seder night, probably the night before — and also that the Apostle Paul doesn’t identify the two, this is not my main point. My point is about theological and liturgical systematics, not about history. The Assembly of Messiah, being a community of faith, is a distinct body within Israel as a nation to which one belongs by natural birth, and, as it is clear that one cannot administer Baptism in Yeshua’s name on the basis of natural birth or on a family basis, so too one cannot celebrate the Supper on this basis. The Supper and Baptism are rituals which can only be administered on the basis of a confession of personal faith.

Yet it is also clear, apart from the historical question of the exact date of the institution of the Supper, that, from a liturgical viewpoint, there is no occasion more appropriate for its celebration than the Seder, which, by its rich symbolism, in many ways points to Messiah’s suffering and death and their salvific effects. That’s the reason why it is worth considering whether a solution for the problem of child communion can be found within the framework of the existing messianic practice of celebrating Yeshua’s Supper during the Seder night. While it is obvious that some changes would be required here and there in the traditional Seder procedures, and thus in the Haggadah, to make such a solution possible, it is no less obvious that any possible change should be carefully studied on its theological and halachic implications. It cannot be the intention of a messianic Haggadah to disregard the halachic background of the liturgical rubrics of the Seder, since the entire structure of the Seder is highly dependent on this background.

Although some may bring up here that the Seder procedures in our days are almost completely a matter of the Oral Torah and rabbinic legislation and can be disregarded by Messianics, this seemingly impressive argument is really a very poor affair and potentially destructive of any orderly regulation of the celebration of Passover. If one wants to avoid chaos and arbitrariness, and preserve a minimum of consistency and uniformity in messianic celebrations, then there’s no other realistic option than to take recourse to rabbinic halachah. In cases where changes are necessary one has thus to proceed on the basis of a solid halachic analysis.

Our problem can now be formulated as the following question: Is it possible to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at the Passover Seder without accepting the consequence of “child-communion”, and without destroying the basic halachic framework of the Seder precedures? I hope soon to investigate the possible answers (in Part II).

by Geert ter Horst
 
For those in whose imagination Holland is still the land of tolerance, of “live and let live”, and who consider the Dutch as an easy-going nation that manages to live peacebly with a diversity of churches, religions, and world-views, it may come as a surprise, but, alas, it is the bitter truth: The Dutch parliament is on the verge of repeating the first anti-Jewish measure that was taken by the Nazi-German oppressor after its occupation of the country in 1940: The legal prohibition of Shechitah.

Floating on the waves of popular fears for the Islamization of the country fueled by Geert Wilders and his thuggish bunch in the so-called “Freedom Party” (PVV), the animal rights movement — represented in parliament by the tiny Party for the Animals (PvdD), headed by Marianne Thieme — now sees a long sought for opportunity to pass legislation that will prohibit all “un-stunned” slaughter practices. Thieme has prepared a new law which is intended to make Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter practices illigitimate.

The PVV and the PvdD have formed an alliance for the occasion and have succeeded in convincing nearly all the other secular political parties, such as the Social Democrats (PvdA), the Liberal Democrats (D’66), the Socialist Party (SP) and the Green Left (Groen Links) that they are pursuing a good and noble cause, and that the hope and glory of Holland is now in the promulgation of animals rights, and in the abrogation of the nearly 400 year old historical rights of the Jewish people.

This may turn out to be only the initial phase of times of more troubles for the Dutch Jews, because of possible further anti-religious legislation.

If the new law passes, then, for the time being, Kosher meat can be imported from other countries, e.g. Belgium and France. However, one should not ignore the possibility of a domino effect resulting in  similar legislation in a number of other EU countries. The PVV has already made clear that it wants an additional second step: a prohibition against importing ritually slaughtered meats. If successful, this would condemn the orthodox Jews of Holland to a vegetarian diet.

There is also a rumbling going on about circumcision, and we hear some powerful voices favouring its criminalization. Notably, the Royal Dutch Society for the Promotion of Medicine has already accepted the position that circumcision for all other than strictly medical reasons should be prohibited. Similar voices can be heard in Wilders’ PVV.

With Wilders’ Freedom Party a movement has come near to the centre of political power, which views the adoption of a radical secularist agenda as its most powerful weapon in combating Islam, and which seems fully prepared to sacrifice the ancient religious rights of Jews and other groups in the process of pursuing its goals.

This is a very threatening development for the future of religious freedom in Holland. The traditional Christian political parties are no longer able to stop it. Their influence has considerably dimished over the last decades, and now the turning-point in the balance of power seems to have come. We are facing political forces from the right and the left uniting on an agenda of secularism, and moving against traditional positions of religious tolerance.

The level of hypocrisy involved in all this is nearly unconceivable. Recently, the Dutch parliament has pressured the cabinet to adopt a more active policy against the rising tide of Antisemitism. Now this parliament is itself making serious efforts to pass an essentially antisemitic law. These self-contradictory movements only make clear how totally irrelevant the Dutch Jews are from the perspective of the average law-maker. They can be dealt with as its suits his momentary interests. If, on the one hand, there exists some unrest about growing Antisemitism, the average representative will play the “good guy” role and ask for a more aggressive stance of the government. If, on the other hand, Shechitah is put in a bad light by populist leaders and animal rightists, this same representative will again play the “good guy” and ask for a prohibition of ritual slaughter. In one word, the average law-maker in the Dutch parliament has only one principle, which is to show just as much opportunism as is oppurtune for him.

Fundamental principles, consistency, and historical rights, are seemingly no longer anybody’s concern. The popular vote, and the immediate popular consent, are the only things that count for our politicians. And that’s the main reason why this development is so inherently serious and threatening, not only for the Jewish population, but for all who cherish traditional religious freedom.

This Dutch development in the direction of religious persecution should be a warning sign for us of similar future developments in the European Union. For what is at stake here, view: http://www.chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=22848

by Geert ter Horst

This year we celebrate Purim with the Itamar massacre fresh in our memories, and with the knowledge that the Jewish people today are again surrounded by ruthless foes, hell-bent on the destruction of the Jewish State and the extermination of all the Jews. Again are we facing a deadly enemy arising from the power of Persia and Media (Est. 1:3) — today’s Iran — who’s relentless efforts to become a nuclear power are motivated by the wicked desire “to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day” (Est. 3:13).

And as in those days the Jews found themselves left to themselves, alone and without friends in the world, today’s State of Israel finds itself alone and without any real friends. The political friends which it supposedly has are often of a kind that one would exclaim: who needs enemies, with friends like these? The United States and the European Union have lost all moral courage and are since decades following a political line cynical to the core, and which is essentially based on the idea that it is advantageous to sacrifice Israel bit by bit for the sake of remaining on acceptable terms with the Arab world. With the Shoah horrors fading from the limited memorial capacities of the superficial and secular world of the modern West, antisemitism is rising its ugly head again on its road to a new fashionableness.

What is the comfort and joy we pour from the message of Purim in these perilous circumstances? When the blind forces of the world, which don’t know or care about G-d and are beyond the possibility of being moved by a religious or moral appeal, are turning against the Jews, then what can be done?

The Megillah of Esther shows us that a miracle can occur in a world which doesn’t know about G-d. In this book of the Tanach the name of HaShem never occurs, yea G-d is not mentioned at all. And yet it is clear from its pages that “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. 121:4). The turning point of the story, which leads to the redemption of the Jews, is mysteriously contained in the opening sentence of the sixth chapter: “On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king” (Est. 6:1).

Lifting our attention from the wavering and unreliable Ahasverus to that trustworthty and unwavering King whose Kingdom is above all, this text tells us that He doesn’t sleep and that before Him is read “the book of records of the chronicles” of world history and that nothing is forgotten or hidden in the High Places of His Reign.

In a world that has lost all knowledge about G-d and his chosen nation, the world of the Jewish exile in the empire of the Persians and Medes with its pretentious laws which cannot be altered (Dan. 6:8), as well as the closed world of modern secularism and unchangeable natural laws, the miracle happens in a thus far unthought way. There occurs no public sign. The Hand of Heaven doesn’t become visible in any spectacular action. The miracle seems rather to be that the existence of the Jewish nation is ensured by an invisible hand and made part of the laws of world history.

The real miracle of Purim is thus that the Jews are an undeniable and necessary part of the world and that the world cannot exist without them. The immanent laws of nature and history are so designed by the Most High that the existence of the Jewish nation is part of them and that all efforts to wipe out the Jews are made futile and ultimately lead to the consequence that the evil plans of those who design them return upon their own heads (cf. Est. 9:25). When HaShem chose the Patriarch and their descendants to be a holy nation before Him, He made the solemn announcement: “I will bless them which bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee” (Gen. 12:3). The Book of Esther reveals that this blessing and this curse are not only a divine promise maintained by HaShem. They are an immanent property of the structure of this world. Whatever happens, the world is so designed by G-d that it cannot suffer the extermination of the Jews.

This means that the actions of the Jewish nation are part of this structure and that from time to time this nation is afforded the golden opportunity to smite its enemies, as it is recorded in the Megillah: “Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them” (Est. 9:5).

Although the full fruits of redemption will not be experienced apart from true faith and trust in HaShem, the bare existence of the Jewish nation is not dependent on these virtues. It depends solely on the divine promise pronounced in old times and sealed by its inscription in the edifice of the world. Come what may, the nation of Israel will always stay and be able, at decisive moments, to destroy its enemies.

Good Purim!

by Geert ter Horst

The question whether the Last Supper of Yeshua was a Passover Seder is immediately linked to the question what was the actual date of the crucifixion. Although there are difficulties on both sides of the two alternatives — a 14^th Nisan or a 15^th Nisan crucifixion — yet it seems that a crucifixion on the 14^th of Nisan offers the best possible solution of the difficulties involved. The reasons are the following.

When we accept a crucifixion on Nisan 14, we face a problem with the synoptic setting of the Last Supper, which seems to be that of a Passover Seder. We can remove this problem by accepting a crucifixion on Nisan 15, but the question is whether this remedy is not worse than the disease. For now we face not only a conflict about a calendar date between the Synoptics and John, but certain additional difficulties over and above that conflict, on which I’ll expound below.

Besides that, it seems that the Synoptics are less united in their dating of the Last Supper than often is thought, and the Gospel of Luke may be a dissenting voice here. In Luke 22:1 it is said that “the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is the Passover”. A few verses later, 22:7, it is said: “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed”. Bullinger’s Companion Bible has the following comment on this verse: “came = came near; for the preparation had not yet been made”. This is in accordance with the Greek tense used here, and it should be noted that the text doesn’t say that the day of the unleavened bread had already come, was already there. To be clear, the text doesn’t exclude this, but simply doesn’t say it. It can therefore be understood as saying that the arrival of this day was imminent. I also think it must not be excluded that Luke is making here a subtle allusion to Yeshua’s death, and that by saying that on the day of the unleavened “the Passover must be killed” he means that both the Passover lamb and Yeshua must be killed on that day, i.e. the 14^th of Nisan. If that is true, then of course Yeshua must be crucified on the 14^th of Nisan, not on the 15^th.

In the following verses the disciples are instructed where to prepare for the Passover, and they are told to say to the housemaster (in :11): “Where is the guestroom where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”. And it is reported that they made ready the Passover (in :13). The verb “make ready” (Gr. etoimazo) used here doesn’t mean to say that they slaughtered and roasted the Passover lamb, but that they made ready the upper room and provided all things necessary for the celebration of the Passover.

After that Luke introduces us to the evening of the Last Supper (in :14). The next verse, Luke 22:15, is of particular interest here. Brian Huie’s explanation of it, in his article “Was the “Last Supper” the Passover Meal?” sheds some unexpected light on it. Huie says:

Luke 22:15 has been used to support the assertion that Messiah and his disciples ate the Passover meal. In this Scripture, Yeshua says: “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”. The Greek phrase translated “with fervent desire I have desired” is epithumia epethumesa. It literally means “with desire I desired”.

The first word of this phrase, epithumia, is a noun. According to the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, usually this word “has the ambivalent sense, desire, strive for, long to have/do/be something”. It can also be “used for (forbidden) desire” (p. 27, vol. 2). Messiah uses epithumia in this sense in Luke 22:15.

In the article “The Lord’s Supper”, the New Bible Dictionary says that “[…] Lk. 22:15 may be read as an unfulfilled wish” (p. 707). Christ truly longed to eat that coming Passover with his disciples, but his desire could not be realized […], since Christ was destined to be sacrificed as our Passover lamb on the afternoon before the Passover meal.

In his Bible translation, Ferrar Fenton accurately captures the meaning of Messiah’s words in these verses:

Luke 22:15-16: “And He said to them: ‘I have longingly desired [epithumia epethumesa] to eat this Passover with you before my suffering; however, I tell you that I shall not eat of it, until it can be administered in the Kingdom of God’”. (Ferrar Fenton, The Holy Bible in Modern English, Oxford University Press — Oxford 1938) [1]

Luke thus seems to depict the Last Supper of Yeshua and the disciples as a preparatory meal for the Passover, not as the Passover itself. This doesn’t take away the fact that the Supper was held in close relation to the Passover. In fact it was celebrated at the beginning night of the 14^th of Nisan, the night that is known to us for the ceremony of b’dikat chametz, when the final search for chametz is done that ends the whole process of removing chametz and the kashering of utensils for Pesach. During this night and the following morning is the last occasion to eat leavened bread, because tradition and rabbinic law prescribe that the prohibition of chametz will run from noon on.

This explanation of Luke’s version of the Last Supper is important, for it softens the opposition between John and the Synoptics by showing that at least one of the Synoptic Gospels can be harmonized with the Passover and crucifixion chronology of John.

More important, however, are the inconsistencies which we run into by accepting the view that the Last Supper was a real Passover Seder, and particularly so because these inconsistencies are not only a matter of conflicting assertions between the Synoptics and John. On the presupposition of this scheme of events at least one striking inconsistency can be found within the Synoptic Gospels themselves, in Mark 15:46. Mark tells us there that Joseph of Arimathæa “bought fine linen”. It is clear that this never can have happened on the Yom Tov day of Pesach itself. And yet it is made to be so by those who hold that according to the synoptic accounts Yeshua was crucified on that day and that this indeed was the case.

Some have tried to reason a way out of this by proposing that the buying of the linen was done after nightfall, “when even was come”, according to Mark. 15:42, and that there was a day in between the high day of the 15^th of Nisan and the weekly Sabbath mentioned in that verse. The phrase: “because it was the preparation day” is then applied to the yet begun or beginning next day, Nisan 16, and, consequently, Nisan 17 is held by them to be the weekly Sabbath. But this proposal is dismissed by Luke’s own account in Lk. 23:54: “And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on”. So if Joseph of Arimathæa bought the linen after nightfall he transgressed the law of the Sabbath, and if he bought it in daytime he transgressed the law of Yom Tov. There is no way out here, except by assuming that the crucifixion occurred on a day that was neither a Sabbath nor a Yom Tov, and that the linen was bought on that same day, which for all the reasons mentioned cannot be another day than the 14^th of Nisan.

There is no conflict between Mark and Luke here, for the phrase “when even was come” need not to refer to a time after nightfall, but can signify the late part of daytime. It is the time toward the end of the day, and on Nisan 14 particularly it was “even” after 3 PM, the time Yeshua died and when the slaughtering of the Passover lambs which was to be done “in the evening” or “at even” according to Ex. 12:6 and Lev. 23:5, was begun. Dt. 16:6 explains that this even is “at the going down of the sun”, and a further explanation of this expression can be derived from the laws of the evening sacrifice. It is clear from Ex. 29:38-41 that the evening sacrifice is to be brought on the same day as the preceding morning sacrifice:

Exodus 12:38-41

³⁸Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. ³⁹The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the second [hasheni] lamb thou shalt offer at even [beyn ha‘arbayim]: ⁴⁰And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering. ⁴¹And the second [hasheni] lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto HaShem.

For the evening sacrifice to be the second offering of the day this sacrifice has to be brought before sunset on the same day. Otherwise the day has ended and a new day has begun and the evening sacrifice would be the first instead of the second offering of the day, and the order prescribed in the passage above would be reversed.

Those who favour the position that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder and that Yeshua was crucified on the 15^th of Nisan sometimes try to harmonize John with their understanding of the Synoptics. An ingenious, or rather sagacious, way of doing so is to explain the verses in John that refer to the Passover (i.c. Jn. 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42) by considering them as referring to the Chagigah offerings that were made during the Passover season. A basis for this explanation is found in Dt. 16:2-3, where the sacrifices made during the whole week of the unleavened bread are called “Passover”:

Deuteronomy 16:2-3

²Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passover unto HaShem thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which HaShem shall choose to place his name there. ³Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.

From the phrase “seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith”, i.e. with the Passover, it is concluded that all the sacrifices brought during the feast of the unleavened bread are called the Passover. Hence it is inferred that the preparation of the Passover mentioned in John could signify the preparation for the Chagigah sacrifices instead of the Pesach sacrifice of the 14^th of Nisan. And proof for this could perhaps be derived from the fact that the servants of the high priest “went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover” (Jn. 18:28). David Stern comments:

Some scholars believe “the Pesach” refers to the Passover lamb and conclude that Yochanan, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, places the Seder — the first evening of Passover — on Friday evening after the execution of Yeshua in the afternoon. I do not believe that Yochanan’s Gospel reports a different date for the crucifixion from the Synoptics (but see 13:29&N); rather, the meal of 13:1 was the Seder, and it took place on Thursday night; but “the Pesach” in this verse refers to other food eaten during Pesach, specifically the Chagigah (festival sacrifice), which was consumed with great joy and celebration on the afternoon following the Seder. This is the Pesach meal which the Judeans gathered outside Pilate’s palace would have been unable to eat had they entered, because their defilement would have lasted till sundown. If “the Pesach” meant the Passover lamb, defilement in the morning might not have been a problem, since the Seder meal took place after sundown. [2]

This argument should certainly be duly considered. It goes back to Charles C. Torrey, who presented it in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1931.[3] If his, and, consequently, Stern’s hypothesis is true, we face new problems in direct connection with the Seder. For if the supper of Jn. 13:2 was actually a Seder, then how could some of the disciples think that when Judas went out it was to “buy those things we have need of against the feast” (Jn. 13:29)? If it was Seder night then it was Yom Tov and buying and selling would be out of the question. Moreover, the reference at Jn. 13:1 that the supper took place “before the feast of Passover” cannot be reasoned away by the Chagigah-theory.

In Stern’s Commentary the issue of buying on Yom Tov is addressed by the unconvincing presupposition that in Yeshua’s time the halachah concerning financial transactions may not have been finalized. And Stern doesn’t answer the objection based on Jn. 13:1. When we consider that, on the presupposition that the Last Supper was a Seder it was already night at the time of the footwashing — for the footwashing was performed at “supper being ended” (KJV) or “supper having occurred” (Young’s Literal Translation). Although Bullinger understands this phrase as “supper having been served” or “supper having been laid”, because “washing would naturally precede the meal”, this nevertheless means that it was already after night, for the Seder never starts before nightfall.

When we duly consider Stern’s argument of ritual defilement we must come to the conclusion that it proves nothing. If the defilement ended at sundown then of course the Pesach lamb could be eaten. But this argument neglects that the eating in this case is connected with the slaughtering and roasting of the lambs that had to be done during daytime and for which ritual purity was required as well. If the Jews that were present at Yeshua’s trial before Pilate were to slaughter their Passover lambs in the afternoon of that same day, it is not difficult to understand that were anxious in guarding their ritual purity.

An even stronger case against Stern’s argument may be inferred from the consideration that the nature of the ritual defilement involved by entering the praetorium was probably that of uncleanness caused by a corpse, as is made clear by Barry Smith:

There seems to be only one possibility concerning why entering the praetorium would cause ritual defilement and, as a result, prevent Jesus’ accusers from eating the Passover. The dwellings of Gentiles were considered ritually defiling, because it was assumed that a Jew contracted corpse uncleanness by entering therein, owing to the belief that Gentiles buried their miscarried children within their houses. This type of ritual defilement would prevent a Jew from taking part in the sacrificing of the Passover lamb or the festival offering. [4]

Although Smith in his article attempts to assimilate John’s chronology to the supposedly Synoptic position of a 15^th Nisan crucifixion, his just cited argument is destructive for the Chagigah theory, because if indeed corpse uncleanness is the issue in Jn. 18:28, then the participation in the entire festival of seven days was endangered for those who would enter Pilate’s praetorium. And thus the Chagigah-argument is of no avail for excluding the Passover sacrifice of Nisan 14 as the reference of Jn. 18:28.

The synoptic texts that give us Yeshua’s words about the sign of Jonah (Mt. 12:39-41; 16:4; Lk. 11:29-32) have given rise to the assumption that there are two Sabbaths mentioned in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, not only the weekly Sabbath but the “annual Sabbath” of the first Yom Tov of Pesach, Nisan 15. This assumption has led to two new theories, with the crucifixion on Wednesday or on Thursday respectively. The Wednesday crucifixion theory places the “annual Sabbath” of Passover on Thursday, and has the resurrection after — or sometimes even during — the weekly Sabbath. In this scheme there is an intermediate day, Friday, between the two Sabbaths. The Thursday crucifixion theory has the “annual Sabbath” and the weekly Sabbath in a successive sequence without an intermediate day. In particular Jn. 19:14 and 19:31 are used as proof-texts for this theory.

These theories are relevant for the question whether Yeshua was crucified on Nisan 15 or on Nisan 14. For a crucifixion on Nisan 15 is only conceivable at all if that day was not a weekly Sabbath. On a weekly Sabbath a trial and an execution were certainly excluded by Jewish law, and the accounts of the Gospels contain so many details that should be counted as Sabbath transgressions if the crucifixion day happened to be a weekly Sabbath that such a scheme of things can safely be outruled beforehand and without further investigations. If, therefore, it can be scripturally proved that in the year of Yeshua’s crucifixion the 15^th of Nisan fell on a weekly Sabbath, it necessarily follows that Yeshua was crucified on Nisan 14, not on Nisan 15.

This proof is actually given us in a very simple way. The point is here that the term ‘annual Sabbath’ is a misnomer, because an annual holy day is never called a Sabbath in any of the Gospels, or in any other part of Scripture. The only one exception to this is Yom Kippur, for a good reason, because on Yom Kippur the work prohibition is of the same severity as on the weekly Sabbath. This distinction is extensively explained in the two article in the series on the Omer, which can be found by the following links:

http://messianic613.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/the-messianic-confusion-about-the-omer-part-i-the-misnomer-of-annual-sabbaths/

http://messianic613.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/the-messianic-confusion-about-the-omer-part-ii-an-exegetical-and-halachic-analysis-of-the-terms-shabbat-and-shabbaton-in-lev-ch-xxiii/ 

Now the Gospel of John clearly says that the Sabbath which was approaching after Yeshua’s death on the Cross was an high day, i.e. a Yom Tov (in Jn. 19:31). This can only mean that in the year of Yeshua’s death the first Yom Tov of Passover, Nisan 15, fell on a weekly Sabbath, since we have proved that a Yom Tov was never called a Sabbath on its own account. This is confirmed particularly for the Gospel of John, in which we find mentioned a lot of feast days that are never called Sabbaths. For these reasons the crucifixion can only have occurred on Nisan 14. The Last Supper thus must have preceded the day time of Nisan 14 and therefore could never have been a Passover Seder.