NAZARENE ARTICLES 3

 For All of Your Generations Forever
By
James Scott Trimm
In studying the so-called New Testament we must ask ourselves “can you get here from there?” (“there” being the Tanak (Old Testament)). If we understand something in the so-called New Testament in such a way that it contradicts the Tanak, then we must be misunderstanding it. Now there are many who understand many New Testament passages in such a way as to believe and teach that the Torah has been abolished. Let us be like noble Bereans and let us look in the Tanak to see if this is so (Acts 17:11). After all Paul tells us that the Tanak is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, [and] for instruction” (2Tim. 3:16). So what does the Tanak say? Was the Torah to be for all generations, forever? or would it one day be abolished? If the Torah would one day be abolished, then we should be able to find this taught in the Tanak. As Noble Bereans we should be checking to see if the things we have been taught can be found in the Tanak. By contrast, if the Torah would not be abolished, but would be for all generations forever, then we should be able to find that information in the Torah as well. Since the Tanak is profitable for doctrine and correction, perhaps we can seek the truth on this issue from the Tanak:
“…it shall be a statute forever to their generations…” (Exodus 27:21)
“…it shall be a statute forever to him and his seed after him.” (Exodus 28:43)
“…a statute forever…” (Exodus 29:28)
“…it shall be a statute forever to them, to him and to his seed throughout their generations.” (Exodus 30:21)
“It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever.” (Exodus 31:17)
There is no shortage of passages in the Torah which specify that the Torah will not be abolished but will be for all generations forever. (For more see: Leviticus 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Numbers 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10 and Deuteronomy 5:29)
Moreover the Psalmist writes:
Your word is truth from the beginning:
and every one of your righteous judgements endures forever.
(Psalm 119:160)
Furthermore the Tanak tells us that the Torah is not to be changed or taken away from:
You shall not add to the word which I command you,
neither shall you diminish a thing from it,
that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:2)
Whatever thing I command you, observe to do it:
you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
(Deuteronomy 13:1(12:32))
So if we are “Noble Bereans” we will find that the Tanak teaches that the Torah will not be abolished but will endure for all generations forever. This teaching from the Tanak is profitable to us for doctrine, for reproval and for correction.
The Messiah echoes this teaching:
Do not think that I have come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets.
I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away,
one yud or one mark will by no means pass from the Torah till all is fulfilled.
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments,
and teaches men so, he will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven;
but whoever does and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-19 see also Luke 16:17)
As does Paul:
Do we then abolish the Torah through trust?
Absolutely not! We uphold the Torah!
(Romans 3:31)
Despite the fact that David was saved by faith alone (Romans 4:5-8) he loved the Torah and delighted in it (Psalm 119: 97, 113, 163). Paul also delighted in the Torah (Romans 7:22) and called it “holy, just and good.” (Romans 7:12). There is nothing wrong with the Torah that Elohim should want to abolish or destroy it, in fact both the Tenach and the New Scriptures call the Torah “perfect” (Psalm 19:7; James 1:25).
The Torah is even called in the so-called New Testament “the Torah of Messiah” (Galatians 6:2). To say that the Torah was not forever and is not for all generations, is to call Elohim a liar.
ANTI-TORAH TEACHERS ARE ALWAYS FALSE PROPHETS
Now let us return to Deuteronomy 13:1(12:32):
Whatever thing I command you,
observe to do it: you shall not add thereto,
nor diminish from it.”
(Deuteronomy 13:1(12:32))
If we look at this passage in context, we can learn a great deal:
1 (12:32) All this word which I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add thereto nor diminish from it.
2 (13:1) If there arise in the midst of you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give you a sign or a wonder,
3 (13:2) And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto you, saying, Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us serve them …
4 (13:3) You shall not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams. For YHWH your Elohim puts you to proof, to know whether you do love YHWH your Elohim, with all your heart and with all your soul.
5 (13:4) After YHWH your Elohim shall you walk, and Him shall you fear, and His commandments shall you keep, and unto His voice shall you hearken, and Him shall you serve, and unto Him shall you cleave.
6 (13:5) And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he has spoken perversion against YHWH your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to draw you aside out of the way which YHWH your Elohim commanded you to walk in. So shall you put away the evil
from the midst of you.
(Deut. 13:1-6 (12:32-13:5) HRV)
You may notice there is a difference between the chapter and verse divisions in the original Hebrew (and Jewish editions) and in Christian translations of this text. The Christian translations have moved the chapter division so that it separates 13:1 from 13:2-6 when in fact Deut. 13:2-6 carries forward the thought presented in Deut. 13:1.
The text of this passage tells us that after the Torah was given to Moses, anyone who would come along later and diminish from the Torah telling us not to keep any of His commandments, must be rejected as a false prophet, even if they make prophecies that come true with 100 percent accuracy and even if they perform signs wonders and miracles.
If you could prove that either Yeshua and/or Paul taught that any of the other 613 commandments of the Torah should no longer bo observed, you would not be proving that the Torah should no longer be observed, you would only be proving that Yeshua and/or Paul were false prophets.
Of course neither Yeshua nor Paul were false prophets, because neither of them ever taught that any commandment of the Torah should no longer be observed.
The Torah is for all generations forever and every one of its commandments will endure forever.
Paul Misunderstood
By
James Scott Trimm
Paul is greatly misunderstood as having taught that the Torah is not for today. I have met a great many who feel uncomfortable with his writings. Some of these have even, like the Ebionites of ancient times, removed Paul’s from their canon (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:27:4). This belief that Yeshua may not have abolished the Torah, but that Paul did, has been propagated since ancient times. The “Toldot Yeshu” for example, an ancient hostile Rabbinic parody on the Gospels and Acts, accuses Paul of contradicting Yeshua on this very issue (Toldot Yeshu 6:16-41; 7:3-5). At least one modern Dispensationalist, Maurice Johnson, taught that the Messiah did not abolish the Torah, but that Paul did several years after the fact. He writes:
“Apparently God allowed this system of Jewish ordinances to be practiced about thirty years after Christ fulfilled it because in His patience, God only gradually showed the Jews how it was that His program was changing…. Thus it was that after God had slowly led the Christians out of Jewish religion He had Paul finally write these glorious, liberating truths.”
(Saved by “Dry” Baptism! ; a pamphlet by Maurice Johnson; pp. 9-10)
Kefa warns us in the Scriptures that Paul’s writings are difficult to understand. He warns us saying:
“…in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”
(2 Peter 3:15-16)
Paul knew that his teachings were being twisted, he mentions this in Romans, saying:
“And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”? — as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say.”
(Romans 3:8)
Paul elaborates on this slanderous twist of his teachings, saying:
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!…”
(Romans 6:1-2)
and
“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the Torah but under grace? Certainly not!”
(Romans 6:15)
So then, Paul was misunderstood as teaching that because we are under grace, we need not observe the Torah.
Upon his visit to Jerusalem in Acts 21 Paul was confronted with this slanerous twist of his teachings. He was told:
“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous for the Torah; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.”
(Acts 21:20-21)
In order to prove that this was nothing more than slander, Paul takes the nazarite vow and goes to make offerings (sacrifices) at the Temple (Acts 21:22-26 & Num. 6:13-21) demonstrating that he himself kept the Torah (Acts 21:24). Paul did and said many things to prove that he both kept and taught the Torah. He:
circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3)
took the nazarite vow (Acts 18:18; 21:17-26)
taught and observed Passover (Acts 20:6; 1Cor. 5:6-8; 11:17-34)
taught and observed Shavuot (Pentecost) (Acts 20:16; 1Cor. 16:8)
taught and observed fasting on Yom Kippur (Acts 27:9)
and even performed animal sacrifices in the Temple (Acts 21:17-26/Num. 6:13-21; Acts 24:17-18)
Among his more notable statements on the subject are:
“Neither against the Jewish Torah, nor against the Temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.” (Acts 25:8)
“I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers.” (Acts 28:17)
“…the Torah is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good.” (Romans 7:12)
“Do we then nullify the Torah through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we maintain the Torah.” (Romans 3:31).
Was Paul a Hypocrite?
Being confronted with the various acts and statements of Paul which support the Torah, many of the “Torah is not for today” teachers accuse Paul of being hypocritical. Charles Ryrie, for example, footnotes Acts 21:24 in his Ryrie Study Bible calling Paul a “middle of the road Christian” for performing such acts. Another writer, M.A. DeHaan wrote an entire book entitled “Five Blunders of Paul” which characterizes these acts as “blunders.” “These teachers of lawlessness” credit Paul as the champion of their doctrine, and then condemn him for not teaching their doctrine. If Paul was really a hypocrite, could he honestly have condemned hypocrisy so fervently (see Galatians 2:11-15). Consider some of his own words:
“For now do I persuade the sons of men or Eloah? Or do I seek to please the sons of men? For if until now I had pleased the sons of men, I would not have been a servant of the Messiah.”
(Gal. 1:10 HRV)
“And you know, my brothers, that our entrance unto you was not in vain, but first we suffered and were dishonored, as you know, in Philippi, and then with great struggle we spoke to you with the boldness of our Eloah the good news of the Messiah. For our exhortation was not from deception nor from impurity nor with treachery. But as we were approved of Eloah to be entrusted with his Good News, thus we speak, not so as to please the sons of men, but Eloah, who searches our hearts. For we never used flattering speech, as you know, nor a pretext of greediness; Eloah [is] witness.”
(1 Thessalonians 2:1-5 HRV)
Torah, Faith and Grace
By
James Scott Trimm
Another misunderstanding common in the church today is the concept that Torah and Grace are mutually exclucive ideas. For exmple one author writes:
“A believer can not be under law and under grace at the same time.”
(God’s Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 83)
Now let us be noble Bereans to see if this is true. Let us ask ourselves: “How were people saved in ‘Old Testament’ times? Were they saved by works or by grace?
The fact is that often when Paul speaks of how we are saved by grace through faith he often cites the Tanak to prove his point. Two of his favorite proof texts for this concept are from the Tanak:
“And he believed in YHWH; and he counted it to him as righteousness.”
(Genesis 15:6 = Romans 4:3, 22; Galatians 3:6)
“…the just shall live by his faith.”
(Habakkuk 2:4 = Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11)
So Paul is arguing from the Tanak that one is saved by faith alone appart from works. In fact the real truth is that men of the “Old Testament” times were just as under grace as we are today:
“But Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH.”
(Genesis 6:8)
“…you have also found grace in my sight….”
(Exodus 33:12)
“…for you have found grace in my sight…”
(Exodus 33:17)
“…and now I have found grace in your sight…”
(Judges 6:17)
“The people… found grace in the wilderness…”
(Jereremiah 31:2)
Thus as noble Bereans we learn from the Tanak that people in “Old Testament” times were saved by grace through faith. They could not have earned their salvation any more than we could today, as Paul writes:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua the Messiah, even we have believed in Yeshua the Messiah, that we might be justified by the faith of Messiah, and not by works of the law; and by the works of the law shall no flesh be saved.”
(Galatians 2:16)
In fact the “New Testament” contains more commandments than the “Old Testament”. The New Testament contains 1050 commandments [as delineated in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible; By Finnis Jennings Dake; N.T. pp.313-316] while the “Old Testament” Mosaic Law contains only 613 (b.Makkot 23b; see Appendix). Thus faith and grace are in the “Old Testament” and law and works can be found in the New Testament. People in Old Testament times were saved by grace through faith just like people in New Testament times. Now many anomians will agree to this fact on the surface, but lets follow this thought through to its fullest conclusion. Lets go beyond the surface and really think this through. If what we have shown to be true is true, then the people in the wilderness in the days of Moses were saved by grace through faith. Now lets look at the full impact of that statement. That means that people were under grace, and saved by faith alone and not by works, when Moses was stoning people to death for violating the Torah! Obviously then being saved by grace through faith in no way affects Torah observance.
So if grace and faith do not negate the observance of Torah, then what is the true nature of faith and grace? What is faith? What is grace? Let us once again turn to the scriptures for answers.
Now part of the reason that many people have come to think that there is more “grace” in the New Testament than in the Old Testament is a translation bias in the KJV and many other English versions.
There are two words for “grace” in the Hebrew Tanak. The first word is CHEN (Strong’s 2580/2581) which means “grace or charm”. The other word is CHESED (Strong’s 2616/2617 ) which carries the meaning of “grace, mercy or undue favor.”
These two words closely parallel the meanings of the two Greek words used for grace in the Greek Bible. These are CHARIS (Strong’s 5485/5463) which means “grace or charm” and ELEOS (Strong’s 1651/1653) meaning “grace, mercy or undue favor.”
Obviously Hebrew CHEN = Greek CHARIS and Hebrew CHESED = Greek ELEOS. Now the KJV tends to translate CHEN/CHARIS as “grace” but tends to translate CHESED/ELEOS as “mercy”. Now when we think of “grace” in biblical terms we are ussually thinking of the concept of CHESED/ELEOS “undue favor”.
Now if we follow with the KJV translation scheme then it appears that there is much more grace in the New Testament than the Tanak, since CHEN only appears 70 times in the Tanak while CHARIS appears 233 times in the New Testament. But remember, the concept of “undue favor” is actually CHESED/ELEOS. CHESED appears 251 times in the Tanak, while ELEOS appears only 50 times in the New Testament. If anything there is far more “grace” in the Tanak than in the New Testament.
Now let us turn to the Tanak to get a better understanding of what grace really is. According to the Scriptures there is a close connection between “grace” and the “fear of YHWH”:
“For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his grace (CHESED) toward those who fear him.”
(Psalm 103:11)
“Oh let those who fear YHWH say, ‘His grace (CHESED) is everlasting.’ “
(Psalm 118:4)
“By grace (CHESED) and truth iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of YHWH one keeps away from evil.”
(Proverbs 16:6)
And the fear of YHWH, according to the Tanak, includes Torah observance:
“…that he may learn the fear of YHWH his God, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them:”
(Deuteronomy 17:19)
“…that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear YHWH your God, and observe to do all the words of this Torah.”
(Deuteronomy 31:12)
Therefore there is clearly no conflict between grace and Torah. In fact the Torah is closely connected to grace.
The next word we need to examine is “faith”. The Hebrew word is EMUNAH. EMUNAH can mean “belief, faith or trust” and is best translated “trusting faithfulness”. When we speak of “faith” in YHWH we are not merely speaking about “belief” but “trusting faithfulness”. If someone were to ask you if you are faithful to your spouse, you would not reply by saying “Yes, I believe my spouse exists.” That is because it is clearly not an issue of what you believe but in whether you are faithful. Imagine a man who stays out late at night every night committing adultery with various women. Each night he comes home to his wife and tells her how much he loves her, and insists that since he believes in her existence that he therefore is faithful to her. Is this man faithful to his wife? Absolutely not! This understanding is confirmed to us in the Scriptures as follows:
“Remove the false way from me, and graciously grant me your Torah. I have chosen the way of faith; I have placed your ordinances before me.”
(Psalm 119:29-30)
Now I want to make it clear that we are not saying that one earns ones salvation by keeping Torah. At times I have been asked “Do I have to keep Torah to be saved?”. I reply by saying “Of course not…. do you have to get cleaned up to take a bath?”
You may ask, “Well if we don’t keep the Torah for salvation, then why do we keep the Torah?” First of all, keeping the Torah SHOWS our faith (Titus 3:5-8; 1Jn. 2:3-7; James 2:14-26). Secondly there are rewards for keeping the Torah (Titus 3:8). The Psalms tell us that it “restores the soul” (Ps. 19:7). Yeshua promises that those who keep the Torah and teach others to do so will be called first in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:19). Additionally, Jews who keep the Mosaic Torah are given a long list of other promises (Deuteronomy 28).
Now if the Torah is good and everlasting then it stands to reason that it should be observed. Paul tells us that we should not use grace as an excuse to sin (Rom. 6:1-2, 15) and that the only way to know sin is through the Torah (Rom. 7:7). Yeshua tells us that if we love him we will keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-25; 15:10). The fact that we are saved by faith is all the more reason that we should keep the Torah, as the Scriptures tell us:
“…not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Yeshua the Messiah our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.”
(Titus 3:5-8)
“And by this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says, ‘I know him,’ and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in him ought himself to walk just as he walked. Brothers, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning.”
(1 John 2:3-7)
The Torah is Truth
By
James Scott Trimm
There is a spiritual battle taking place. A battle between light and darkness. A battle between truth and deception. Paul writes:
“and put on all the armour of Eloah, so that you may be able to stand against the strategies of ‘Akel Kartza, because your struggle is not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and with authorities and with the possessors of this dark world and with the evil spirits that are under heaven. Because of this, put on all the armour of Eloah that you may be able to meet the evil one, and being prepared in everything, you may stand firm.”
(Ephesians 6:11-13 HRV)
Paul goes on to describe the parts of this armour as:
The Belt of Truth
The Breastplate of Righteousness
The Shoes of the Goodnews of Peace (Shalom)
The Shield of Faith
The Helmet of Salvation
The Sword of the Word
Now Paul is making a play on words here. The Aramaic word for “Armour” is ZAYNA while the Aramaic word for for “whiles” is TZEN’TA. Paul is contrasting the ZAYNA with the TZEN’TA. The four fixed (non mobile) pieces of armour correspond to the four whiles of HaSatan which are depicted in the Tanak:
Deception/Lies (Gen. 3) / Belt of Truth
Temptation/Pride (1Chron. 21:1) / Breastplate of Righteousness
Oppression (Job) / Shoes of Peace
Accusation (Zech. 3:1-5) / Helmet of Salvation
Now we will not cover each of the items here, instead we will concentrate only on the belt of truth.
Now it should be understood that the armour Paul is speaking of is not Roman armour, it was not inspired by Roman Soldiers. The armour was originally inspired by the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 11:5; 52:7 and 59:17) as well as the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon (5:17-20). Therefore the subject of this passage is ancient Hebew armour and not Roman armour at all. Now ancient Hebrews wore a skirt like garment. Before going into battle a Hebrew warrior would gird himself with the a belt, he would gather his skirt-like garment up and tuck it up under his belt to allow free movement. This prevented him from getting tripped up in his own garment while trying to fight.
Now when he was on trial before Pilate Yeshua said:
“For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness of the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.”
(John 18:37-38)
To this Pilate asked the all important question:
“What is truth?”
(John 18:38)
Let us look back to the Tanak to find the answer to Pilate’s question:
“Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your Torah is truth.”
(Psalm 119:142)
“You are near, O YHWH, and all your commandments are truth.”
(Psalm 119:151)
This definition explains many phrases in the New Testament:
“Obey the truth”
(Galatians 3:1)
“But he that does truth…”
(John 3:20)
“And I rejoice that I found your children walking in the truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.”
(2 John 1:4)
The Tanak definition of truth gives whole new meaning to Yeshua’s words:
“For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness of the truth.Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.”
(John 18:37-38)
Yeshua came to bear witness of the Torah, those who hear the Torah hear his voice. This leads us to another important saying from Yeshua:
“Then Yeshua said to those Jews who believed on him, ‘If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ “
(John 8:31-32)
Paul, however, speaks of those “who changed the truth of God into a lie” (Rom. 1:25) Now if Messiah came to bear witness of the truth then what has HaSatan to bear witness to? The scriptures tell us:
“He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not the truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and ther father of it.”
(John 8:44)
“…HaSatan, who deceives the whole world…”
(Revelation 12:9)
When HaSatan speaks a lie, he is merely speaking his native language.
Now if the Torah is truth, then what is HaSatan’s lie? His lie is that there is not a Torah, that the Torah has been done away with. There is a Greek term for this teaching. This term is ANOMOS (Strong’s Greek #459). ANOMOS is made up of the Greek prefix A- (there is not/without) with the Greek word NOMOS (Torah). ANOMOS means “without Torah” or “Torah-lessness.” While Messiah came to bear witness to the Torah, HaSatan comes to bear witness of ANOMOS (Torah-lessness). Two entire books of the New Testament (2Kefa and Jude) are dedicated to combating this false ANOMOS teaching. Yeshua tells us that these teachers will be called “least” in the Kingdom (Matthew 5:19).
Now lets take a look at how the Bible uses this term ANOMOS:
“…I [Yeshua] will profess to them, I never knew you, depart from me, you that work ANOMOS.”
(Matthew 7:23)
“…and they [angels] shall gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do ANOMOS.”
(Matthew 13:41)
“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because ANOMOS shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold.”
(Matthew 24:11-12)
“For the mystery of ANOMOS does already work… And then shall the ANOMOS one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,… whose coming is after the working of HaSatan with all power and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness… because they received not the love of truth… That they might be damned who believed not the truth…”
(2 Thessalonians 2:7-12)
Many people have been taken in by the ANOMOS teaching. In fact two of Christendom’s largest theological sub-sets, Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology, submit detailed theories to explain why they teach that the Torah is not for today.
Dispensationalism is a form of Premillennialism which replaces the eternal “covenants” with finite “ages”. Two of these finite ages are “The Age of Torah” which basically encompasses “Old Testament times”, and “The Age of Grace” which basically encompasses “New Testament times”. According to these Dispensationalists, during “Old Testament times” men were under Torah, but during “New Testament times” men are under grace. Some Dispensationalists, called “Ultra-Dispensationalists”, even teach that men were saved by Torah in “Old Testament times,” but are saved by grace in “New Testament times.” As a result, Dispensationalists teach that “the Torah is not for today” or “we have no Torah.”
Replacement Theologians teach that G-d has replaced Israel with the Church; Judaism with Christendom; The Old Testament with The New Testament; and Torah with grace. As a result, they too teach that “the Torah is not for today” or “we have no Torah.”
Now you may be saying to yourself: “Ok, so they teach Torah-lessness, but don’t the Torah-less teachers of 2Peter & Jude go so far as to teach sexual immorality? Surely the Torah-less teachers of within the church would never use their “the Torah is not for today” teaching to promote sexual immorality.” Wrong! Some of Christendom’s teachers have already carried the “the Torah is not for today” reasoning to its fullest and logical conclusion. A sect of Christendom known as “The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches” has published a tract which does just that. The nameless author of the tract writes:
“Another Scripture verse that is used to show that the Bible condemns the gay lifestyle is found in the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou would with a woman.” Anyone who is concerned about this prohibition should read the whole chapter or the whole Book of Leviticus: No pork, no lobster, no shrimp, no oysters, no intercourse during the menstrual period, no rare meats, no eating blood, no inter-breeding of cattle, and a whole host of other laws, including the Law to kill all divorced people who remarry.
“As Christians, our Law is from Christ. St. Paul clearly taught that Christians are no longer under the Old Law (for example in Galatians 3:23-24); that the Old Law is brought to an end in Christ (Romans 10:4); and its fulfillment is in love (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14). The New Law of Christ is the Law of Love. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any of the New Testament Scriptures implies that Christians are held to the cultic or ethical laws of the Mosaic Law.”
(Homosexuality; What the Bible Does and Does not Say; Universal Fellowship press, 1984, p. 3)
Thus Christendom’s teaching that “the Torah is not for today” is already being used to “turn the grace of our Elohim into perversion.” (Jude 1:4; see also 2 Peter 2:18-21)
There is indeed a spiritual battle taking place. It is a battle between the truth and a lie. It is a battle between light and darkness. It is a battle led by the one who came to bear witness to the Torah, and the one who comes to bear witness to Torah-lessness. The Torah is truth. The belt of truth is the belt of Torah. Gird yourselves with the belt of Torah that you may withstand the Torah-less one.
The Torah: Freedom from Bondage
By James Scott Trimm
In the last chapter we learned that the Torah is Truth (Ps. 119:142) and that Yeshua said:
“… if you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
(John 8:31-32)
Therefore the Torah brings freedom. This is completely contrary to what most people have been taught. The common wisdom is that the Torah is bondage and that “freedom in Christ” means freedom from Torah. For example one author writes:
“Many Christians today would return to Sinai. They would put upon the church the yoke of bondage, the Law of Moses.”
(God’s Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 66)
However as we shall see the scriptures teach that exactly the opposite is true.
The central story of Judaism is that of the Exodus from Egypt. The children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt. God promised to gring them out of bondage and give them freedom. Upon leading the children of Israel out of Egypt, YHWH led them to Mt. Sinai where he delvered the Torah to them. Note that the theme of this central story is that God promised freedom from bondage and gave the children of Israel Torah. Now why would YHWH lead the people out of bondage in Egypt, lead them to Mt. Sinai, and deliver them right back into bondage again? And why would he at the same time promise them freedom. God is no liar. He promised the people freedom and he gave them Torah because the Torah is freedom from bondage. The Torah is truth (Ps. 119:142) and the truth will make you free (John 8:31-32).
This truth is proclaimed by the Psalmist:
“So shall I keep your Torah continually forever and ever, And I will walk in freedom: for I seek your precepts.”
(Psalm 119:44-45)
As well as by Ya’akov HaTzadik (James the Just) who called the Torah “the Torah of freedom” (James 1:25; 2:12).
However the ANOMOS teachers today teach that the Torah is bondage and that Torah-lessness is freedom. They have exchanged the truth (Torah) of God for a lie (Torah-lessness) (Rom. 1:25). Of these 2Peter 2:19 states:
“While they promise them freedom, they themselves are servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage.”
(2 Peter 2:19)
according to Kefa these men “turn from the holy commandment delivered to them” (2Peter 2:21) they promise freedom but deliver bondage.
By contrast Yeshua said:
“Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my load is light.”
(Matthew 11:28-30)
Now many of the teachers of Torah-lessness use this this passage as a proof text. To them this passage refers to freedom from the bondage of Torah. However notice the boldfaced portion. This bolfaced portion of Yeshua’s statement is a quotation from the Tanak. A quotation which gives a great deal of context to Yeshua’s statement. Lets look at this Tanak passage:
“Thus said YHWH, stand you in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls. But they said, we will not walk therein.”
(Jeremiah 6:16)
Notice that this “way” which gives “rest” is “the old path”. Now lets read a little further down in Jer. 6 to obtain more context:
“But they said, we will not walk therein.”
(Jer. 6:16)
“…they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my Torah, but rejected it.”
(Jer. 6:19)
Notice that the “old path” that brings “rest for your souls” to which they said “we will not walk therein” (Jer. 6:16) is identified by YHWH as “my Torah”. This takes us up a bit further in the text of Jeremiah:
“…they are foolish, for they do not know the way of YHWH, the requirements of their God. So I will go to the leaders and speak to them; surely they know the way of YHWH, the requirements of their God. But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke and torn off the bonds.”
(Jeremiah 5:4-5; see also Jeremiah 2:20)
Here we find that the “yoke” which brings rest is the yoke which was being rejected. The yoke of Torah. Now lets look again at Yeshua’s saying:
“Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my load is light.”
(Matthew 11:28-30)
The yoke that Messiah asks us to take on ourselves, the yoke that will give us rest for our souls is the Torah. The Torah is freedom from the bondage of Torah-lessness. The freedom of Torah is freedom from the bondage to sin that results without Torah. Without Torah there is no true freedom, only bondage. True liberty does not include a license to sin (Romans 3:8; 6:1-2, 15)
The Torah: A Light in a Dark Place
By James Scott Trimm
As we said earlier there is a spiritual battle taking place between light and darkness. Paul writes:
“…what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Messiah with Belial…”
(2 Corinthians 6:14b-15a)
Throughout the New Testament there are extended metaphores revolving around light and darkness. Believers are called “sons of light” (Lk. 16:8; Jn. 12:36; Eph. 5:8; 1Thes. 5:5). The full armour of God is also called the “armour of light” (Rom. 13:12). The New Testament speaks of those “who walk in darkness” (John 8:12; 12:35).
But what does this idiomatic use of the terms light and darkness mean? For the answer let us turn to the Tanak:
“For the commandment is a lamp; and the Torah is light…”
(Proverbs 6:23)
“Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.”
(Psalm 119:105)
“To the Torah and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
(Isaiah 8:20)
“…for a Torah shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgement to rest for a light of the people.”
(Isaiah 51:4)
So according to the Tanak the Torah is a light for our paths. Those that walk in the Torah walk in the light. This is why the New Testament speaks of those who walk in darkness (Jn. 8:12; 12:35; 1Jn. 1:6; 2:11). These are those who do not walk by the light of Torah. Of these John writes:
“And if we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we are liars and we do not walk in truth.”
(1 John 1:6)
Notice that John equates “walking in truth” with walking in the light.
As we noted previously “the Torah is truth” (Ps. 119:142) thus if “walking in the light” means “walking in truth” then both phrases refer to walking in the Torah. This takes us back to our passages from the Tanak given above. John also confirms this by writing the parallel statements:
“…walking in truth.”
“…walk according to his commandments.”
(2 John 1:4, 6)
Now lets look back at a moment to the full armour of God. As we have noted Paul also calls this armour the “armour of light” (Rom. 13:12). According to Paul we are involved in a spiritual battle with “the rulers of the darkness of this world.” (Eph. 6:12) and thus he instructs us to put on this “armour of light” (Ephesians 6:13 & Romans 13:12)
Now several of the items of the “armour of light” also tie in with the Torah:
The Belt of Truth
“Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your Torah is truth.”
(Psalm 119:142)
“You are near, O YHWH, and all your commandments are truth.”
(Psalm 119:151)
The Breatplate of Righteousness
“What great nation is there that has statutes and judgements as righteous as this whole Torah which I am setting before you today?…”
(Deuteronomy 4:6)
The Shield of Faith
“Remove the false way from me, and graciously grant me your Torah. I have chosen the way of faith; I have placed your ordinances before me.”
(Psalm 119:29-30)
The Sword of the Word
“…For the Torah will go out from Zion; and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem.”
(Isaiah 2:3)
Thus the Armour of Light is the armour of the Torah which lights our path. There are two paths before us, one of darkness and one of light. On the one hand one may “walk in darkness” on the other hand one may “walk in the light” of Torah. The “son’s of light” put on the “armour of light” and walk in the light of Torah, while the “sons of darkness” walk in the Torah-lessness which is the darkness of this dark world.
Did Messiah Declare all Foods Clean?
By
James Scott Trimm
Often when I share with Christians that the Torah is everlasting, for all generations, they respond by saying, “But the Messiah made all foods clean.” By this they allude to Mark 7:19, a passage which has been very misunderstood.
The common anti-nomian understaning is based on the reading of this verse as it is found in the New American Standard and many other translations. The New American Standard version reads:
18 And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23 “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
(Mark 7:18-23)
Many other translations of the Greek text give similar renderings of the phrase in verse 19:
“Thus he declared all foods clean” (RSV, NAS, NEB, NWT)
“In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean” (NIV)
“In saying this, Jesus declared that all foods are fit to be eaten” (TEV)
“By saying this he showed that every kind of food is kosher.” (Living Bible)
Unfortunately many so-called “Messianic” and “Sacred Name” translators/editions still say or imply that Yeshua made all foods clean in this verse:
“By saying this he showed that every kind of food is kosher.”
(The Living Scriptures – David Bronstein’s revision of the Living Bible, 1982)
“Thereby purifying all foods”
(The Book of Life; Messianic Vision (Sid Roth) 1981)
“Thus he declared all foods ritually clean”
(Jewish New Testament – David Stern, 1989)
“making all the okhel [food] tohar [ritually clean]”
(The Orthodox Jewish Bible – AFI 1996)
Surprising the King James Version actually gives a better translation of this verse than many more modern versions:
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, \
and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
(Mk. 7:19 KJV)
The Scriptures version from ISR similarly renders the Greek “thus purging all foods” (The Scriptures – ISR – 1998)
Te Aramaic of the Old Syriac reads simply:
Because it does not enter his heart but his belly:
and it is thrown away and cleansed, even all food.
The Aramaic of the Peshitta reads:
Because it does not enter his heart but his belly:
and it is thrown away and cleansed, which purifies all food.
Thus the Hebraic Roots Version reads:
18 He said to them: Are you likewise also slow to understand? Do you not know that a thing that enters a son of man from the outside, can not defile him,
19 Because it does not enter his heart but his belly: and it is thrown away and cleansed, even all food.
20 But a thing that goes out from a son of man, that, defiles a son of man.
21 For from within, from the heart of a son of man, evil thoughts proceed; adultery, fornication, murder, theft,
22 Covetousness, wickedness, craftiness, perversion, the evil eye, blasphemy, pride; foolishness.
23 All these evils proceed from within, and defile a son of man.
(Mk. 7:18-23 HRV)
When we look at this passage in the original Aramaic (or even in a good translation of the Greek) we can see that the passage is not saying that all foods have been made clean, but that all foods pass through the body and are purged through excretion into the latrine.
It is very easy to see that this phrase is not intended to mean that all foods are made clean when we examine the context of the phrase.
This discussion of clean and unclean starts from a debate concerning the hand washing ritual known as Netilat Yadayim:
1 And the P’rushim and scribes gathered around Him, who came from Yerushalayim.
2 And they saw some of His talmidim who were eating bread, while their hands were not washed, <and they complained. >
3 For all the Judeans and P’rushim, unless they wash their hands <carefully, > do not eat bread: because they hold to the tradition of the elders.
4 And they do not eat things from the marketplace unless they are immersed. And there are many other things that they have received to observe: immersing of cups, and of pots, <and of bronze vessels, and of biers. >
5 And the scribes and P’rushim asked Him, Why do Your talmidim not walk
according to the tradition of the elders: but eat bread while their hands are not washed?
(Mk. 7:1-5 HRV)
Yeshua responds in the next few verses:
6 And Yeshua said to them: Well, did Yesha’yahu the prophet, prophesy concerning you. Hypocrites! As is written, This people honors Me with its lips: but their heart, is very far from Me.
7 And vainly they fear Me, while teaching teachings of the commandments of men.
8 <For you have left, the commandment of Eloah: and you have grasped the tradition, of the sons of men–immersions of cups, and of pots, and many things that resemble these.>
9 He said to them: Well did you reject the commandment of Eloah, that you might establish your [own] commandment.
10 For Moshe said, Honor your father and your mother: and he who reviles
father and mother will indeed die.
11 But you say, If a man should say to his father or to his mother, What you would have gained from me, is my offering [to the Temple].
12 Then you permit him, not to do a thing for his father or his mother.
13 And you reject the Word of Eloah, because of your [own] commandment that you have handed down: and you do many things that are like these.
14 And Yeshua called the entire crowd and said to them: Hear Me, all of you, and be persuaded.
15 There is not a thing that is outside of a son of man and enters him, that is
able [to] defile him: but the thing that goes out from him, that, defiles a son of man.
16 He who has ears to hear let him hear.
(Mk. 7:6-16 HRV)
Yeshua’s response is to emphasize the importance of honoring one’s parents with one’s words, and specifically in making vows. Yeshua takes a position on vows that parallels that of Rabbi Elieazer as we read in the Mishnah:
R. Elieazar says: they open a vow for a man by reference to the honor of his father or mother, and the sages prohibit.
said R. Tzadok: before they open a vow for him by reference to his father or mother let them open his vow by reference to the honor of HaMakom. If so there will be no vow.
But the sages concede to R. Elieazar, that in a matter that is between him and his mother or father they loose his vow by reference to his father or mother.”
(m.Nedarim 9:1)
I could do an entire teaching on what Yeshua says about vows here and how it relates to the halachic positions of the Essenes and various Pharisaic schools of the time, but that is a different subject. Here I want to stick with the topic at hand. The initial topic that started this discussion was the custom of Netilat Yadayim (ritual hand washing). It is important in understanding Yeshua’s comments in the discussion of Netilat Yadayim, to understand the basis for this hand washing custom.
The custom of ritual hand washing in Rabbinic Judaism is drawn from Leviticus 11:44 which reads:
For I am YHWH your Elohim: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be you Set-Apart, for I am Set-Apart; neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moves upon the earth.
(Lev. 11:44 HRV)
The hand washing custom is drawn from a Baraita on this verse. A Baraita is an ancient Oral Law tradition in Judaism which was not incorporated into the Mishna. The Talmud records the Baraita as follows:
Our Rabbis taught: The absence of oil is a bar to the saying of grace. So said
R. Zilai. R. Ziwai said: It is no bar. R. Aha said: Good oil is indispensable.
R. Zuhamai said: Just as a dirty person is unfit for the Temple service, so
dirty hands unfit one for saying grace. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: I know nothing either of Zilai or Ziwai or Zuhamai, but I do know the following teaching, viz.:
Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: some say it was taught in a Baraita,
Sanctify yourselves: (Lev. 11:44) this refers to washing of the hands before the meal;
And be ye holy: this refers to washing of the hands after the meal; `For
holy’: this refers to the oil; `I AM the YHWH your Elohim’: this refers to the grace.
(b.Berachot 53b)
The Baraita understands “Sanctify yourselves” in Lev. 11:44 as refering to washing one’s hands before a meal and “be you Set-Apart” in Lev. 11:44 as refering to washing one’s hands after a meal.
But now lets look at the context of Lev. 11:44. Leviticus 11 begins with:
1 And YHWH spoke unto Moshe and to Aharon, saying unto them:
2 Speak unto the children of Yisra’el, saying, These are the living things, which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
(Lev. 11:1-2 HRV)
The rest of the material from Lev. 11:3-43 deals with the commandments concerning which animals are considered clean to eat and which are considered unclean. This section then wraps up with:
For I am YHWH your Elohim: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be you Set-Apart, for I am Set-Apart; neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moves upon the earth.
(Lev. 11:44 HRV)
Now it is important to know that in the final phrase “neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moves upon the earth.” the phrase “yourselves” is literally “your nepheshot” or “your souls”.
And so the Pharisaiac Baraita is that “sanctify yourselves” means to wash one’s hands. But Yeshua is arguing that hand washing means nothing, if we are not sanctified on the inside, because the second part of the verse contrasts “sanctify yourselves” with “neither shall you defile your souls”, thus “sanctify yourselves” must also mean to sanctify your soul. Yeshua’s point is that it is not enought to abstain from unclean meats, if our soul is defiled inside already. This does not mean to eact unkosher food, but rather that it is just as important to have a clean soul as it is to eat kosher.
WHAT ABOUT KEFA’S VISION IN ACTS 10?
In Acts 10 we read:
10 And he was hungry and wanted to eat: and while they were preparing for him, an amazement came over him.
11 And he saw heaven being opened, and a kind of garment being held by four corners, and it was like a great linen cloth, and it was descending from heaven to the earth:
12 And there were in it, all four-footed animals, and creeping things of the earth, and birds of heaven.
13 And a voice came to him that said: Shim’on, arise: kill and eat.
14 And Shim’on said, Never, my Adon, because I have never eaten anything that is defiled and unclean.
15 And again a second time, a voice came to him: That which Eloah has cleansed, do not regard as defiled.
16 Now this happened three times, and the garment was taken up to heaven.
17 And while Shim’on wondered in his nefesh, what the vision that he had seen was, those men who had been sent from Cornelius arrived, and asked concerning the house in which Shim’on lodged: and they came and stood at the gate of the courtyard.
(Acts 10:10-17 HRV)
The meaning of this vision is revealed in then next chapter:
5 While I was praying in Yafo, I saw in a vision one garment, which resembled a linen cloth that came down. And it was held by four corners, and it was descending from heaven, and came all the way towards me.
6 And I looked at it, and saw that there were in it, four-footed animals, and creeping things of the earth, and also birds of the heaven.
7 And I heard a voice that said to me: Shim’on, arise: kill and eat.
8 And I said, Never, my Adon: because there has not entered to my mouth, that which is unclean and defiled.
9 And again a voice said to me from heaven: That which Eloah has cleansed, do not [count] defiled.
10 This happened three times, and all the things were taken up to heaven.
11 And immediately, three men, who were sent to me from Cornelius of Caesarea, came and stood at the gate of the courtyard, in which I lodged.
12 And the Spirit said to me: Go with them without doubt. And these six brothers also came with me, and we entered the house of the man.
(Acts 11:5-12 HRV)
In Acts 10:12 we read:
And there were in it, all four-footed animals,
and creeping things of the earth,
and birds of heaven.
(Acts 10:12)
But in Acts 11:5-12 we are told that these animals represent the three Gentiles who came to see Kefa. (In 1Enoch 85-90 these very animals are used to represent various groups of Gentiles.)
In Acts 10:13 Kefa hears a voice which says “arise, kill and eat” – Kefa was not being instructed to arise kill and eat the animals mentioned in verse 12. First of all they was not real, it was only a vision. Secondly we know from Acts 11:5-12 that the Animals represented Gentiles. Kefa was not being told to kill and eat the Gentiles!
Instead he was being instructed to greet them as guests by following the custom of arising, killing an animal and eating with them as honored guests (see for example Gen. 18:1-8 when Avraham greeted three men as guests).
DID ELOHIM CREATE ALL FOODS FOR USE AND THANKSGIVING?
Another passage anti-nomians will quote is 1Timothy 5:1-5:
1 Now the Spirit plainly says: That in the last times, some men shall depart from the Trust, and shall go after deceiving spirits, and after teachings of shadim:
2 Those who deceive by false appearance and are speaking a lie, and are seared in their conscience,
3 And forbid to marry, and require abstinence from foods, which Eloah created for use and for thanksgiving, for those who believe and know the truth.
4 Because everything which was created by Eloah is good, and there is not a thing which should be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of Eloah and by prayer.
(1Tim. 4:1-5 HRV)
Here Paul is writing to Timothy concerning the proto-Ebionite Essenes who were doctrinal vegetarians and who also abstained from marriage. Paul is not addressing the Kosher laws, but the false teaching of doctrinal vegetarianism.
The passage clarifies that it speaks only of foods “which Eloah created for use and for thanksgiving”. This would not include those animals listed in Leviticus 11 as not being “for use and for thanksgiving”. In fact to an ancient Hebrew a pig is not “food” any more than a dog or a cat would be regarded as “food” by a modern American.
Verse 4 only says “everything which was created by Eloah is good” not “everything which was created by Eloah is food”. If we take verse 4 “and there is not a thing which should be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving:” This cannot mean that anything YHWH created should be eaten as food. Certainly canibalism is not permitted. Certainly there are many animals and even plants that would be fatal if one tried to eat them, and an argument that proves to much, proves nothing at all.
Similarly in the Torah YHWH instructs the Israelites in the wilderness concerning the promised land:
13 And when YHWH your Elohim delivers it into your hand, you shall smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.
14 But the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shall you take for a prey unto yourself, and you shall eat the spoil of your enemies, which YHWH your Elohim has given you.
(Deut. 20:13-14)
Now there can be little doubt that the pagans who inhabited the land had unkosher food and unkosher animals in their cities. Are we to take Deut. 20:13-14 to mean that the ancient Hebrews were being told to eat these things?
Of course not. Neither does 1Timothy 4:1-5 mean that we should eat unkosher food.
Paul is simply writing to Timothy to condemn those who would prohibit the eating of kosher meats through the false
teaching of doctrinal vegetarianism.
WHAT ABOUT ROMANS 14?
14:1 Now to him who is weak in trust, give a hand, and have no doubt in your reasoning.
14:2 For there is one who has trust that he may eat everything, but he who is weak eats vegetarian.
14:3 Now that one who eats, should not treat with contempt that one who does not eat, and that one who does not eat, should not judge that one who eats, for Eloah has received him.
14:4 Who are you, that you judge a servant who is not your own, who, if he stands, stands before his Adon, and if he falls, falls before his Adon? But he will indeed stand, for it will be by the hands of his Adon that he will be
established.
14:5 There is one who judges a day from a day, and there is one who judges all days: but let each man be assured in the thoughts of his nefesh.
14:6 He who is mindful of a day, is mindful [of it] before his Adon: and everyone who is not mindful of a day, is not mindful [of it] before his Adon. And whoever eats, eats before his Adon and thanks Eloah: and he who does not eat, does not eat before his Adon and thanks Eloah.
14:7 For there is not a man from us, who lives to his nefesh, and there is not a man who dies to his nefesh,
14:8 Because if we live, we live to our Adon, and if we die, we die to our Adon. And whether we live therefore or whether we die, we belong to our Adon.
14:9 Because of this also, the Messiah died, and is alive, and is raised: that He might be YHWH to the dead and to the living.
14:10 Now why do you judge your brother? Or why also do you treat your brother with contempt? For all of us will stand before the bema of the Messiah.
14:11 As it is written, I live, says YHWH. Every knee will bow to Me, and every tongue will confess Me.
14:12 Therefore every man from us, will give an account for his nefesh to Eloah.
14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another, but rather determine this: that you will not place a stumbling stone before your brother.
14:14 For I know, and am persuaded by YHWH Yeshua, that there is not a thing that is defiled from itself. But to him who thinks concerning a thing that it is unclean, to him alone it is unclean.
14:15 And if because of food you grieve your brother, you are not walking in love; by your food do not destroy him, for whose sake the Messiah died.
14:16 And let not our good be blasphemed:
14:17 For the Kingdom of Eloah is not food and drink, but righteousness, and shalom, and joy, in the Ruach HaKodesh.
14:18 For he who serves the Messiah in these [things], pleases Eloah, and is approved before sons of men.
14:19 Now let us follow after shalom, and after edification, one with another.
14:20 And let us not depart from the works of Eloah because of food, for everything is pure: yet it is wrong for a son of man who, in stumbling, eats.
14:21 It is good that we not eat flesh, nor drink neither wine, nor anything by which our brother stumbles.
14:22 You, who have trust, keep it in your nefesh before Eloah. Blessed is he who does not judge his nefesh in a thing that he distinguishes.
14:23 For he who doubts and eats is condemned, because it is not in trust: for everything that is not from trust, is sin.
(Romans 14:23 HRV)
This chapter has been very misunderstood. The chapter speaks of not judging others in regards to issues like doctrinal vegitarianism and clendar issues. These are key issues to the proto-Ebionite-Essenes.
Likewise we read in Col. 2:16-17
Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ.
(Col. 2:16-17 KJV)
First the passage speaks not only of “meat” but of “drink” so it cannot be speaking about the kosher laws which deal with food not drink. Paul’s opponent here has differing views regarding “meat”; “drink”; “holydays”; “new moons” and “sabbaths”. Clearly his opponent here are the Essene influence within the movement which later re-emerged as the Ebionites. These Essene-Proto-Ebionites were vegetarians, they all took the Nazarite Vow (and thus abstained from wine) and they used a Solar Calendar. Thus they differed with Paul on issues of “meat”; “drink”; “holydays”; “new moons” and “sabbaths”. So Paul is not speaking here about the validity of Torah, but of his opponents positions on these issues.
Also we must once again look at the KJV’s use of italic in Col. 2:17. Remember the italics in the KJV indicate words that are not really there in the Greek, but which the KJV has added to the text. This is supposed to be to help the text make sense in English, but in some cases like this one the italics have been used to completely and radically change the meaning of the text. If we remove the italicized word “is” from the phrase “body is of Christ” we see the familiar phrase “body of Christ” which appears over and over in the New Testament. Why would one disrupt the common phrase “body of Christ” by inserting the word “is”? If we reread the KJV without this word something interesting happens:
Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath:
Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body of Christ.
(Col. 2:16-17 KJV without italics)
Suddenly the passage is no longer contrasting “shadow” with “body” it is contrasting “man” with the “body of Christ” or “body of Messiah”!
Both Col. 2:16-17 and Romans 13-14 are saying not to let these Proto-Ebionite Essenes disturb the body, because individuals do not set halacha for the body, the Beit Din does.
In Romans 14:14 we read:
For I know, and am persuaded by YHWH Yeshua,
that there is not a thing that is defiled from itself.
But to him who thinks concerning a thing that it is unclean,
to him alone it is unclean.
Unkosher foods for example are not defiled from themselves, but from (by) YHWH. He who follows YHWH “thinks concerning a thing that it is unclean” (because it is unclean) and to him it is unclean. However if one believes something is unclean and consumes it anyway (even if you are wrong) one has still rebelled against YHWH in ones mind, and has still sinned in their heart.
What do you Mean… “Church”?( An excerpt from the book “Nazarene Theology”
http://nazarenespace.com/page/books-dvds )By
James Scott Trimm
There has been a great deal of confusion over the years over what the “church” is. Some have taught that the Church is a new entity which replaces Israel. Others have taught that the Church is a new body which is totally independent of Israel. Still others have taught that the Church and Israel are two different but overlapping entities. With all of the misconceptions about the identity of the “Church” the time has come to set the story straight and reveal what the “Church” really is.
The English word “Church” comes originally from the Old English word KIRKE. The Old English word KIRKE was the word the Anglo-Saxons used to refer to their pagan places of worship. When they became Christianized the Anglo-Saxons continued to call their places of worship KIRKES and as the language evolved “Churches”. You may have
heard that the word “Church” originally referred to the people and later came to refer to the building. This is not true. The word “Church” originally referred to the building and later came to refer to the people. Moreover the word “church” is of pagan origin
Now if you look up the English word “Church” in Webster’s dictionary you will find the following meanings:
1. a building set apart or consecrated for public worship, esp. one
for Christian worship.
2. All Christians as a whole.
3. A denomination of Christians.
In short a “church” is either a building or a group of Christians.
Now wherever we see the English word “church” in an English Bible we would expect the underlying Greek word would be a Greek word that also means “a group of Christians”. Since the English uses such a technical theological term one would expect that the Greek has also used a technical theological term. But the reality is that the Greek word that appears wherever the English has “church” is not a technical theological term and DOES NOT mean “a group of Christians” at all. That’s right, a technical theological term of pagan origin meaning “a group of Christians” has been inserted in your English Bible despite the fact that the corresponding Greek word is not a technical theological term and does not mean the same thing as the word “Church”.
The Greek word that appears where our English Bible’s have “church” is EKKLESIA. EKKLESIA is just the Greek word for “assembly”. Although it comes from a root meaning “to call out” there is no special theological significance to this word. In fact this is the same Greek word which was used for “assembly” by the classical Pagan Greek writers. Inscriptions in ancient Greek auditoriums where pagan ritual dramas were performed by the Bachus cult have the audience section inscribed with the sign “EKKLESIA”. This same Greek word EKKLESIA is used throughout the Greek Septuagint translation of the Tanak as the word for “assembly”. There are also many places where the Greek word EKKLESIA appears in the NT but which the KJV and other translators did NOT translate the word as “church”. This same Greek word is even used in Acts 19:32-41 to describe an unruly mob, yet here the translators suddenly translate
the word as “assembly” rather than “church”.
There is therefore no such thing as the “church” because the Greek word translated “church” does not mean “church” at all but “assembly”.
Now there are some who claim that the “Church” was a new entity born in Acts 2 at Pentecost of 32 C.E. . However if we examine the events of Acts 2 we find that at that event persons were “added to” the “church” (Acts 2:47) which means that the “church” had to have already existed at that time. If we turn to Acts 7:38 we see that it speaks of Moses as “he that was in the church in the wilderness”. Certainly this “church” could not have been a new “New Testament” entity.
Now while the term “church” is a mistranslation for a word simply meaning “assembly”, there is an entity which is commonly referred to as “The Assembly” in the New Testament. Let us examine the Scriptures and determine what the true identity of this “Assembly” is.
To begin with we must understand that this Assembly is also known as the “Body of Messiah” as we read:
“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the
preeminence.”
(Col. 1:18 – KJV)
“And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head
over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”
(Eph. 1:22-23 – KJV)
Now one may ask what “Assembly” is the allegorical Messiah? To find the answer to that question lets look at Matthew 2:14-15:
“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and
departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord
by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. “
(Matthew 2:14-15 – KJV)
Now here Matthew is citing a prophecy in Hosea 11:1 and applying it to Messiah. Now let us go back and look at this prophecy in Hosea 11:1 in context:
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him,
and called my son out of Egypt.”
(Hosea 11:1 – KJV)
Here Hosea is referring to Israel as the son who is called out of Egypt. This points us back to a passage in the Torah:
“And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go,
behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.”
(Ex. 4:22-23 – KJV)
From these two passages we learn that Israel is the firstborn son of Elohim who is called out of Egypt. However in Matthew it is Yeshua the Messiah who is called up out of Egypt and in Col. 1:18 Messiah is the “firstborn”. Moreover Hebrews speaks of the “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23 – KJV).
Thus Israel is allegorically equivalent to the Messiah. There are some very important reasons for this allegorical relationship:
* Both are the “firstborn Son of Elohim”.
* Both made a major impact on the world.
* Both were born through a biological miracle on their mother’s womb.
* Both were taken into Egypt to save their lives.
* Both were called up out of Egypt.
* Both were despised and rejected by men.
* Rome attempted to destroy them both.
* Both are resurrected.
Thus Israel is the allegorical “Body of Messiah”. Moreover in the Tanak, Israel is commonly called “The Assembly of Israel” and wherever the phrase “The Assembly of Israel” appears in the Tanak the Greek LXX has “EKKLESIA of Israel”.
The so-called “church” which is the “Body of Messiah” is in reality “the Assembly of Israel”. Yeshua did not come to create a new religion, but to be Messiah of the old one. Wherever your English New Testament refers to a “church” (i.e. a group of Christians) the Greek has “EKKLESIA a term which commonly refers to the “Assembly of Israel”. The “Church” as most Christians have understood it never existed. All of the passage people have thought were talking about the “Church” were actually talking about the Assembly of Israel, not Christianity, but the Nazarene sect of Judaism.
What Do You Mean…. New Covenant?
What Do You Mean…. New Covenant?
By
James Scott Trimm
Many of us have missed an important truth. The New Covenant has been in the Torah all along! And this amazing truth is a major key in understanding the writings of Paul. There are in fact two covenants in the Torah and two Mosaic Covenants.
The first Mosaic Covenant was made at Mt. Sinai at Horev.
The Second Mosaic Covenant was made at Mt. Nebo at Mo’av. This was a second covenant which YHWH made with the people of Israel through Moses which was made shortly before the death of Moses and the entry of Israel into the Land. This covenant was made near the end of the Torah:
“These are the words of the covenant which YHWH commanded Moshe to make with the children of Yisra’el in the land of Mo’av, beside the covenant which He made with them in Horev.”
(Deuteronomy 28:69 / 29:1)
Note that this Covenant at Mo’av was made besides the Covenant made at Sinai.
Rashi makes an important comment about the significance of this word “besides”:
“Besides the covenant [Namely,] the curses [which appear] in Lev. (26: 14-39), which were proclaimed at [Mount] Sinai.”
(Rashi on Deuteronomy 28:69)
Rashi sees that these are two different covenants and that the word besides is intended to distinguish the Covenant at Sinai, characterized by “the curses” with this new Covenant made at Mo’av which is characterized not just by curses (Deuteronomy 29:16-29) but by blessings as well.
This covenant was centered around repentance (30:2, 8) and its rewards included a promise of a regathering of Israel from among the nations (30:3-4) a circumcised heart (30:2, 6) Israel would be his people and He would be their Elohim (29:13); a promise of land (30:5) and life (30:6, 15, 19).
This Covenant also includes Torah observance:
“If you shall hearken to the voice of YHWH your Elohim, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Torah; if you turn unto YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your soul.”
(Deuteronomy 30:10)
Jeremiah and the New Covenant
In Jeremiah 11, the prophet Jeremiah was sent by YHWH to the people of Israel saying:
“Hear you the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Y’hudah, and to the inhabitants of Yerushalayim: and say you unto them: Thus says YHWH, the Elohim of Yisra’el: Cursed be the man that hears not the words of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt…”
(Jeremiah 11:2-4a)
Here Jeremiah is quoting from the Torah (Deut. 27:26) and to the curse that was upon those who would fails to give heed to the covenant given at Sinai. He is warning the people of Judah that this curse is about to come upon them.
Ultimately Jeremiah prophesied to Israel that this curse would come upon them in the form of the seventy year Babylonian captivity:
” ‘Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,’ says YHWH, ‘and I will send unto N’vukhadretzar the king of Bavel, My servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and a hissing, and perpetual desolations. …And this whole land shall be a desolation, and a waste; and these nations shall serve the king of Bavel seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Bavel, and that nation,’ says YHWH, “for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it perpetual desolations.’ “
(Jeremiah 25:9, 11-12)
“Then will I make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth. So the cohanim and the prophets and all the people heard Yirmeyah speaking these words in the House of YHWH.”
(Jeremiah 26:6-7)
But Jeremiah also prophesied to the people that at the end of this seventy year curse, he would bring them back into the land:
“For thus says YHWH: ‘After seventy years are accomplished for Bavel, I will remember you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”
(Jeremiah 29:10)
In connection with this return Jeremiah speaks of a New Covenant:
” ‘Behold, the days come,’ says YHWH, ‘that I will make a renewed covenant with the House of Yisra’el, and with the House of Y’hudah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a husband over them,’ says YHWH. ‘But this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Yisra’el after those days,’ says YHWH, ‘I will put My Torah in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be My people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: “Know YHWH”; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,’ says YHWH; ‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.”
(Jeremiah 31:31)
(Throughout this article I will refer to this covenant as the “New Covenant” as it is commonly called, however the Hebrew is better understood as I have translated it above, as “renewed covenant”.)
But one important thing that many of us have missed is that this “New Covenant” is the Covenant made at Mo’av. As we have already seen, there are two Mosaic Covenants in the Torah. The first Covenant was made at Sinai but there is also a second “new” covenant in the Torah which was mad at Mo’av. When we compare these two covenants it is clear that the Covenant at Mo’av is the New Covenant.
Covenant at Mo’av Compared to the New Covenant
“These are the words of the covenant which YHWH commanded Moshe to make with the children of Yisra’el in the land of Mo’av, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horev.”
(Deuteronomy 28:69 / 29:1)
” ‘Behold, the days come,’ says YHWH, ‘that I will make a renewed covenant with the House of Yisrael, and the House of Y’hudah; not according to the covenant that I made with their father in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a husband over them,’ says YHWH.”
(Jeremiah 31:31-32)
“And shall return unto YHWH your Elohim, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul;…And YHWH your Elohim will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live.”
(Deuteronomy 30:2, 6)
“But this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Yisra’el after those days, says YHWH, I will put My Torah in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it;… “
(Jeremiah 31:22a)
“…and I will put My fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from Me.”
(Jeremiah 32:40b)
“…that He may establish you this day unto Himself for a people, and that He may be unto you a Elohim, as He spoke unto you, and as He swore unto your fathers, to Avraham, to Yitz’chak and to Ya’akov.”
(Deuteronomy 29:12 / 29:13)
“…and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be My people;”
(Jeremiah 31:33b)
“…and they shall be My people, and will be their Elohim;”
(Jeremiah 32:38)
“…that then YHWH your Elohim will turn your captivity, and have compassion upon you, and will return and gather you from all the peoples, where YHWH your Elohim has scattered you. If any of you that are dispersed be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there will YHWH your Elohim gather you, and from there will He fetch you.”
(Deuteronomy 30:3-4)
“Behold, I will gather them out of all the countries, where I have driven them in My anger, and in My fury, and in great wrath;…”
(Jeremiah 32:37a)
“And YHWH your Elohim will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will do you good, and multiply you above your fathers.”
(Deuteronomy 30:5)
“…and I will bring them back unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely;…”
(Jeremiah 32:37b)
Now if the Covenant at Mo’av is the New Covenant, then the Covenant at Sinai is an “Old Covenant”. Both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are in the Torah. But this “New Covenant” is Torah based, as the Covenant itself states “…you shall hearken to the voice of YHWH your Elohim, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Torah…” (Deut. 30:10). This New Covenant is an “everlasting covenant” (Jeremiah 32:40) which gives us “life” (Deuteronomy 30:6, 15, 19). An everlasting covenant which gives life, must by implication, give “everlasting life”.
Daniel and the New Covenant
At the end of this seventy year curse we reach the time of Daniel chapter nine. Here Daniel has been studying these prophecies of Jeremiah and he knew the seventy years were over:
“In the first year of his reign I Daniel meditated in the books, over the number of the years, whereof the word of YHWH came to Yirmeyah the prophet, that He would accomplish for the desolations of Yerushalayim seventy years.”
(Daniel 9:2)
Daniel knew that the curses mentioned in the Torah had come upon Israel:
“As it is written in the Torah of Moshe, all this evil is come upon us; yet have we not entreated the favour of YHWH our Elohim, that we might turn from our iniquities, and have discernment in Your truth.”
(Daniel 9:13) (see Leviticus 26:14; Deuteronomy 28:15)
Daniel also knew that the Torah tells us that if after these curses come upon us, we still do not repent, Elohim would punish us seven times more:
“And if you will not yet for these things hearken unto Me, then I will chastise you seven times more for your sins.”
(Leviticus 26:18, see also verses 21, 24, 28)
In Daniel 9 Daniel prays for mercy for Israel, because he knows Israel has failed to repent, and he knows that seven times seventy is 490 years, and he does not want Israel to now fall under a 490 year curse. Unfortunately Gavri’el (El is Severe) comes with Elohim’s reply. Israel would indeed fall into a 490 year curse:
“Seventy weeks are decreed upon your people and upon your set-apart city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Set-apart. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Yerushalayim unto Messiah, a prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causes appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causes appalment.”
(Daniel 9:24-27)
This 490 year curse was made up of seventy “weeks”. The Hebrew word here for “weeks” actually only refers to “a period of seven” and does not have to refer to seven days, in fact here it refers to blocks of seven year periods. These are not just any seven year periods, these are seven year cycles of the Sabbath of the land. It was the failure to keep these Sabbaths of the land each seventh year that was the final straw resulting in the seventy year curse:
“To fulfil the word of YHWH by the mouth of Yirmeyah, until the land had been paid her sabbaths; for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.”
(2 Chronicles 36:21)
483 years into this 490 years the Messiah comes along and is “cut off, but not for himself”:
“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
(Daniel 9:26)
Why does the Messiah come seven years before the end of the 490 year curse?
Because the Land must have its seventh year Sabbath (2 Chronicles 36:21).
In order for the curse to end, the people of Israel would have to repent and turn back to Torah. Since the decisive issue had been the Sabbath of the Land, this repentance would need to manifest itself by the keeping of the Sabbath of the Land, but in order to do this, the people would need a seven year head start, they would have to start keeping a complete Sabbath of the Land cycle 483 years into the 490 year curse if they were to enter the New Covenant at the end of the 490 years. Thus YHWH in his infinite mercy was to send Messiah after 483 years to call the people to repentance.
Ramban: Messiah and the New Covenant
Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman) (1194-1270 C.E.) wrote one of the most authoritative Torah commentaries in Rabbinic Judaism. His comments connecting the Covenant of Mo’av with the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31 and connecting these with the “days of the Messiah” that I am giving his lengthy comments on Deuteronomy 30:6 in totol, along with some interspersed comments of my own:
“And YHWH your Elohim will circumcise your heart (Deuteronomy 30:6) It is this which the Rabbis have said, “If someone comes to purify himself, they assist him” [from on High]. The verse assures you that you will return to Him with all your heart and He will help you.”
“This following subject is very apparent from Scripture: Since the time of Creation, man has had the power to do as he pleased, to be righteous or wicked. This [grant of free will] applies likewise to the entire Torah period, so that people can gain merit upon choosing the good and punishment for preferring evil. But in the days of the Messiah, the choice of their [genuine] good will be natural; the heart will not desire the improper and it will have no craving whatever for it. This is the “circumcision” mentioned here, for lust and desire are the “foreskin” of the heart, and circumcision of the heart means that it will not covet or desire evil.”
Note that Ramban sees the ultimate fulfillment of the Covenant at Mo’av as taking place “in the days of the Messiah”.
“Man will return at that time to what he was before the sin of Adam, when by his nature he did what should properly be done, and there were no conflicting desires in his will, as I have explained in Seder Bereshit.”
This recalls to mind the words of Paul “For if because of the error of one [Adam], death reigned, much more those who receive the abundance of favor and of the gift and of righteousness will rein in life by way of one, Yeshua the Messiah.” (see Romans 5:14-19; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45).
“It is this which Scripture states in [the Book of] Jeremiah 31:30], ‘Behold, the days come,’ says YHWH, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers ..etc. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Eternal, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it.”
Here Ramban identifies the Covenant of Mo’av with Jeremiah’s “New Covenant”.
“This is a reference to the annulment of the evil instinct and to the natural performance by the heart of its proper function. Therefore Jeremiah said further, and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be My People; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know YHWH; ‘for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.’
Now, it is known that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth and it is necessary to instruct them, but at that time it will not be necessary to instruct them [to avoid evil] for their evil instinct will then be completely abolished. And so it is declared by Ezekiel, ‘A new heart will I also give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will cause you to walk in My statutes.’ ” (Ezekiel 36:26)
Here Ramban ties the New Covenant to the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh.
“The new heart alludes to man’s nature, and the [new] spirit to the desire and will. It is this which our Rabbis have said : “And the years draw nigh, when you shall say: I have no pleasure in them; these are the days of the Messiah, as they will offer opportunity neither for merit nor for guilt,” for in the days of the Messiah there will be no [evil] desire in man but he will naturally perform the proper deeds and therefore there will be neither merit nor guilt in them, for merit and guilt are dependent upon desire.”
(Ramban on Deuteronomy 29:6)
Yeshua and the New Covenant
Now the 483 year period mentioned in Daniel begins with “the word to restore to build Yerushalayim” (Dan. 9:25) which was the Artaxerxes decree (Ezra 7:11-16) given in 457 B.C.E.. The 483 year period ends with the appearance of Messiah on the scene (Daniel 9:25). If we add 483 years to 457 B.C.E. we come to 27 C.E. (although 457 + 27 = 484 one must subtract a year whenever crossing the line between BCE and CE on the timeline, since there is no zero point year on the calendar.) Now there is good evidence that Yeshua was born, not in 1 C.E. but in 3 B.C.E.. At the age of thirty (in 27 C.E.) Yeshua first began his ministry (Luke 3:23).
Shortly after Yeshua began his ministry he returned to his home synagogue in Nazareth where he did the haftorah reading (Luke 4:16-20). He stood and read from Isaiah 61:1-2:
“The spirit of the Adonai YHWH is upon me; because YHWH has anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound; To proclaim the year of YHWH’s good pleasure, and the day of vengeance of our Elohim; to comfort all that mourn;”
(Isaiah 61:1-2)
“Then Yeshua proclaimed ‘Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears.’ “
(Luke 4:21)
The “year of YHWH’s good pleasure” in which the captives have liberty proclaimed to them is the seventh year Sabbath of the Land. The Anointed one is the Messiah as depicted in Daniel 9:24-27.
Moreover the haftorah readings were originally instituted at a time when it was illegal to read the Torah in public. As a result the weekly Torah readings were substituted by readings from the Prophets which were intended to bring to mind the corresponding Torah readings. After it became legal again to read the Torah in public, the haftorah readings were retained. The Torah reading which this haftorah reading is supposed to call to mind is Nitzavim (Deuteronomy 29:9-30:20) which is the Covenant of Mo’av.
Yeshua was telling the synagogue that these passages were being fulfilled.
Isaiah 60:22 tells us that YHWH will either “hasten” the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel, or let it come about “in its [due] time”, all depending on the New Covenant requirement of repentance (Deuteronomy 30:1-6.) This offer to repent began in the days of Yochanan the immerser (John the Baptist), as we read in Matthew 11:12:
“Only from the days of Yochanan the immerser until now the Kingdom of Heaven is constricted and the forceful despoil it.”
(Matthew 11:12 from the DuTillet Hebrew ms.)
And in Luke 16:16 we read:
“The Torah and the prophets were until Yochanan henceforth the Kingdom of Eloah is announced but everyone treats it with violence.”
(Luke 16:16 from Old Syriac & Peshitta Aramaic)
Yochanan had been announcing, “Repent you of your lives, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near to come” (Matthew 3:2 DuTillet.) And as soon as his work began, Yeshua proclaimed, “Turn you, turn you, in repentance: for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.” (Matthew 4:17 DuTillet = Mark 1:14-15) Now the word for “near” here in the DuTillet and ShemTob Hebrew versions is karavah, in the Aramaic of the Old Syriac and Peshitta the Aramaic equivalent appears. The phrase “Kingdom of Elohim” is a variation of the phrase in the Tanak “Kingdom of YHWH” (1 Chronicles 28:5; 2 Chronicles 13:8) a term used to describe the Kingdom of Israel. After studying the “Kingdom of Elohim” with the Messiah for forty days (Acts 1:3) the emissaries wanted to know if the Kingdom would be restored to Israel “at this time”, Yeshua answers that it is not for them to know the time (Acts 1:6-7). The truth is that the Kingdom of Elohim is the restored Kingdom of Israel (see Jeremiah 23:5-6; Isaiah 9:6-7; 11 with 1 Chronicles 28:5; 2 Chronicles 13:8). The Hebrew text of Matthew 3:2 & 4:17 = Mark 1:14-15 does indicate that the Kingdom was right there, available, if they would just repent.
Yeshua continued to proclaim this offer throughout his career (Matthew 12:28 = Luke 11:20; Mark 12:34; Luke 10:9, 11; 17:21) even sending out his emissaries with the same proclamation (Matthew 10:7.) This is the meaning of the passage, “…if you are willing to receive it (the New Covenant), he (Yochanan) is Elijah who is to come.” (Matthew 11:14, see 11:12).
Despite the fact that the New Covenent was being offered as early as the service of Yochanan (John) the immerser, repentance was required for it to be realized (Matthew 3:2-3; Mt.4:17 = Mark 1:14-15; Deuteronomy 30:1-6). However, from the time of Yochanan forward, the Kingdom was being rejected, “plundered” and “treated with violence” (Matthew 11:12 DuTillet; Luke 16:16 Old Syriac & Peshitta.) Yeshua compared this rejection to those who would not dance for flute players (Matthew 11:12, 16-19.)
At Yeshua’s so-called “Last Supper” which was a Passover Sader, Yeshua holds up the third cup of the Passover Sader known as the “cup of redemption” and said:
“Drink you all of it, for this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many to atone for sinners. And I tell you, hereafter I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it with you in the Kingdom of my Father which is in heaven.”
(Matthew 26:27-29)
Here Yeshua tells us that the “cup of redemption” which represents the blood of the Passover lamb, represents his own blood which will be the ratifying blood of the New Covenant.
The New Covenant Offer Extended
It would seem that the New Covenant offer was extended beyond the crucifixion. In his discourse at the Temple in Acts 3:12-26 Kefa repeated the Kingdom offer saying:
“Repent therefore, and be restored so that your sins be blotted out and times of rest come to you from the presence of YHWH, And he send to you him who was prepared for you, Yeshua the Messiah, Who it is required for heaven to receive until the fullness of the times of all those things that Eloah spoke by the mouth of his set-apart prophets of old.”
(Acts 3:19-21)
Thus it would appear that if the people of Israel had entered a national repentance, even then, the Messiah would have returned to restore the Kingdom to Israel right then and there.
This Kingdom offer seems to have continued throughout the entire Acts period, until it expired at the end of the Book of Acts. In Acts 28 “Paul called the leaders of the Jews together… to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the Kingdom of Eloah, persuading them concerning Yeshua…” (Acts 28:17, 23). once again a corporate repentance did not occur “… some disbelieved. So they did not agree among themselves.” (Acts 28:24b-25a). At this time Paul made known that the Kingdom offer had ended saying “…the salvation of Eloah has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” (Acts. 28:28)
Paul and the New Covenant
This new understanding of the nature of the New Covenant sheds new light on the teachings of Paul which so many have misunderstood.
In Romans 2:27-29 Paul contrasts those with the “circumcision of the heart by the spirit” with those who have a circumcision “in the flesh [alone] … by the letter [only]“. Of course the “circumcision of the heart by the spirit” is an element of the New Covenant of Moab. Paul is contrasting this with the Siniatic Covenant alone which is “in the flesh [alone]…” and “…by the letter [only]….”
In Romans 7:6 Paul contrasts “the renewal of the spirit” of the New Covenant” with the “oldness of the writing” of the Sianiatic Covenant alone. In this section of Romans (Romans 7-8) Paul contrasts the two Mosaic Covenants. He calls the Covenant of Mo’av the “Torah of Eloah” which he contrasts with the “law of sin” (7:25) He calls walking by the Siniatic Covenant alone as “of the flesh” but the New Covenant as “of the spirit” (8:4-5) He associates the Siniatic Covenant alone with “death” but the Covenent of Mo’av with “life” (8:6) just as the Torah also does (Deuteronomy 30:6, 15, 19).
In Romans 10:4-8 Paul contrasts the “righteousness that is by the Torah” (10:5) which he characterizes by quoting Lev. 18:5 with the “righteousness that is by faith” (10:6-8) which he characterizes by quoting from the Covenant at Mo’av:
“And the righteousness that is by faith, [he] thus says: Do not say in your heart: who has ascended to heaven and brought down the Messiah? And who has descended to the depth of She’ol and brought up the Messiah from among the dead? But what does it say? The answer is near to you, to your mouth and to your heart, which is the word of faith that we proclaim.”
(Deuteronomy 30:11-14)
Paul goes on to say that this same covenant is the “word of faith that we proclaim” (10:8). Paul goes on to identify this covenant at Mo’av with the covenant of Messiah by which we are saved:
“And if you confess with your mouth our Adon Yeshua, and you believe in your heart that Eloah raised him from the dead, you will have life. For the heart that believes in him is made righteousness, and the mouth that confesses him has life. For the scripture has said that anyone who believes in him will not be humiliated. And in this it does not discriminate, either against Jews or against Aramaeans, for YHWH of all of them is one who is rich with all who call on him. For all who will call on the name of YHWH have life.”
(Romans 10:9-13)
In 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 Paul refers to the “New Covenant” (3:6) when he contrasts the “letter” of the Torah which is “written on tablets of stone” with the “spirit” of the Torah which is written “on tablets of the heart of flesh”. Paul says “the letter kills but the spirit gives life”. Here again Paul is comparing the Siniatic Covenant alone with the New Covenant of Mo’av.
In Galatians 3 Paul alludes to the two Covenants. He tells us that Messiah redeemed us from the “curse of the law” (3:10-13) just as we noted earlier that Rashi tells us that the word “besides” in Deuteronomy 28:69 distinguishes the Covenant of Mo’av from the “curse” of the Law.
In Galatians 4:21-31 Paul plainly compares the two covenants of Torah saying “for these are the two covenants, one from Mount Sinai genders bondage…”
Hebrews is filled with references to these two covenants as well. The author of Hebrews (whom I believe to be Paul) tells us that chapter 8:1f begins “the main point of what we are saying” and then quotes all of Jeremiah 31:30-33 (31:31-34) regarding the “New Covenant” in Hebrews 8:8-11. Throughout this book Paul compares “the first [covenant]” with the second (covenant) (8:6, 7, 13; 9:1, 15; 10:9). Paul points out that this second covenant differed from the first covenant. While the first covenant had been ratified by the blood of bulls, the second ovenant was actually ratified by the blood of Messiah. Moreover while the Greek text of Hebrews states:
“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
(Hebrews 7:12 KJV)
However the Torah cannot be changed (see Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32 & Matthew 5:17). The Hebrew text of Hebrews, however, actually reads:
“It is saying that according to which there is a repetition of the office of the priesthood of necessity, it is saying there is a repetition of the Torah.”
(Hebrews 7:12 HRV)
The Torah was not “changed” by the New Covenant of Mo’av, but it was repeated with better promises. The fact that the “second” or “new” covenant of Hebrews is the Covenant made at Mo’av is further reinforced by the fact that Paul draws a strong parallel in Hebrews 3:7-4:10 between the “rest” we enter into and the entry into the Land which took place at the death of Moses at the end of the forty years immediately after the making of the Covenant of Mo’av.
It is beyond the scope of this article to fully explore all of the ramifications of this important truth to the writings of Paul. Nearly every word that Paul writes becomes pregnant with deeper meaning when we read them in light of this truth. We find that amazingly Paul is saying much the same things that Rashi and Ramban were saying about the curse of the law and the new covenant.
It all Comes Back to Mo’av
Finally we find an amazing prophecy found, not in the canon, but in one of the books known as the “Apocrypha”. In 2 Maccabees 2:1-8 we read:
“One finds in the records that Jeremiah the prophet ordered those who were being deported to take some of the fire, as has been told, and that the prophet after giving them the law instructed those who were being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, nor to be led astray in their thoughts upon seeing the gold and silver statues and their adornment. And with other similar words he exhorted them that the law should not depart from their hearts. It was also in the writing that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God. And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated.”
(2 Maccabees 2:1-8 RSV)
Here there is an allusion to Jeremiah and the new covenant which places the Torah in our hearts. This becomes tied again to Mo’av where Moshe had made the Covenant of Mo’av just before his death on Mount Nebo. According to this book the Tabernacle, the alter of incense and the Ark of the Covenant are all hidden inside Mount Nebo at Mo’av and at the time of the regathering (another allusion to the New Covenant of Mo’av) they will reveal their own position to the world. All of this will end where it began, we will finally enter the New Covenant Kingdom right there at Mo’av!
Conclusion
There are two covenants in the Torah, and the Torah is very much a part of both of them. Both Rashi and Paul tell us that the covenant of Mo’av or “new covenant” is distinguished from the “curse” of the first covenant. Both Ramban and Paul tell us that the New Covenant is tied to the work of Messiah, involves a change of a persons heart and inner desires and involves the implanting of the Spirit of YHWH to guide us in an inner desire to observe Torah. This Covenant has been offered to Israel collectively on at least three occasions: upon entering the Land (Deuteronomy 29-30); upon returning to the Land (Jeremiah 29:10; 31:30f) and at the first coming of Messiah (Matthew 26:27-29). While Israel may not collectively enter this covenant until Messiah returns, we as individuals may enter it early, becoming citizens of a Kingdom not yet established. This profound understanding of the nature of the New Covenant will radically improve our understanding of Scripture. This article is not the end of that process, it is only intended to serve as a modest beginning.
Freewill vs Predestination
By
James Trimm
The Essenes believed strongly in Predestination:
…the sect of the Essenes affirm that fate governs all things,
and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its
determination.
(Josephus; Ant. 13:5:9)
From the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be.
Before ever they existed He established their whole design,
and when, as ordained for them, they come into being, it is
in accord with His glorious design that they accomplish their
task without change. …
(1QS 3:15f)
However the Pharisees had a more moderate view:
When they say that all things happen by fate,
they do not take away from men the freedom
of acting as they think fit; since their notion
is that it has pleased God to mix up the decrees
of fate and man’s will, so that man can act
virtuously or visciously.
(Josephus; Ant. 18:1:3)
The Mishna gives the Pharisaic view as follows:
All things are foreknown,
but freewill is given.
- m.Avot 3:16
One of the primary “predestination” schools in Christendom is known as “Calvinism”. “Calvinism” is actually a term which refers to all of Calvin’s teachings however it has come to be used primarily to refer to Calvin’s teaching of “predestination”. After Calvin’s death his followers formulated his teachings into five basic points called “the Five Points of Calvinism” which they compare to the five pedals of a tulip. Calvinists use the word
TULIP as a memory device for these five points by making the following acronym:
[T]otal depravity of man
[U]nconditional election
[L]imited atonement
[I]rresistable grace
[P]erseverence of the Saints
In this paper we will discuss the first four of these in depth, though not in the same order as TULIP.
Calvanist thinking goes something like this:
Elohim is ultimately sovereign and all powerful while man is totally depraved. As a result man cannot resist Elohim. Since all men are not saved, but the “elect” are saved, Elohim has only willed certain men to be saved, while others he has willed to be damned. If the all powerful irresistible Elohim has called a man to be saved, then he will be saved. By contrast if the all powerful irresistible Elohim has not called a man to be saved, then that
man will never (and can never) be saved.
OK now lets show the fault in the “TULIP logic”:
The Calvinist concept of Elohim’s soveregnty is that he is irresistible. That no man could ever resist the will of Elohim. This is based on a flawed interpretation of Romans 9 as well as misunderstanding the key terms in the KJV “foreknown”, “predestined” and “elect”. We will discuss each of these in depth under another heading. However the scriptures plainly teach that man can and has at times resisted the will of Elohim. A prime
example appears in Acts 7:51:
“…You men are always resisting the Ruach HaKodesh.”
If in fact the will of Elohim cannot be resisted by man, then all men would be saved. This is because the scriptures tell us that ALL men have been called by Him to salvation:
…by the righteousness of one [Messiah]
the free gift came upon all men
unto the justification of life.
(Rom. 5:18)
…our Eloah and Saviour;
who will have all men to be saved,…
(1Tim. 2:3-4)
[YHWH is]…not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance.
(2Pt. 3:9)
In fact it seems that these three verses, coupled with the concept of “limited atonement” (i.e. that only some men will be saved) actually disproves Calvinism. Since Elohim has willed all men to be saved, yet only some of them will be saved, it stands to reason that some of these men resist his will and are damned by their own choice.
One major problem with Calvinist thinking is that it is deeply rooted in Replacement Theology. One key term that is central to Calvinism is “the Elect”. But what is the difference between the “Elect” and the “Chosen”? None at all. The KJV translates the same Hebrew and Greek words as “Chosen” or “Elect” depending on the mood of the translator, or more likely so as to imply that the “Elect” is the “Church”. For example if you compare 1Pt. 2:9 with Is. 43:20 and Deut. 10:15 you swill see that the “Elect” of 1Pt. 2:9 is drawn from Tanak passages about the “Chosen” people Israel in Is. 43:20f and Deut. 10:15.
Now if we are good Bereans (Acts 17) we will check the scriptures, the Tanak to see what Paul and other “New Testament writers” are saying. If we do so we will see that clearly the term “Elect/Chosen” refers not to “the Christian Church” but to Israel (Deut. 7:6; 10:15; 14:2; Is. 41:8-9; 42:1;43:20f; 45:4; 65:9, 22 & Ps. 135:4).
Now the misunderstanding of the Elect as the Christian Church has created a problem in logic that has helped to support Calvinism. By must Christian theology the Christian Church is made up of all believers in “Jesus Christ”. But this seems to conflict. If the term “the Elect” refers to the Christian Church then it implies not that they chose Elohim, but that Elohim chose them. The Calvinist resolution is that Elohim chose a certain class of people who would choose Elohim because Elohim predestined them to do so. Thus they are the “Elect” because Elohim chose them to be those who would choose him. The real resolution is that replacement theology is wrong in the first place. The term “Elect/Chosen” is a euphemism for Israel and not the Christian Church at all.
A keystone to Calvinist thinking is Romans 9. Since Calvinists has so misunderstood this chapter we will cover it in detail.
The topic of Romans 9 is to reassure Paul’s readers. He has just told them that Elohim has predestined believers to be conformed to the image of the Son (which in no way indicates the doctrine of predestination as explained above). He has just been telling them about the promise of redemption. But what good is that promise. Did he not make promises to Israel? In Romans 9 thru 11 Paul will explain that YHWH will indeed be faithful in keeping his promises to Israel. However this has cause Paul to cover a parenthetical thought. This thought is to explain to his readers that Elohim had the right to Choose Israel. Notice the term “Election” in 9:11 refers to Israel NOT the Christian Church.
In the next few verses Paul will justify Elohim’s right to make Israel his chosen people.
In Rom. 9:11-16 Paul cites Gen. 25:23 and Mal. 1:2-3 to express that Elohim chose to have his chosen linage to pass through Jacob rather than Esau. It must be noted that this resulted from Esau selling his birthright to Jacob of his own freewill (Gen. 25:24-34). Elohim “hated” Esau for not cherishing his birthright.
In Rom. 9:17-18 Paul refers to Elohim’s sovereignty when he hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Paul here quotes Ex. 9:16 and is referring to the material in Ex. 9:15-17. The Calvinist misunderstanding here comes from a lack of understanding the idiom Biblical Hebrew. Ex. 4:21 & 9:16 are examples of a common Hebrew idiom in which an active verb is used to express not the doing of a thing, but permission to do it. Another example of this idiom is found in Jer. 4:10:
Then said I: ‘Ah, Adonai YHWH! surely
You have greatly deceived this people and
Yerushalayim, saying: You shall have peace;
whereas the sword reaches unto the soul.’
(Jer. 4:10 HRV)
Meaning not that YHWH deceived them but that he ALLOWED them to be deceived.
(other examples of this idiom: Mt. 6:13a; 2Thes. 2:11; Rom. 1:24-26; Zech. 1:10b).
In the case of Pharaoh we have a man who was not a believer (Ex. 5:2) and who hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:11, 15, 28; 9:7). Paul simply refers to this story to show that Elohim had the sovereign right to allow Pharaoh to harden his own heart of his own freewill. This concept is also taught in the Talmud:
In the way in which a man wishes to walk he is guided.
(b.Mak. 10b)
If one goes to defile himself, openings are made for him;
and if he goes to purify himself, help is afforded him.
(b.Shabb. 104a)
If a man defiles himself a little, he becomes much defiled:
[if he defile himself] below, he becomes defiled from above;
if he defile himself in this world,
he becomes defiled in the world to come.
Our Rabbis taught: Sanctify yourselves,
therefore, and be ye holy:
If a man sanctify himself a little,
he becomes much sanctified.
[If he sanctify himself] below,
he becomes sanctified from above;
if he sanctify himself in this world,
he becomes sanctified in the world to come.
(b.Yoma 39a)
Elohim, has the sovereign right to further harden the heart of the man who has chosen himself to harden his heart. This does not conflict with freewill, it is an amplification of freewill.
Elohim hardened Pharaoh’s heart further because Elohim had made Israel his Chosen people Egypt. The point of the story here is that Elohim chose to reveal himself to Israel, typified by Moses, while allowing Egypt (typified by Pharoah) to harden their hearts.
Finally in Rom. 9:19-23 Paul recounts the parable of the potter and the clay. This is a common parable in Jewish literature. It also appears in Is. 29:16; 45:9; Jer. 18:1-10 and Wisdom 12:12, 20; 15:7). In this parable the potter is Elohim and the clay is mankind. The point of the parable is that Elohim is sovereign over mankind and therefore has the right to make the Jews his chosen people. This is revealed as the meaning of the parable in Rom. 9:24.
Some important points about this parable overall. Jeremiah reminds us that Elohim responds to our freewill in exercising sovereignty over us (Jer. 18:8, 10) and actually condemns those who ascribe this to fate/predestination by stating that we have a freewill (Jer. 18:12) a point Paul also seems to agree with in speaking of allegorical vessels in 2Tim. 2:20-21.
Thus the purpose of Romans 9 is to justify Elohim’s right to choose the Jewish people as his Chosen people (Elect) and NOT to teach the Calvinist concept of predestination and an Elect Christian Church.
There are two words which are translated three ways in the KJV these are Strong’s Greek number 4309 Translated “predestined” and Strong’s Greek number 4267 translated “foreknow/foreknew” in Rom. 8:29 and 11:2 but as “foreordained” in 1Pt. 1:20.
(this word appears in Acts 2:23; 15:18 = Amos 9:11-12; Rom. 8:29; 11:2 & 1Pt. 1:20)
First we will address the issue of “foreknowledge”. Judaism maintains this concept as the Mishna says:
All things are foreknown,
but freewill is given.
- m.Avot 3:16
Foreknowledge is simply the concept that Elohim foreknows the future, and does not require that he predestine the future.
A heathen said to Rabbi Joshua,
“You believe that God knows the future?”
“Yes,” replied the Rabbi.
“Then,” said the questioner, “wherefore is it written,
‘The Lord said, I will destroy everything which
I have made, because it repents me that I have made
them?’ Did not the Lord foresee that man would
become corrupt?”
Then said Rabbi Joshua, “Have you children?”
“Yes,” was the answer.
“When a child was born, what did you?”
“I made a great rejoicing.”
“What cause had you to rejoice?
Do you not know that they must die?”
“Yes, that is true; but in the time of enjoyment
I do not think of the future.”
“So was it with God,” said Rabbi Joshua.
“He knew that men would sin; still that
knowledge did not prevent the execution of
his beneficent purpose to create them.”
(Gen. Rabba 27:4)
Next is the word “foreordain” in 1Pt. 1:20. As we have already shown this same word is elsewhere translated simply as “foreknow”.
Finally we reach the keyword “predestined” This word appears five times in the KJV. However in none of its usages does it actually refer to the doctrine of “predestination” as understood in Calvinism.
Rom. 8:29-30 says only that believers are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son, not that they were predestined to believe.
Eph. 1:5, 11 says only that believers are predestined to have a life in the world to come.
These passages in the KJV use the word “predestined” but do not at all teach the concept of “predestination”.
It should be noted that the Aramaic of these passages actually has the phrase “marked from before” which implies only marking and not predestination.
The Calvinist concept of the total depravity of man is largely rooted in a misunderstanding of Jn. 6:44, 64-65 which states:
No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
While this is true, Calvinists have totally ignored a whole series of other passages which tell us that God has called all men to him:
…by the righteousness of one [Messiah]
the free gift came upon all men
unto the justification of life.
(Rom. 5:18)
…our Eloah and Saviour;
who will have all men to be saved,…
(1Tim. 2:3-4)
[YHWH is]…not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance.
(2Pt. 3:9)
The trick is that they must respond by their own freewill.
It remains to be said that the doctrine of predestination is totally counter-Torah. Freewill is an important element of Torah as well as freedom/liberty. Without freewill there is no real freedom/liberty. The Tank tells us:
So shall I keep your Torah continually forever and ever,
And I will walk in freedom: for I seek your precepts.
(Psalm 119:44-45)
As well as by Ya’akov HaTzadik (James the Just) who called the Torah “the Torah of freedom” (James 1:25; 2:12).
Yeshua said:
… if you continue in my word,
then are you my disciples indeed.
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8:31-32)
With Ps. 119:142:
…your Torah is truth.
So the Torah makes one free. Freedom requires freewill. Freewill is constantly reflected in the Torah. The following are just a few examples:
Gen. 2:16 – Adam could FREELY eat of any tree in the garden except one. Adam CHOSE to eat that fruit as well anyway.
Ex. 5:2; 8:11, 15, 28; 9:7 – Elohim allowed Pharaoh to harden his heart (see expatiation of idiom under Rom. 9 above)
Lev. 1:3 – Freewill offerings
Num. 13-14 Ten of the 12 spies and the majority of the people chose not to enter the promised land. God yielded to their choice.
Deut. 11:26-28; 28:1; 30:15 – Elohim has set two choices before us, giving us the choice to follow his Torah or rebel against it. In the Midrash Sifre to this passage there is an interesting explanation to these passages from Deuteronomy:
‘Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse’
(Deut 11: 26). Why is this stated, since it has likewise
been said, “See, I have set before you this day life and
good, and death and evil” (Deut. 30:15)? Perhaps the
Israelites will say, “Since God has set before us two ways,
the way of life and the way of death, we can walk in
whichever of them we like.” Therefore it is taught,
“Choose life that thou may live, thou and they seed”
(Deut. 30:19). There is a Parable of a person who was
sitting at the cross-roads, before whom two paths branced
out. The beginning of one was plain and its end full
of thorns;the beginning of the other was thorny and its
latter part plain. He used to warn the passers-by and say
to them, “You see this path that its beginning is plain
and for two or three steps you walk in comfort, but
at its end you meet with thorns. You also see the other path
the beginning of which is thorny; for two or three steps
you walk through thorns, but in the end you come to a
straight road.” Similarly said Moses to Israel,
“You see the wicked prospering; for two or three days
they prosper in this world, but in the end they will be
thrust out. You also see the righteous in trouble; for two
or three days they suffer in this world, but in the end they
will have occasion for rejoicing”’
(Sifre Deut. 86a)
It is important also to cover the pagan origins of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. According to the World Book Encyclopedia:
A belief in some form of predestination is found…
in the ancient religions of Greece, China, India and Egypt.
(Vol. 15 p. 659; 1975 edition)
The Greeks and Romans believed that reality was weaved out by three goddesses called “fates” who spun out mens lives like thread. The ancient Scandanavians believed this also calling them “norns”. Predestination is in fact the Hellenistic philosophy called “Fatalism”.
This doctrine was first introduced into Christianity by the Catholic writer Augustine (354-430 C.E.) (ibid vol. 15 p. 659) and was later expounded by another Catholic writer Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274 C.E.) (ibid). Protestants initially rejected the doctrine until it was reintroduced by John Calvin (1509-1564 C.E.) (ibid).
Thus this pagan doctrine made its way from Paganism into Catholicism and eventually into Protestantism. Now it seems to be raising its pagan head in Messianic circles as well.
Calvinism teaches a an Elohim who creates faulty humans and then punishes them for being exactly what he forced them to be by his own irresistible will.
Calvinism makes Elohim ultimately guilty of every sin ever committed. By Calvinist thinking it would seem to be unjust to punish any person for any crime or sin since they were only following the irresistible will of Elohim.
Ask a Calvinist: “Do you believe in predestination because you chose to of your own freewill?”
In closing I quote to passages, one from the Mishna the other from the “New Testament”:
All things are foreknown,
but FREEWILL is given.
- m.Avot 3:16
…that your goodness should not be as it were by compulsion,
but of your own FREEWILL.
- Phil. 1:14 New American Standard
And as we read in Ben Sira (from the Apocrypha)
Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away: for thou oughtest not to do the things that he hateth.
Say not thou, He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of the sinful man.
The Lord hateth all abomination; and they that fear God love it not.
He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his free will;
If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to perform acceptable faithfulness.
He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt.
Before man is life and death; and whether him liketh shall be given him.
For the wisdom of the Lord is great, and he is mighty in power, and beholdeth all things:
And his eyes are upon them that fear him, and he knoweth every work of man.
He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, neither hath he given any man licence to sin.
(Ben Sira 15:11-20)
THE PRE-MATURE, PRE-TRIB RAPTURE
by
James Scott Trimm
The doctrine of the Pre-Trib Rapture is a late Christian doctrine which is running rampant in Messianic Judaism. This late Christian doctrine did not even emerge in Christendom until the nineteenth century. This late Christian theology has somehow managed to find favor with many of the Messianic movement who claim to be restoring the ancient Jewish roots of the original followers of Yeshua. In this article it will be proven that the doctrine of the Pre-Trib rapture is:
1. A late invention of Christendom with NO Jewish roots whatsoever.
2. A doctrine which runs counter to the teachings of the scriptures themselves.
3. A doctrine of “peace and safety” which may destroy the faith of many in the end.
TERMINOLOGY
Before beginning lets define some basic terms we will be using:
RAPTURE – This term has become very controversial. In the occult the term has been used for centuries to refer to occult levitation. The biblical origin of the term however, in 1Thes. 4:17 where we read the words “caught up,” the Latin Vulgate uses the Latin word “RAPTOS” here. The “rapture” then, is the “being caught up” described in 1Thes. 4:17.
NATZAL – Hebrew word for “deliverance.” This word has come to be used by many Pre-Trib Messianic Jews as an attempt at a Jewish/Messianic term for the pre-tribulation rapture.
KH’TAF – Aramaic word for “caught up” in the Aramaic text of 1Thes. 4:17.
POST-TRIB – The view that the KH’TAF (rapture) will is simply part of the second coming of Messiah and will therefore take place at the end of the tribulation and the beginning of the millenial Kingdom.
PRE-TRIB – This view maintains that the rapture is a separate event from the second coming of Messiah and that it will take place seven years earlier, immediately before the tribulation.
MID-TRIB – This view also maintains that the “rapture” is a separate event from the second coming of Messiah and that it will take place 3 ½ years earlier, halfway through the tribulation, at about the time of the “abomination of desolation” (the revealing of the Anti-Christ).
PRIOR-RAPTURE – This is any view which maintains that the rapture and the second coming of Messiah are separate events and that the rapture precedes the second coming of Messiah by some period of time.
PARTIAL RAPTURE – This view maintains that only part of the Body of Messiah will be “raptured.”
PASHAT – The plain, simple, literal meaning of a text.
WHERE’S THE PASHAT?
One serious problem with Christendom’s pre-trib rapture teaching is that it has no basis in pashat. Although pre-tribers often claim that their beliefs are based on the plain literal meaning of the scriptures, the reality is that such an approach does not produce a belief in a pre-trib rapture. Even Hal Lindsey, perhaps the worlds best known advocate of a pre-trib rapture, admits that his belief in such is not based on the plain literal meaning of the scriptures. Lindsey admits that he cannot “point to any single verse that clearly says the rapture will occur before… the tribulation.” (The Rapture by Hal Lindsey p. 32). Instead Lindsey claims “pretribulationism is based largely on arguments from inference and silence.” (ibid p. 31).
If pretribulationism does not come from a pashat understanding of the scriptures then one must ask, where did it originate and why do so many believe it?
DISPENSATIONALISM AND PRETRIBISM
During the 1820′s and 1830′s a Christian theologian named John Darby (founder of the Plymoth Brethren) developed a new systematic theology called Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has since become very popular in Christendom. Somehow this late Christian invention has gained the favor of many claiming to be returning to the Jewish roots of the original followers of Yeshua. It is a fact that Dispenstionalism did not exist until the nineteenth century. It has no roots in Judaism whatsoever and did not even exist in Christianity until the 19th century.
Like most 19th century theologians John Darby was an anti-nomian, he believed that the Law of Moses had passed away at the cross. Darby was disturbed however with certain problems created by that theology. Darby noticed that during the seven years of Daniel’s final week the offerings are being made at the Temple. Since the Law of Moses was clearly being kept during this seven year tribulation, Darby conluded that the Law comes back into effect at the beginning of the tribulation. This train of thought caused Darby to segragate biblical and prophetic history into compartmentalized ages. Darby theorized an age of Law that ended at the cross and an age of grace or church age that began at the cross. Then at the seven year tribulation the age of Law kicks back in and the church age of grace ends. This created a problem for Darby’s theory. How can the age of Law return if the Church is still here? Darby saw the age of Law as an age in which God delt with Israel and the tribulation as a return to God dealing with Isarel. So what happens to the Church? Surely the Church will not leave Grace and come under the Law of Moses. As a result Darby adopted the idea of a pre-trib rapture which had become popular among the Irvingites. This idea had the Church leave the earth at the beginning of the tribulation, leaveing Israel behind to enter the tribulation and the age of law’s return. Darby now had another problem. If the Church is raptured leaving Israel behind, then what about so-called “Jewish Christians.” Do they get raptured with the Church, or stay behind with Israel. Darby proposed yet another solution: Church/Israel dichotomy. This theory taught that a Jew who becomes a believer in Messiah becomes part of the Church and is no longer part of Israel. As a result no one can be both a part of the Church and Israel. Jewish believers, according to this theory, stop being Jews and become part of the Church of God, which he taught containd people that are not Jews or gentiles. Thus the three pillars of Dispensationalism are:
1) The Law is not for today
2) The pre-trib rapture
3) Church Israel dichotomy
Now Messianic Jews cannot accept number one or number 3. Number two was only needed because of a belief in number 1. Number 2 does not work without number 3 which was created to solve problems created by number 2. As a result Messianic Judaism is incompatble with Dispensationalism. Two of the three pillars wich must be present to support Dispensationalism are noncompatable with Messianic Judaism. Moreover the only remaining pillar cannot stand alone, it only exists to solve a problem created by number 1 and it cannot stand without number 3. When examined in light of the truths that Messianic Jews have, the whole structure of Dispensationalism comes crashing down. It is a late19th century invention of Christendom with NO roots in first century Judaism at all.
HOW MANY COMINGS OF MESSIAH?
Almost immediately it becomes apparent that prior-rapturists believe not in two comings of Messiah, but three comings of Messiah. Sine the post-tribulation return of the Messiah has been clearly recognized as the “Second coming of Messiah” for centuries, the prior rapturists must either relable this coming “the third coming of Messiah” or, as most of them do, insist that their prior-rapture is not actually a “coming of Messiah.” Prior-rapturists insist that their prior rapture is not a “coming” of the Messiah, but merely an “appearance” of the Messiah. If this is true then the scriptures should clearly bear this out. If the prior-rapturist theory is true then the scriptures should teach a pre-trib “appearance” of Messiah which is not a “coming of the Messiah” followed by a post trib “coming of the Messiah.” We should not see the KH’TAF (rapture) refered to as a “coming” of the L-rd in the scriptures. We should also not expect the post trib coming of the Messiah labled as an “appearace.” Now lets examine the scriptures:
I charge you therefore before G-d, and the L-rd
Yeshua the Messiah, who shall judge the quick
and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom.
(2Tim. 4:1)
Here it is clearly the end of the tribulation and the beginning of the Kingdom which occurs at the appearance of Messiah.
So Messiah was once offered to bear the sins
of many;and to them that look for him shall
he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
(Heb. 9:28)
Here the text seems to discuss the post-trib coming of Messiah . If prior-rapturists are correct then this text should either read “come the second time” or “appear a third time.”
Be patient therefore brothers,
unto the coming of the L-rd.
(James 5:7a)
This text seems to tell us that our hope is to look for the “coming of the L-rd” not an “appearance of the L-rd.”
For this we say to you by the Word of the L-rd,
that we which are alive and remain unto
the coming of the L-rd shall not prevent them
which are asleep. For the L-rd himself shall
descend from heaven with a shout, with the
voice of the archangel,
and with the trump of G-d: and the dead in Messiah
shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain
shall be caught up (raptured) together with them
in the clouds to meet the L-rd in the air: and so
shall we ever be with the L-rd.
(1Thes. 4:15-17)
This passage is the difinetive rapture text. But look, this passage is describing a “coming of the L-rd.”
It becomes clear by examining the texts that prior-rapturists believe not in two comings of the Messiah but three. This theory is clearly at odds with the scriptures which teach only two comings of Messiah.
THIEF IN THE NIGHT
One of the catchphrases used by prior-rapturists is the phrase “thief in the night.” The prior-rapturists use this term to describe their prior rapture as a “secret rapture” in which the Church is secretly snatched away. This is however a complete misuse of the biblical term “thief in the night.” The “thief in the night” parable is one of the many parables Yeshua told (Mt. 24:42-51) it is referred to in the scriptures on three additional places (1Thes. 5:2-10; 2Pt. 3:10; Rev. 3:3 & Rev. 16:15). A true analysis of the term “thief in the night” as it is used in the scriptures will reveal a post-trib rapture which is anything but a secret prior-rapture.
The first place to look is the parable itself. The thief in the night parable is given by Yeshua in Mt. 24:42-44:
Watch therefore: for you know not what hour
your L-rd does come. But know this, that if the
good-man of he house had known in what watch
the thief would come, he would have watched,
and would not have suffered his house to be
broken up. Therefore be you also ready: for
in such an hour as you think not the Son of Man comes.
There are a number of important elements to this parable. First it should be noted that the “thief” in this parable is clearly the Messiah. However in the parable of the Thief in the Night the Messiah is a thief who comes at an unexpected time. He is not pictured as “stealing the church away” If anything the assembly is the victim of his surprise visit, but not the thing being stolen. Secondly we not that the thief/Messiah comes at a time that the Assembly does not expect him. Finally it is significant that the thief comes at a time later than the Assembly expected and found the Assembly sleeping. Throughout the scriptures sleeping is a type of apostasy (see Is. 29:10 = Rom. 11:8).
The Thief in the Night parable is part of a section of scripture beginning in Mt. 24:42 and ending in Mt. 25:13 in which Yeshua illustrates that the Messiah comes later than expected to a sleeping assembly which expected him earlier. Yeshua first states this theme in verse 42. Then in Mt. 24:43 Yeshua give the thief in the night parable. Then in verse 44 Yeshua restates this theme. Then in Mt. 24:45-51 Yeshua gives the parable of the “faithful and wise servent.” In this parable also the Messiah comes at a time later than the servant expected (verses 48 & 50) to find an apostate servant (verses 48-49). Finally Yeshua gives the illustration of the “ten virgins” (Mt. 25:1-12) in which the bridegroom comes later than the virgins expected. The virgins (at least some of them) are clearly believers for five of them have oil in their lamps. The bridegroom comes to find the virgins sleeping. Even though many of them had oil in their lamps, they thought the Messiah would come sooner than he did and as a result the fell into a sleep of apostasy. Rather than teaching a pre-trib rapture this section of scripture warns us that much of the assembly will expect the Messiah sooner than he comes (pre-trib), and when the Messiah comes later than the Assembly thought he was supposed to (post-trib) these believers fall into apostate sleep. The pretribbers have been falsely taught by many of the teachers of Christendom that the Bible teaches Messiah will rescue them from the tribulation before it comes. When this does not happen many of them will lose faith and think that the scriptures are a lie. They will fall into an apostate sleep.
In Rev. 3:3 we read:
…If therefore you shall not watch, I will come on you
as a thief, and you shall not know what hour I come upon you.
This passage clearly refers to the material in Mt. 24:42-44. Here Messiah is addressing the Assembly at Sardis (actual believers) and indicates that he will come at a time that the Assembly does not expect. The implication in the phrase “If therefor you shall not keep watch…” is that the Messiah will come later than expected to find sleeping/apostate believers.
In 2Peter 3:10 we read:
But the day of the L-rd will come like a thief,
in which the heavens will pass away with a roar
and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat,
and the earth and its works will be burned up.
The “day” referred to here is the 1,000 year day of the millenial Kingdom (2Pt. 3:8; Ps. 90:4; Rev. 20:2, 7). This 1,000 year “day” begins with the second coming of Messiah (Rev. 19:11-20:2) and ends with the destruction of the earth by fire (Rev. 20:7-21:1). Here the “L-rd will come like a thief” (2Pt. 3:10) definitely refers to the second coming of the Messiah at the end of the tribulation and the beginning of the 1,000 years. This is anything but a stealthy silent secret rapture thief. This is a noisy thief who will cause the heavens to pass away with a “roar.”
In Rev. 16:15 we read:
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches,
and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked,
and they see his shame.
This passage occurs in context of the events of the 1,000 year day mentioned above. Moreover the passage also reflects a thief that comes later than expected to find an apostate Assembly.
Finally in 1Thes. 5:2-10 we read:
For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the L-rd comes as a thief in the night. For when they shall say,
Peace and safety; then sudden destruction comes upon them,
as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not
escape. But you, brethers, are not in darkness, that that
day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children
of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night,
nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others;
but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in
the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the
night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting
on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the
hope of salvation. For G-d hath not appointed us to wrath,
but to obtain salvation by our L-rd Yeshua the Messiah,
Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we
should live together with him.
Now in reading this passage we should recall the Thief in the Night parable that is clearly being referred to here. Here we learn that the sleeping apostates will be duped by a “peace and safety” doctrine (verse 3) however “sudden destruction comes upon them…and they shall not escape” (verse 3). Here those that expect the Messiah to come later than he does believe in a “peace and safety” teaching and fall into apostasy when the Messiah does not come as soon as they expect but instead “sudden destruction comes upon them” something they apparently expected to “escape.” At this point they seem to fall into a sleep of apostasy. A great falling away comes when pretribbers are disappointed when they enter the tribulation instead of escaping it in a pre-trib rapture. But wait! Look at 1Thes 5:1! This whole section of scripture refers to the timing of the “rapture” event of 1Thes. 4:16-18. In fact, the chapter change from 1Thes. 4:18 to 5:1 occurs in the middle of a paragraph!
The reference to the thief in the night parable in 1Thes. 4:16-5:10 is also important for another reason. This reference gives us some context for the “rapture” event of 1Thes. 4:16-17. The thief in the night parable of Mt. 24:43 takes place in a large segment of Matthew (Mt. 24:29-25:46) which clearly discusses the post-trib (Mt. 24:29) second coming of Messiah. The thief of Mt. 24:42-44 comes at a time that is like “the days of Noah… before the flood” (Mt. 24:37-41 with Mt, 24:42-51). Luke also discusses this time that is like the days of Noah (Mt. 24:37-41 = Lk. 26-36). Luke goes on to say that those “taken” in Mt.24:37-41 = Lk. 17:26-36 will be consumed by birds of prey (see Lk. 17:37 = Mt. 24:28). These men consumed by birds of prey are those who come against Israel and are destroyed at the second coming (Rev. 19:11-21 esp. 19:17-18, 21). The timing of the “thief” event is therefore that of the second coming of Messiah in Rev. 19:11-21. Since the timing of “thief” event of 1Thes. 5:2-10 is that of the “rapture” event of 1Thes. 4:16-18 (1Thes. 5:1 states clearly that 1Thes. 5:2-10 refers to the timing of 1Thes. 4:16-18) then the “rapture” of 1Thes. 4:16-18 is simply a part of the post-trib coming of the Messiah.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS (Mt. 24:29)
In order to get a good picture of just what the KH’TAF (rapture) event of 1Thes. 4:16-17 is we must let scripture interpret scripture. This is a concept in Jewish hermeneutics called G’ZARAH SHEVAH (equivalence of expresions). This is the second of the seven rules of Hillel. The first scripture that we should compare 1Thes. 4:16-17 with is 1Cor. 15:52.
Now 1Thes. 4:13-17 reads:
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brothers,
concerning them which are asleep, that you sorrow
not, even as others which have no hope. For if we
believe that Yeshua died and rose again, even so
them also which sleep in Yeshua will G-d bring
with him. For this we say unto you by the word
of the L-rd, that we which are alive and remain
unto the coming of the L-rd shall not prevent them
which are asleep. For the L-rd himself shall
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice
of the archangel, and with the trump of G-d:
and the dead in Messiah shall rise first: Then we
which are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds, to meet the
L-rd in the air: and so shall we ever be with the L-rd.
Lets compare this passage with 1Cor. 15:50-55:
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the Kingdom of G-d; neither does corruption
inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery;
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have
put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put
on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in
victory. O death, where is thy sting?
O grave, where is thy victory?
Certainly these two passages obviously speak of the same event. The question is what kind of context does 1Cor. 15:50-55 give to the “rapture” of 1Thes. 4:13-17?
1. The event of 1Cor. 15:50-55 facilitates the inheritance of the Kingdom.
2. 1Cor. 15:54b quotes Is. 25:8
3. 1Cor. 15:55 quotes Hosea 13:14
Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 clearly speak of the beginning of the Kingdom. Taken together it would seem that 1Cor. 15:50-55 places 1Thes. 4:13-17 in the context of the beginning of the 1,000 year Kingdom.
Now 1Thes 4:13-18 and 1Cor. 15:50-55 are generally regarded as the “rapture” verses. In fact the word “rapture” comes from the Latin Vulgate word for “caught up” in 1Thes. 4:16-17. Let us compare these with the generally accepted “second coming” verses.
Some of the generally accepted “second coming” passages are: Dan. 7:13-14; Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Rev. 11:15 and 20:4-6. In these passages we can immeditely identify four elements:
1. Messiah will supernaturally appear in the sky.
(Dan. 7:13-14; Mt. 24:30; Mk. 13:26)
2. There will be a supernatural gathering together to him in the sky.
(Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27)
3. A last (seventh of seven) trumpet is blown by one of the seven angels which stand before G-d. (Rev. 8:2; 11:15; Mt. 24:31; Is. 27:13)
4. A (first) resurrection of the just (Rev. 20:4-6)
Now lets compare these four elements with the “rapture” passages of 1Thes. 4:13-18 and 1Cor. 15:50-55:
1. Messiah will supernaturally appear in the sky.
(1Thes. 4:16-17)
2. There will be a supernatural gathering together to him in the sky.
(1Thes. 4:17)
3. A last (seventh of seven) trumpet is blown by one of the archangels
(1Thes. 4:16; 1Cor. 15:52)
4. A (first) resurrection of the just
(1Thes. 4:16; 1Cor. 25:52)
By comparing these four elements we find that the “rapture” of 1Thes. 4:13-18 & 1Cor. 15:50-55 is identical to the second coming of the Messiah in : Dan. 7:13-14; Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Rev. 11:15 and 20:4-6. This conclusion has been reached by many commentators. For example Halley’s Bible handbook says regarding 1Thes. 4:13-18:
It [the event in 1Thes. 4:16-17] is mentioned or referred to several times in almost every New Testament book. The chapters in which it is explained most fully are Matthew 24, 25; Luke 21; 1Thesalonians 4, 5; 2Pt. 3. (Halley’s Bible Handbook p. 626 on 1Thes. 4:13-18; See also Halley’s comments on Mt. 24:31 on p. 447)
Also in his book MESSIAH: A Rabbinic and Scriptural Viewpoint, Messianic Jewish writer Burt Yellin writes regarding 1Thes. 4:16:
In IThessalonians 4:16, Paul tells us of the return
of the Messiah: “For the L-rd Himself will descend
from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel and with the trumpet (shofar) of G-d;
and the dead in Messiah will rise first…” When
read together with Revelation 11:15-17 we find
that this resurrection will Take place on the
seventh trumpet blast.
(p. 99)
If we were to take the “rapture” passages of 1Thes. 4:13-18 & 1Cor. 15:50-55 to be a separate event from the “second coming” passages of Dan. 7:13-14; Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Rev. 11:15 and 20:4-6 as the prior-rapturists do then we have some major chronology problems. Such a chronology would have the trumpet blast of Rev. 11:15 & Mt. 24:31 being blown after the “last trumpet” of 1Thes, 4:16 & 1Cor. 15:52). Such a chronology would also have the general resurrection of the just in 1Thes. 4:16 & 1Cor. 15:52 taking place before the “first resurection” of Rev. 20:4-6). The KH’TAF (rapture) is clearly the event which Mt. 24:29 states occurs “immediately after the tribulation of those days…”
THE PASHAT
Hal Lindsey, one of the chief apologists for the pre-trib rapture states:
The truth of the matter is that neither a post-,
mid-, or pre-Tribulantonist can point to any
single verse that clearly says the Rapture will
occur before, in the middle of, or after the Tribulation.
(The Rapture by Hal Lindsey p. 32)
Now, we agree that it is true that Lindsey cannot “point to any single verse thet clearly says the rapture will occur before… the Tribulation.” However, Lindsey is clearly wrong to state that we cannot “point to any single verse that clearly says the rapture will occur… after the Tribulation.” This article has already shown that the scriptures clearly teach a post-trib KH’TAF (rapture). The following are single verses that clearly say the Rapture will occur after the Tribulation:
For it was not David who ascended into heaven ,
But he himself says: The L-rd said to my L-rd Sit
at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool
for your feet.
( Acts 2:34-35 (quoting Ps. 110:1))
(see also Heb. 1:13; Mt. 22:44; Mk. 12:36)
This passage clearly states that the Messiah will remain at the right hand of the father until his enemies are made his footstool in the 1,000 year Kingdom. This passage clearly teaches the rapture will not occur until after the tribulation, at the beginning of 1,000 year Kingdom.
And that He may send Yeshua the Messiah appointed
for you, whom heaven must receive until the period
of restoration of all things which G-d spoke by the mouth
of his holy prophets from ancient times.
(Acts 3:20-21)
(see also Rev. 10:7 & 11:15)
This passage also teaches that Messiah will remain in heaven until the Kingdom comes.
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming
of our L-rd Yeshua the Messiah, and by our
gathering together unto him, That you be not
soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither
by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us,
as that the day of Messiah is at hand. Let no man
deceive you by any means: for that day shall
not come, except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is
called G-d, or that is worshipped; so that he as
G-d sits in the temple of G-d, showing himself
that he is G-d.
This passage clearly teaches that the rapture CANNOT occur until AFTER the revealing of the Anti-Christ midway through the seven year “Tribulation” (see Mt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14 & Dan. 9:27).
COMMONLY MISUNDERSTOOD PASSAGES
Unable to find support for their pre-trib rapture theory in the PASHAT (literal meaning) of any Scripture passages, Pre-Tribbers have resorted to REMEZ (implied) and DRASH (allegorical) interpretations. As Lindsey admits in his book THE RAPTURE saying that it “is in some measure true” “…that pretribism is based largely on arguments from inference and silence.” (p. 31).
THE WRATH TO COME ARGUMENT
Using this argument pre-tribbers use texts which they say imply the church will not enter the tribulation, which they say hints at a pretrib rapture. The Pretribber will argue that the Tribulation is “G-d’s wrath” and that the church will not suffer “G-d’s wrath” (Rom. 5:9; 1Thes. 1:10; 5:9-10; Jn. 5:24). By using this argument pretribbers ignore the fact that the Anti-Christ, one of the major figures of the Tribulation, is the devil’s wrath (Rev. 12:12; 13:2). They also ignore the fact that the Messiah may deliver us from this wrath by destroying the AntiChrist at his second coming. Moreover they ignore the fact that by context, the wrath Messiah saves us from is in that we are “justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9) and so we “shall be saved” (Rom. 5:9) clearly the wrath here is the Lake of Fire not the Tribulation. (Jn. 5:24 uses the word “condemnation” but the same argument applies.)
THE LUKE 21:36 ARGUMENT
This argument was first used by prior-rapturisms 15 year old inventor, who misquoted the verse in her discusion with Darby. This verse says “…pray always, that you may be accounted worth to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”
To begin with this verse only says to pray and does not promise a result. Secondly the passages simply says “escape” not “raptured”, this could simply refer to survival. The most important flaw in this Pre-Trib argument is what is meant by “all these things.” This phrase seems to refer to those things listed in Luke 21:34 which would cause one to be off guard at the second coming (Lk. 21:34-36) and not the Tribulation at all. Finally, we must ask pretribbers what is meant by “accounted worthy”? If these are the church then those in the church are “accounted worthy” of their salvation. This runs counter to the Scriptures which clearly teach that we do not earn our salvation, but that we receive it as an act of grace that we are not worthy of.
THE REVELATION 3:10 ARGUMENT
Pretribbers will also point to Rev. 3:10:
I also will keep you from the hour of temptation
Which shall come upon all the world,
To try them that dwell upon the earth.
To begin with the word “keep” here does not mean “rapture” and could simply refer to survival with G-ds help. More importantly the context of the passage is not prophetic but written to the “assembly at Philadelphia” (Rev. 3:7) or those believers that lived in Philadelphia in John’s time. Revelation is divided into three sections (Rev. 3:10) things which John saw (Rev. 1) things which are (Rev. 2-3) and things which shall be hereafter (Rev. 4:1). Rev. 3:10 therefore applies to the time of John and not the future tribulation in the last days.
THE HOLY SPIRIT TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY?
This argument was first used by prior-rapturism’s 15 year old inventor. This argument uses eisogesis (reading ideas into a text) rather than exogesis (reading ideas out of a text). In this case Prior-rapturists read “Holy Spirit” into the “he” in 2Thes. 2:7. By this reading the Anti-Christ is revealed (2Thes. 2:8) and the Tribulation begins after the church (and therefore the Holy Spirit within them) are removed by a pre-trib rapture. Prior-rapturism’s inventor first proposed this idea after having a weird vision in which it was “revealed” to her that “then shall the wicked be revealed” immeditely follows “…two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left…” (Lk. 17:34f; Mt. 24:40-41). Prior-rapturism’s inventor taught a partial prior-rapture in which those “taken” were identified as “those who were filled with the Spirit.” She falsely identified “taken” in Lk. 17:34-35 & Mt. 24:40-41 with “taken” in 2Thes. 2:7. Those “taken” in Lk. 17:34-35 & Mt. 24:40-41 are not “those filled with the Spirit” but are compared to those “taken” by the flood in the days of Noah (Mt. 24:39). Their bodies will be fed to birds of prey (Lk. 17:37) at the secod coming of Messiah (Rev. 19:17-18, 21). In fact the Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew adds in Mt. 24:41:
this is because the angels at the end of the world will remove the stumbling blocks from the world and will separate the good from the evil.
Although restraint of some kind is removed in 2Thes. 2:7 the Holy Spirit is not.
THE REV. 4:1 ARGUMENT
Being unable to prove their argument by a literal understanding of the Scriptures, prior rapturists turn to arguments based purely on allegory. In this argumernt prior rapturists say that John represents the Church and that he is getting “raptured” just before Rev. describes the Tribulation. There is absolutely no support for this argument from the text.
THE ENOCH ARGUMENT
This argument is also pure allegory. This argument says that Enoch was translated before the flood. The Prior-rapturists say Enoch = the Church and the flood = the Tribulation. Actually in the scriptures (and even the Book of Enoch) the flood represents the day of judgement and the days before the flood (the “days of Noah”) represent the tribulation. Moreover, Elijah was also translated AFTER surviving a Tribulation period (2Kn. 2:9-11; 1Kn. 17f) 3 ½ years of which are often paralleled in the scriptures to the second half of the 7 year “Tribulation.”
JEWISH CUSTOMS
Certain Messianic Jewish scholars have sought to find evidence for a pre-trib rapture allegorically from Jewish customs. One of these involves Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur, another the Jewish wedding. These are weak attempts at finding allegory to prove something that has no support from any PASHAT (literal) interpretation of any passage and which has no roots in Judaism to begin with but was invented in Christendom in the 19th century.
RAPTURE OR REGATHERING?
To understand the truth about the KH’TAF (rapture) it is important to understand just what this event is. Christendom generally teaches that the Rapture is a rapture of the Church, but the real truth is that the KH’TAF (rapture) is the supernatural regathering of Israel upon the return of Messiah. A serious examination of the scriptures makes this clear.
The Tenach foretells of a time when YHWH will regather Israel “from the four corners of the earth” (Is. 11:12) and “from the farthest parts under heaven” (Dt. 30:4). The Torah says that Messiah will “bring” them out of these other lands (Dt. 30:4). The word for “bring” here in the Hebrew actually means a forceful action. The Jerusalem Targum interprets this passage (Dt. 30:4) to mean that YHWH will “gather you together by the hand of Elijah… and from thence will He bring you by the hand of the King Messiah.” According to Rashi’s commentary this means that they will be dragged through the air by the hand of Messiah to the land. Is this event the KH’TAF (rapture)?
The first evidence that the “bring” in Dt. 30:4 is the KH’TAF (rapture) is found in the wording of Mt. 24:31 = Mk. 13:27 which identify those being “gathered” as “the Elect.” The term “the Elect” in the scriptures is a euphemism for Israel (Dt. 7:6; 10:15; 14:2; Is. 41:8-9; 42:1; 43:2f; 45:4; 65:9-22; Ps. 135:4; 1Pt. 2:9 = Is. 43:20f & Dt. 10:15). In 1Thes 4:17 Paul uses the term “we” but this is a term that elsewhere uses to refer to himself and his fellow Jews (Acts 17:1-4).
Further evidence to identify the KH’TAF event with the regathering of Israel is that of the trumpet. A trumpet is blown at the KH’TAF (rapture) in 1Thes. 4:16-17 and 1Cor. 15:50-55 as well a in Mt. 24:31 and Rev. 11:15. According to the Tenach a trumpet is also blown at the regathering of Israel (Is. 27:12-13.
Additional evidence which identifies the KH’TAF with the regathering of Israel is that of the resurrection. The KH’TAF is accompanied by a resurrection (1Thes. 4:16-17 & 1Cor. 15:50-55). The regathering of Israel also includes a resurrection (Ezkl. 37:1-14; Is. 25:1-12; Hosea 13:9-14:9). In fact, 1Cor. 15:54-55 actually quotes Is. 25:8 & Hosea 13:14. The use of Is. 25:8 & Hosea 13:14 in 1Cor. 15:54-55 is also important because of its finality. How can pretribbers believe death comes to an end at the beginning of the Tribulation?
There is yet more evidence that the KH’TAF is the regathering of Israel. Those “raptured” in 1Cor. 15:53 become immortal, but in the 1,000 year Kingdom there will also be mortals (Is. 65:20) If the Church is raptured in 1Cor. 15:53 and becomes immortal, then who are the mortals of Is. 65:20?
Final proof that the KH’TAF (rapture) is actually the regathering of Israel at the return of the Messiah is to be found in the text of Mt. 24:31 = Mk. 13:27 which actually quote the phrases “from the four corners of the earth” (Is. 11:12) and “from the farthest parts under heaven” (Dt. 30:4) right out of the Tenach passages which describe the regathering of Israel.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENS
Immeditaly after the tribulation (Mt. 24:29; Mk. 13:24) the Messiah will appear in the sky (Dan. 7:13-14; Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; 1Thes. 4:16-17) there will be a final trumpet (Rev. 8:2; 11:15; Mt. 24:31; Is. 27:13; 1Thes. 4:16-17; 1Cor. 15:52) and there will be a resurrection (1Cor. 15:50-55; 1Thes. 4:16; Rev. 20:4-6; Is. 25:8; Hosea. 13:14; Ezkl. 37:1-14) and a gatherring together to Messiah in the sky (Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; 2Thes. 2:1; 1Thes. 4:17). This is followed by the Messiah coming with many of His set-apart ones (Jude 1:14-15 = 1Enoch 1:9; 1Thes. 3:13; Rev. 19:11-16; Zech. 14:4-5). After this, the 1,000 year Kingdom is established (Rev. 20:1-3, 7). This KH’TAF will be the regathering of Israel to the Land of Israel at the return of Messiah and not a pretrib rapture of the Church.
The Process of Salvation
By
James Scott Trimm
You may have been told that you are saved, the Scriptures actually teach that salvation is a process which we “work out” (Philippians 2:12) with two primary phases. The first of these phases takes place now, but the second phase does not take place until the resurrection.
In the book of Romans, Paul lays out the two phases of salvation as follows:
“But Elohim commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Messiah died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to Elohim by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”
(Romans 5:8-10)
The first phase of salvation is “justification” or “reconciliation”. This is the present phase of Salvation, as Paul writes elsewhere:
“For he said, ‘I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succored you: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.’ “
(2 Corinthians 6:2)
“Who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Messiah Yeshua before the world began…”
(2 Timothy 1:9)
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Ruach HaKodesh…”
(Titus 3:5)
The second stage of salvation comes in the future, as the Scriptures state repeatedly:
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of YHWH shall be saved.”
(Romans 10:13)
“So Messiah was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
(Hebrews 9:28)
“Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”
(Hebrews 1:14)
So how does this two phase process work?
How often are we asked “are you saved”? or who often do we hear of “the plan of salvation” yet the amazing truth is that the vast majority of people who ask us if we are “saved” or approach us with a “plan of salvation” even know what salvation is or how to get “saved”. This booklet will explain to you, from the Scriptures themselves, what salvation really is and how you can be “saved”.
When someone asks “are you saved”? the natural question is “saved from what?” “Saved” is a verb that begs for a direct object. Yet many who ask you “are you saved” cannot actually tell you what they mean. What do you need to be saved from? The Scriptures, however, give us a clear answer to this question. At the time of Messiah’s birth, his mother Miriam (Mary), following instructions from YHWH, names Messiah “Yeshua” (the Hebrew word for “salvation”). Matthew writes of this event:
“And behold she will bear a son, and you will call his name Yeshua; for he will save his people from all their sins.”
(Matthew 1:21)
Here is the answer to our question. Messiah came to save us from all of our sins. Thus Yochanan (John) spoke of Messiah saying:
“And on the day that followed, Yochanan saw Yeshua, who was walking toward him, and said, Behold, the lamb of Eloah who takes away the sin of the world.”
(John 1:29)
Messiah came to save us from our sins, to take away the sins of the world. That is what “Salvation” is and what we need to be “saved” from. Moreove this is not a “New Testament” idea, this is an idea drawn right out of the Tanak (“Old Testament”):
“Behold, YHWH’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, neither His ear heavy, that it cannot hear; But your iniquities have separated between you and your Elohim, and your sins have hid His face from you, that he will not hear.”
(Isaiah 59:1-2)
Man needs to be saved from sin.
Now lets take a moment to examine these words “save” and “salvation”. These English words have a lot of baggage attached to them, a lot of theology that has been read into them over the last few centuries, instead of reading theology out of the words. As a result, it can be helpful to translate this same Hebrew word “YESHUA” with other English words that convey its meaning. Other words are “deliver/deliverance” or “rescue”. There are two Aramaic words that are used for “salvation” in the Aramaic “New Testament”, one of these is CHAI meaning “life, to vivify” and the other is P’RAK which comes from a root meaning “to separate” and invokes the image of one being “rescued” by being “separated” from a threat. In this case we need to be separated from “sin”.
Now that we know that “sin” is what Messiah came to deliver (save) us from, we must understand just what “sin” is. Simply put, sin is falling short of observing tht Torah. As the Tanak says:
“And if any one sin, and do any of the things which YHWH has commanded not to be done, though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.”
(Leviticus 5:17)
“But Yahu took no heed to walk in the Torah of YHWH, the Elohim of Yisra’el, with all his heart; he departed not from the sins of Yarov’am, with which he made Yisra’el to sin.”
(2 Kings 10:31)
“With my whole heart have I sought You; O let me not err from Your commandments. Your word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against You.”
(Psalm 119:10-11)
Perhaps the clearest definition of “sin” is given in the “New Testament” itself:
“Whoever commits sin transgresses also the Torah, for sin is the transgression of the Torah.”
(1 John 3:4)
So simply put, “sin” may be defined as “transgression of the Torah”. Messiah, then, came to rescue (save) us from transgression of the Torah (Matthew 1:21) and to “take away Torah transgression” (John 1:29).
This is exactly what Scriptural “salvation” is all about, don’t trust a thing that I say, look these Scriptures up for yourself! Elohim wants to rescue you from transgressing the Torah by taking away Torah transgression!
But there us a serious problem in being rescued from Torah transgression. The problem is that sin is bred into us. As the Psalmist writes:
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
(Psalm 51:5)
While in Christian culture, a baby is viewed as the picture of innocence, in Jewish (and Scriptural) understanding a baby is the picture of evil. Now you may be culturally shocked at this concept, but allow me to explain. A baby is born only caring about itself and its own needs, it does not have the capacity to care about others. This is the very definition of evil. Ever since the fall of Adam, we have been born with this sinful nature, as Paul writes:
12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13: (For until the Torah sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moshe, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15: But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of Elohim, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Yeshua the Messiah, has abounded unto many.
16: And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17: For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Yeshua the Messiah.)
18: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19: For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20: Moreover the Torah entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21: That as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 5:12-21)
This inclination to do evil is called the Yetzer Ra (evil inclination). The inclination to do good (Yetzer Tov), by contrast, develops in time as one grows older. The result is that there are two natures within man, each struggling for control. Paul writes:
“For we know that the Torah is of the spirit, but I am of the flesh and I am sold to sin… For I rejoice in the Torah of Eloah in the inward son of man.”
(Romans 7:14, 22 HRV)
“Because of this, we are not weary, for even if our outer man is corrupted, yet that which [is] inside is renewed day by day.”
(2 Corinthians 4:16 HRV)
“For the flesh desires a thing which is opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit desires a thing that is opposed to the flesh and the two of these are opposed to each other, that you do not do the thing which you desire.”
(Galatians 5:17 HRV)
The process of salvation begins with justification, but since “salvation” ultimately is the doing away with the sin nature, the second phase of salvation involves the death of Yetzer Ra (“inclination to do evil”). When we die, our Yetzer Ra will die with us, but in the resurrection only our Yetzer Tov will be resurrected with us. Through the death and resurrection of Messiah, we die and are resurrected with him. Through our covenant relationship with Messiah, we are his joint heirs. Thus when our Yetzer Ra dies and only our Yetzer Tov is resurrected, Messiah will have truly rescued us from sin and we shall experience the final phase of salvation: inheritance.
Romans 7:1-7 taken from my translation from the Aramaic:
1: Or do you not know, my brothers, (for I speak to learned ones of the Torah), that the Torah has authority over a man as long as he is alive,
2: As a woman who is bound by the Torah to her husband as long as he is alive. But if her husband dies, she is freed by the Torah from her husband.
3: And if while her husband is alive she has intercourse with another man, she becomes an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is freed by the Torah; and she is not an adulteress if she marries another.
Paul takes an illustration from Jewish Law. A woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive. She cannot marry another as long as he lives (unless he divorces her; she has no right to divorce) until her death.
4: And now, my brothers, you also are dead to the Torah in the body of the Messiah that you might be [married] to another who arose from the place of the dead, that you might bear fruit to Eloah.
As far as the Torah is concerned we die with Messiah and are freed from our former husband (sin) thus allowing us to be brides to Messiah.
5: For while we were in the flesh, the passions of sins that are in the Torah were working in our members, so that we would bear fruit unto death.
6: But now we are brought to an end by the Torah, and we are dead to that which was holding us, that we should serve from now on in the renewal of the spirit and not in the oldness of the writing.
The Torah allows us to be brides either to YHWH or to sin. When we are freed from sin we can become brides to Messiah.
7: What therefore are we saying? Is the Torah sin? Absolutely not! But I did not learn sin except by the hand of the Torah. For I had not known covetousness except that the Torah said, Do not covet.
Paul is concerned that his reader might misunderstand him and think that the Torah is sin and that therefore misunderstand his illustration as teaching that our previous bridegroom was the Torah which we are freed from in order to be bound to Messiah. Absolutely not! Paul says. Sin was our first love and former husband from whom the Torah frees us, but THE TORAH IS NOT SIN (it simply recognizes that we are married either to sin or Messiah) and since the TORAH IS NOT SIN then the Torah is NOT our former husband and we are NOT freed from Torah to be joined to Messiah. In fact the Torah is the instrument that allows us to be married to the Messiah. Without the Torah there is no marriage at all.
Salvation is a process. We receive justification and reconciliation now, but the completion of the process will ultimately involve our death and resurrection, only then will our salvation be complete.
The Two Paraklitas:
The Messiah
and
The Ruach HaKodesh
By
James Scott Trimm
Philo also describes the Word (Logos) not only as the “Son” of the “Father” but as a PARACLETE who is “perfect in all
virtue” and procures “forgiveness of sins” as well as a “supply of unlimited blessings”:
…the twelve stones arranged on the breast in four rows of three stones each, namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason (Logos, Word) which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings;
(Life of Moses II, 133-134)
This Greek word (paraclete) is also a Hebrew and Aramaic word also appears in the Mishna:
He who does even a single religious duty
gets himself a single advocate (or comforter Hebrew: paraklita)
he who does even a single transgression
gets himself a single prosecutor.
(m.Avot 4:11a)
And in the Talmud it is used to refer to the sin offering::
R. Simeon said: For what purpose does a sin-offering come? —
[You ask,] ‘for what purpose does a sin-offering come?’
Surely in order to make atonement! —
Rather, [the question is:]
Why does it come before the burnt-offering?
[Because it is] like an intercessor (paraklita) who enters
[to appease the King]: When the intercessor (paraklita)
has appeased [him], the gift follows.
(b.Zev. 7b)
The Jewish Dictionary states:
The sin-offering is like the paraclete before God; it intercedes for man and is followed by another offering, a “thank offering for the pardon obtained” (Sifra, Meora’, iii. 3; Tos. Parah i. 1). The two daily burnt offerings are called “the
two paracletes” (Yer. Ber. iv. 7b),
(Jewish Dictionary pp. 514-515)
Now Yochanan, who identifies the Messiah as the Word (logos) in Jn. 1:1-3, 14 and Rev. 19:13 also says of Messiah:
1 My sons, I write these [things] to you, that you do not sin: and if someone should sin, we have an advocate (Paraklita) with the Father, Yeshua the Messiah, the just [One].
2 For He is the propitiation for our sins, and not on behalf of ours only, but also on behalf of [the sins of] the whole
world.
(1st Yochanan (John) 2:1)
The Scriptures also refer to the Ruach HaKodesh as a Paraklita:
And I will ask of My Father, and He will give you another comforter (Paraklita) that will be with you forever:
(Yochanan 14:16 HRV)
But the comforter (Paraklita), the Ruach HaKodesh, whom My Father will send in My Name,
will teach you everything, and will remind you of that which I tell you.
(Yochanan 14:26 HRV)
But when the comforter (Paraklita) comes, whom I will send you from My Father–the Spirit
of Truth who has proceeded from My Father–will testify concerning Me.
(Yochanan 15:26 HRV)
But I tell you the truth: it is profitable for you that I go: for if I do not go, the
Comforter (Paraklita) will not come to you. But when I go, I will send the Comforter (Paraklita) to
you.
(Yochanan 16:7 HRV)
Paul describes the work of these two advocates in Romans Chapter 8:
26 Thus also, the Spirit aids our infirmity, for we do not know what is right to pray for. But the Spirit prays on our
behalf with groans that are not describable.
27 And He who searches the hearts, knows what is the thinking of the Spirit that prays on behalf of the Set-Apart-Ones, according to the will of Eloah.
28 But we know that those who love Eloah, He aids in everything for good–those whom He before determined to be called.
29 And from the first, He knew them, and marked them out, with the likeness of the
image of His Son: that He might be the firstborn of many brothers.
30 And those whom He before marked, He called, and those whom He called, He justified, and those whom He justified, He glorified.
31 What therefore shall we say concerning these things? If Eloah [is] for us, who [is] against us?
32 And if He did not spare His Son, but delivered Him up for all of us, how will He not give to us everything with Him?
33 Who can accuse the chosen of Eloah? Eloah justifies.
34 Who condemns? The Messiah died and rose, and is at the right hand of Eloah and makes petition on our behalf.
(Rom. 8:26-34 HRV)
The coming of the Ruach HaKodesh is like the burnt offering which must be preceeded by the coming of the Messiah which is like the sin offering. The Messiah makes petiotion on our behalf and the Ruach HaKodesh prays on our behalf.
The Tithe of YHWH
By

James Scott Trimm
So you are excited about Torah. So you are ready to say “we will hear and do”. Not so fast… there is a disclosure to be made first.
In Rabbinic Judaism Gentiles seeking conversion are discouraged. Gentiles seeking conversion are turned away three times. Then after being turned away three times it is required to make a full disclosure of the financial obligations of the Covenant. It is said that few Gentiles would willingly enter the Covenant once they know the cost.
To begin with we must understand that EVERYTHING belongs to YHWH (Ex. 9:29; 2Kn. 19:15; Is. 66:1-2; Jer. 27:5; Job 12:9-10; Ps. 89:11; 95:3-5; Dan. 4:7; Neh. 9:16; 1Chron. 29:13-14). He owns this universe, all of its resources, all of its energy, and he owns YOU. YHWH is entitled to ask for 100%. In His CHESED, in His undue favor, He allows us to keep 90%.
Now one might ask: Where in the Mosaic Torah is the commandment “Thou shalt tithe?”. The answer is, nowhere. When Moshe went up on Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, he did NOT receive a commandment to tithe. Nowhere in the Mosaic Torah is there the Tithe instituted. Instead the very first mention of the tithe in the Mosaic Covenant is not until the end of Leviticus where we read:
30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is YHWH’s: it is Set-Apart unto YHWH.
31 And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add unto it, the fifth part thereof.
32 And all the tithe of the herd, or the flock, whatsoever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be Set-Apart unto YHWH.
33 He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it. And if he change it at all, then both it, and that for which it is changed, shall be Set-Apart; it shall not be redeemed.
34 These are the commandments, which YHWH commanded Moshe for the children of Yisra’el in mount Sinai.
(Lev. 27:30-34)
Notice that this first mention of the “tithe” does not initiate the tithe, it simply recognizes the fact of the tithe saying “it is Set-Apart unto YHWH”. Notice also this first passage says nothing about Levites or Priests. It does not say that the tithe belongs to the Levites, but rather to YHWH.
When next we read on the Tithe in the Mosaic Torah is in the book of Numbers:
And unto the children of Levi, behold,
I have given all the tithe in Yirae’el for an inheritance,
in return for their service which they serve,
even the service of the tent of meeting.
(Num. 18:21)
Notice that these are two different precepts of Torah. Lev. 27:30 recognizes that the Tithe belongs to YHWH, while a separate commandment in Num. 18:21 tells us that the Levites were to be paid out of the tithe, for their service in the Tabernacle (later Temple). The tithe was not directly paid to the Levites, it was paid to YHWH and from that “fund” the Levites were paid. This was so that the Levites could devote themselves to full time Torah Study (2Chron. 31:4-5) so that they could in turn teach Torah to the people of Israel (Deut. 14:22-23; Ezek. 44:23-24).
Nowhere are we told to pay the Tithe to the Levitical priesthood. We are told only that the Tithe is paid to YHWH and YHWH gave the Levites payment from the Tithe “for their service.”
THE SECOND AND THIRD TITHES
Now before moving on from the Mosaic Torah we should also cover the second and third tithes. Some lump these together as “the second tithe” because they are never paid on the same year.
There are actually two tithes in the Mosaic Covenant which were tied to the seven year cycle of the Land. The first tithe (Masserot) is due every year.
The second tithe (Maaser Sheni) was converted to money and used to make a personal pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The “pilgrim” could spend this money however he liked on the pilgrimage but was expected to treat the Levites to a feast as well upon his arrival and any surplus was given to the Levites (Deut. 14:22-27). Every third year however the tither used this second tithe (some all this third year tithe as a “third tithe”) to feed the needy and local Levites (Deut. 14:28-29). Thus the Mosaic tithing schedule goes like this:
Year
1. First Tithe: Levites; Second Tithe: Pilgrimage and Levites
2. First Tithe: Levites; Second Tithe: Pilgrimage and Levites
3. First Tithe: Levites; Third Tithe: Feeds the needy and Levites
4. First Tithe: Levites; Second Tithe: Pilgrimage and Levites
5. First Tithe: Levites; Second Tithe: Pilgrimage and Levites
6. First Tithe: Levites; Third Tithe: Feeds the needy and Levites
7. The Sabbath of the land, only the First Tithe was paid on any volunteer crop and on other non-planted produce.
(The first tithe could only be converted into money by paying a 20% penalty (Lev. 27:31) however the second tithe was generally converted to money as a matter of course (Deut. 14:25).)
The three Tithes are laid out in the book of Tobit as follows:
6 And I went to Yerushulayim at the appointed times as it is written in the Torah of YHWH concerning Yisrael in firstfruits and tithes and firstlings.
7 To the priests, sons of Aharon and new wine and fat and labors and pomegranates and from all fruits of the ground to the sons of Levi, ministers before, the presence of YHWH in Yerushalayim, and the second tithe. (8) And the third tithe to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow. And I would go in every year with all these, to Yerushalayim by the commandments of YHWH and according to that duty upon me, Devorah mother of my Father.
(Tovi (Tobit) 1:6-7 HRV – From our ongoing work  )
ABRAHAM TITHED
Now as we have shown, the Tithe was not initiated in the Mosaic Torah. Instead the first mention of the Tithe in the Mosaic Covenant only acknowledges that the Tithe is YHWH’s. The principle of tithing did not originate in the Mosaic Covenant. Avraham tithed in Genesis 14 long before the Mosaic Covenant (or even the Abrahamic Covenent) was entered into.
Lets examine Gen. 14 and see what the Torah tells us about this pre-Mosaic tithe.
18 And MalkiTzadek, king of Shalem, brought forth bread and wine, and he was a cohen of El Elyon.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Avram, of El Elyon–Maker of heaven and earth.
20 And blessed be El Elyon, who has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he gave him a tenth (tithe) of all.
(Gen. 14:18-20 HRV)
Who was this Melchizedek and why did Abraham pay the tithe to him? The answer may be found in the Book of Jasher also known as Midrash Sefer HaYashar. The Book of Jasher contains this same account but with some important additional information:
And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem,
went out with his men to meet Abram and his people,
with bread and wine, and they remained together
in the valley of Melech.
And Adonizedek blessed Abram, and Abram gave him
a tenth from all that he had brought from the spoil of
his enemies, for Adonizedek was a priest before God.
(Jasher 16:11-12)
Now according to the Book of Jasher Abraham tithed to Melchizadek (or Adonizadek) because he was a “priest”. How is it that Melchizadek is called a “priest”? Although Melchizadek was not a Levite (there were not yet any Levites) we do have a clue in Jasher as to why he is called a “priest”. Jasher reveals the identity of Melchizadek saying
“the same is Shem” (this identity of Melchizadek is also recorded in the Talmud in b.Ned. 32). Now this is very important because the Book of Jasher also records the fact that Shem had been Abraham’s Torah teacher:
And when Avram came out from the cave, he went to Noach and his son Shem, and he remained with them to learn the instruction of YHWH and his ways, and no man knew where Avram was, and Avram served Noach and Shem his son for a long time.
And Avram was in Noach’s house thirty-nine years,
and Abram knew YHWH from three years old, and he went in the ways of YHWH until the day of his death, as Noach and his son Shem had taught him;
(Jasher 9:5-6)
Thus Abraham paid the tithe to Shem because Shem had been his personal Torah teacher. (If you do the “Bible Math” you will find that Noach and Shem died AFTER Avraham was born, a point that surprises some people.)
Note that Abraham’s tithe in Gen. 14 was not being made on agricultural produce but on “all” (Gen. 14:20) and specifically in this case the “spoils of his enemies” (Jasher 16:12; also Hebrews 7:4). This dispels the theory taught by some, that the Tithe is only paid on agricultural produce.
Now some have taught that the tithe Melchizadek paid was not the same Tithe mentioned in the Mosaic Torah from which the Levites were paid. This is also not true, as Paul argues in the book of Hebrews:
4 Consider and see his greatness, which also Avraham our father, gave to him a tenth from the spoil.
5 And also the sons of L’vi collect for the priesthood, having received a commandment to collect the tithe from the people, according to the decree of the Torah. And this is of their brothers, although having come from the loins of Avraham.
6 Truly he who is not from their tribe, has received the tithe from Avraham, and blessed those, who are blessed, to him.
7 And behold, this no one disputes: that the lesser is blessed by the greater.
8 Behold here, sons of man which die, receive tithes: but sleep received he of whom it is said that He lives.
9 For so to say, that to he who was accustomed to take the tithe, he also tithes through Avraham.
10 For He was yet in the loins of the Father, when He met, he who was called Malki-Tzedek.
(Heb. 7:4-10 HRV)
The whole logic of Paul’s argument here is based in the fact that the tithe that Avram paid to Melchizadek was EXACTLY the same tithe that the Levites were paid from.
Another example of the pre-Mosaic tithe is the vow Jacob made to tithe saying to Elohim “and of all that you shall give me I will surely give the tenth onto you” (Gen. 28:22). Note that Jacob tithed on all that Elohim had given him and not simply on agricultural produce. In fact Jacob even tithed from his sons. In the Midrash Rabbab there is an important story related to Jacob’s tithe told by Rabbi Joshua of Sikaan in the name of his teacher Rabbi Levi:
A certain Curthean (Samaritan) attempted to trap Rabbi Mier
in a question concerning Jacob’s vow to HaShem to give a
“tithe of all.”

You Jews teach that Jacob gave a tenth of all to HaShem;
yet Jacob had twelve sons: Jacob also said, ‘Ephraim and Manasseh are mine.’ That makes fourteen sons of Jacob, yet Jacob gave only one son to HaShem and that was Levi,” spoke the Curthean, implying that Jacob the Jew had broken his vow to HaShem.
“How,” continued the Curthean, “can only one of fourteen sons
be reconciled as a tithe of fourteen sons?”
Rabbi Mier replied, “How many matriarchs of Jacob’s sons were there?”
“Four,” answered the Curthean,” Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah.”
‘True,” answered Rabbi Mier. “Then how many were sanctified by Pid-yon-ha Ben or the Redemption of the Firstborn?
“Four,” responded the Curthean.
“True,” responded Rabbi Mier. “And what is redeemed as holy
need not be sanctified again. Therefore, since there were four
firstborn sons sanctified by the redemption of the firstborn,
they need not be sanctified by the tithe of Jacob’s sons.
Hence, Levi, who was not the firstborn of Leah; was given
by Jacob of his nine remaining sons: Jacob gave more than
one ninth, he gave one tenth of his sons, more than fulfilling
his vow to “give a tenth of all.”
(Midrash Rabbab, 70:7-8, page 640)
YESHUA UPHELD THE TITHE
Yeshua also upheld the principle of Tithing:
Woe to you, scribes and P’rushim; hypocrites–who tithe mint, and rue, and cumin, and have neglected those things which are weightiest in the Torah: judgment, lovingkindness, and trust. Those things ought you to have done, neither to have rejected these.
(Matt. 23:23 HRV)
When Yeshua says “neither to have rejected these” he is speaking in part of tithing even on produce of garden herbs.
THE LABORER IS WORTHY OF HIS WAGE
But let us look to see what the Scriptures say about this very important matter. The prophet Malachi writes:
1 Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me; and the Adon, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in, behold, he comes, says YHWH Tzva’ot.
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap;
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver; and there shall be they that shall offer unto YHWH offerings in righteousness.
4 Then shall the offering of Y’hudah and Yerushalayim be pleasant unto YHWH, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years.
5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers; and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not Me, says YHWH Tzva’ot.
6 For I YHWH change not; and you, O sons of Ya’akov, are not consumed.
7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto Me, and I will return unto you, says YHWH Tzva’ot. But you say: ‘Wherein shall we return?’
8 Will a man rob Elohim? Yet you rob Me. But you say: ‘Wherein have we robbed You?’ In tithes and heave-offerings.
9 You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring you the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, says YHWH Tzva’ot, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.
(Malchi 3:1-10)
Now it is very clear that this is speaking of the last days judgment “And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness” (Mal. 3:5). In this context, YHWH calls the Body to return to keeping Torah, and the Body says “Wherein shall we return” (3:7) in other words “But YHWH, we HAVE been keeping Torah.” Then YHWH informs them to their surprise that they have failed to keep his Torah because they have failed to tithe, though they did not even realize that they were not tithing (3:8). The context here is clear, why would YHWH rebuke his last days people for not tithing, if there is not obligation to tithe in these last days?
We also get a reminder here. We do not GIVE the Tithe to YHWH, it was already His. He GIVES the 90% to us. When we do not tithe, we are not simply choosing not to give, we are actually stealing from YHWH!
Tithing is not restricted to the Mosaic covenant. Those who labor in the Word and teach the community, are entitled to be supported by the tithes and offerings of the community. In these last days YHWH says to his people “Return to my Torah”. The people say “But we are Torah observant.” YHWH responds, “Then why are you stealing from Me?”. The people say “what do you mean, stealing from You?” and YHWH says “You have been stealing My tithe”.
These are people in the last days who think they are Torah Observant because they have convinced themselves that they do not need to tithe. They are keeping the 612 commandments.
But to the contrary, they are oppressing the laborer in His Word, denying him his wage, when the laborer is worthy of his wage.
Now lets look at the phase “against those that oppress the hireling in his wages” (3:5).
What does this mean?
Yeshua said:
for nothing you have received,
for nothing you will give.
(Mt. 10:8)
Sadly for years this passage has been quoted out of context and misused by many to “prove” that those in the ministry should not receive community support for our efforts.
In fact the verse in question is, in context, saying exactly the opposite of what these people represent it as saying.
Actually, Yeshua in the next few verses following this statement instructs his talmidim to request and subsist on community support:
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor lesser coin in
your belts. Pack not for the journey, either two coats, or sandals, or a staff, for the laborer is worthy of his food. And into whatever city or town you will enter, enquire who in it is honorable, and there abide until you go out from there.”
(Mt. 10:9-11)
Some light on this text may be acquired by examining a statement by Josephus concerning the first century Essene
sect of Judaism:
…and if any of their sect come from other places,
what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own;
and they go into such as they never knew before,
as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them.
For which reason they carry nothing with them
when they travel into remote parts,
though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly there is, in every city where they live,
one appointed particularly to take care of strangers,
and provide garments and other necessaries for them.
(Josephus; Wars 2:8:4)
Yeshua’s talmidim had for the most part, come from an Essene back ground. It would appear that they were therefore able to travel within Essene circles from town to town without having to carry additional supplies. Yeshua felt that his twelve were entitled to be supported by the community.
Yeshua drives the point home saying “the laborer is worthy of his food.” A saying which Paul later cites to prove that “those who labor in the word and its teaching” are worthy of “double honor” which in context seems to indicate that they have the right, like any other laborer, to expect to be paid for their work in the ministry. In fact he even quoted this statement by Yeshua (Mt. 10:10) to support the point:
Those elders who conduct themselves well
should be esteemed worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in the word and
in teaching, For the Scripture says that
`you should not muzzle the ox, while threshing,’ (Deut. 25:4)
and `the laborer is worthy of his wage.” (Mt. 10:10)
(1Tim. 5:17-18)
Paul also expands on this thought in 1Cor. 9:6-14:
Also, I only, and Bar Nabba, have we not the power not to work?
Who is this who labors in the service (ministry) by the expanse of his nefesh?
Or who is he who plants a vineyard and from its fruit does not eat?
Or who is he who tends the flock and from the milk of his flock does not eat?
Do I say these [things] as a son of man?
Behold, the Torah also said these [things]. For it is written in the Torah of Moshe,
`You shall not muzzle the ox that threshes.’ (Deut. 25:4)
It is a concern to Eloah about oxen? But, it is known that because of us he
said [it] and because of us it was written, because it is a need [that] the plowman plow unto hope and he who threshes, unto the hope of the harvest. If we have sown spiritual [things] among you, is it a great [thing] if we reap [things] of the flesh from you? … those who labor [in] the Beit Kodesh [the Temple] are sustained from the Beit Kodesh and those who labor for the alter have a portion with the alter?
So also, our Adon commanded that those who are proclaiming his goodnews should live from his goodnews.”
(1Cor. 9:6-14)
Certainly the context of Yeshua’s statement “for nothing you have received, for nothing you will give.” (Mt. 10:8) was that of a society in which all things were held in common and each person’s needs were taken care of by that community (Mt. 10:9-11 and Acts 2:44 & 4:32) but we do not live in such a society, and so citing Mt. 10:8 to those in the ministry today, is akin to asking us to make bricks without straw.
To the contrary Paul quotes the verse shortly afterward (10:10) to reach a principle by which those who are proclaiming his goodnews should be supported for doing so, just as those who labor in the Temple and for the alter are supported for doing so. In other words, Paul draws a midrash from the fact that Levites and Priests received tithes and offerings to teach a principle that “those who labor in the word and teach” should be supported with tithes and offerings.
RABBINIC JUDAISM AND TITHING
Some have spread a false teaching that Rabbinic Judaism today does not teach tithing on one’s income (for whatever reason), and that the modern practice of tithing on one’s income is merely a Christian invention. Actually the Orthodox Jewish position is in favor of tithing on one’s earnings to this very day.
We read in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy, and also in the Tosefta that “…tithing ones earnings” is “…considered an obligation imposed by the Mosaic Law” (t.Taan. 9a and Sifre Deut. xiv 22).
This is why Blu Greenburg writes:
“…to contribute one tenth, a tithe, to charities…
is a mitzvah [commandment], an act of gratitude,
and a good habit that one should be taught at an early age.”
(How To Run a Traditional Jewish Household by Blu Greenberg p. 280)
(Of course Rabbinic Jews tithe to charities today because the Temple no longer stands, and they do not have Paul’s halachah which teaches us that “those who labor in the word” are equally worthy to receive YHWH’s Tithe.
POURING OUT A BLESSING
“Bring you the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, says YHWH Tzva’ot, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.”
(Mal. 3:10)
Nazarenes need to get serious. Nazarenes need to ask themselves if the cost of the covenant is more than they are willing to pay. Others have paid with their lives, just read 2nd and 4th Maccabees. They were tortured and killed..
Yeshua said:
Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is comparable to a man that is a merchant, seeking
good pearls: Who, when he had found one precious pearl, went and sold all that he had and bought it.
(Matt. 13:45-46)
Is the cost of the covenant to high for you?
Nazarenes need to be as serious about tithing as about the Sabbath and eating kosher.
Bring you the whole tithe into the store-house,
that there may be food in YHWH’s house.
(Mal. 3:10).

In a generous spirit pay homage to YHWH,
Spare not freewill gifts.
With each contribution show a cheerful countenance,
and pay your tithes in a spirit of joy.
(Sira 35:8-9 HRV)
Which Day is the Sabbath?
Which Day is the Sabbath?
By James Trimm
Most Christians today profess that Sunday is the Sabbath. Others will say that the Sabbath has been done away with and replaced by Sunday “the Lord’s Day” as the day of worship for the “Church”(1). This belief has been widely accommodated even in the mainline of the Messianic Jewish movement. For example regarding Sunday worship Daniel Juster writes:
“…Sabbath is a day of crucial significance to Jewish identity.
The principle of weekly rest, worship and renewal is one
of universal significance. In this sense, the Sabbath
principle is a spiritual and humanitarian guide for all peoples.
Christians are free to incorporate this principle on Sunday
or other days. The seventh day Sabbath for Israel is
a special central sign of the Covenant between Israel and God.”
(Jewish Roots p. 195)
Even the First Fruits of Zion publication Take Hold says:
“There is nothing wrong with worshiping on Sunday.
There is nothing biblically wrong with going to a place
of worship on a Sunday and becoming as much involved
as one desires…. It [the Sabbath] can be honored
fully, even if one worships on Sunday or any other
day of the week…. we suggest you inform your friends…
that you do not have a problem with worshiping on a
Sunday just as long as they do not insist that it be
called ‘the Sabbath.’”
(Take Hold by Ariel and D’vorah Berkowitz pp. 239-240)
And David Stern writes in his Jewish New Testament Commentary:
“There are today all kinds of sects and denominations
that likewise create false guilt by non scriptural teaching–
for example… that observing one day rather than another
as a day of worship is a sin…”
(JNT Commentary p. 280)
Is it really true that the Sabbath is just a principle that gentile
Christians are free to incorporate on Sunday? Is it really only crucial
to Jewish identity? Is it really OK to make Sunday our day of
worship? Is it really unscriptural to teach that observing the seventh
day (Saturday) rather than Sunday as a day of worship is a sin? To
find the answer to this question, lets leave what all of these men have
said behind, and see what the Scriptures actually say about this issue.
Which day is the Sabbath? What day is our day of worship? Is it only
a principle? Is it only for Jews?
The Sabbath was Created
In speaking of the Sabbath Yeshua said:
And he said to them, The Sabbath was created
for a son of man, and not a son of man for the Sabbath.
Thus also, the Son of Man is the Adonai of the Sabbath.
(Mark 2:27-28)
Now there is a lot of information packed into this saying of Yeshua.
First of all Yeshua tells us that the Sabbath was “created”. When
Elohim created the universe, he did not just create space, but time as
well. The Sabbath was actually “created”. Now if we turn to
Colossians 1:16 we read:
And by him (Messiah) was created everything that
is in heaven and on earth, and all that is seen, and
all that is not seen…
(Col. 1:16)
Therefore the Sabbath was created by Messiah. Yeshua is Adonai of
the Sabbath because he created the Sabbath.
When did Messiah create the Sabbath? The answer is found in the
Torah:
And on the sixth day Elohim finished His work which
He made; and he rested on the seventh day from all His
work which he had made.
And Elohim blessed the seventh day, and set it apart;
because that in it He rested from His work which Elohim
in creating had made.
(Gen. 2:2-3)
Elohim finished his work on the sixth day, but he finished his creation
on the seventh day. Elohim created the Sabbath not by working, but
by resting. Notice that he blessed the seventh day and set it apart. Not just that seventh day, but every seventh day throughout time.
Don’t Tread on Me
The Seventh day was set apart from the time of creation. It was set
apart because it’s Creator was Adonai of the Sabbath and was
empowered as the Creator to make it set apart. What does it mean for something to be “set apart” (often translated “holy” or “sacred”)?
Well when YHWH addressed Moshe from the burning bush He told
Moshe “put off your shoes from off your feet, where the place you
stand is set apart ground.” (Ex. 3:5). This ground was set apart, it
belonged to YHWH not to man, it was to be treated with respect, it
was not to be trampled on. In the same way the Sabbath is set apart. It belongs to YHWH not to man, it is to be treated with respect and is not to be trampled on. As we read in Isaiah 58:13-14:
If you turn away your foot because of the Sabbath,
from pursuing your business on My set apart day;
and call the Sabbath a delight,
and the set apart of YHWH honorable;
and shall honor it, not doing your wonted ways,
nor pursuing your business, nor speaking thereof;
Then shall you delight yourself in YHWH,
and I will make you to ride upon the high places of the earth,
and I will feed you with the heritage of Ya’akov your father;
for the mouth of YHWH has spoken it.
(Is. 58:13-14)
The Sabbath is set apart because it is His set apart day. It is not our
day to do with as we please. We must not trample on the Sabbath and
treat it as our own, it belongs to YHWH.
Who was Sabbath Made for?
Another important question is “who was the Sabbath made for?”.
Some have taught that the Sabbath was first given as part of the
Mosaic Covenant on Mount Sinai and is for the Jews only. Daniel
Juster alludes to this idea when he says:
“…Sabbath is a day of crucial significance to Jewish identity.
The principle of weekly rest, worship and renewal is one
of universal significance. In this sense, the Sabbath
principle is a spiritual and humanitarian guide for all peoples.
Christians are free to incorporate this principle on Sunday
or other days. The seventh day Sabbath for Israel is
a special central sign of the Covenant between Israel and God.”
(Jewish Roots p. 195)
But what does Messiah say? Who was the Sabbath made for? Why
did YHWH rest on the Sabbath… was He tired? Clearly He was not
tired as we read that He “faints not, neither is weary” (Is. 40:28). So
although he rested on the Shabbat from his work, this was to set the
example for us, he did not need to rest so he did not create the Sabbath for himself. Messiah said:
…The Sabbath was created
for a son of man, and not a son of man for the Sabbath.
Thus also, the Son of Man is the Adonai of the Sabbath.
(Mark 2:27-28)
The one who created the Sabbath tells us who he created the Sabbath
for. He did not create the Sabbath for the Jews only but he created the Sabbath for “a son of man” (all men). When the commandment to
keep the Sabbath was given at Sinai (Ex. 20:8) YHWH said
“Remember the Sabbath…” How could YHWH ask them to
remember something they had never heard of before? In fact the
children of Israel were already observing the Sabbath in Exodus 16
before the ten commandments were given in Exodus 20. The Sabbath
transcends the Mosaic Covenant.
However even if the Sabbath had been part of the Mosaic Covenant, it would not have meant that the Sabbath was only for Jews. The Torah says that “One Torah shall be to him that is home born, and unto the stranger that sojourns among you.” (Ex. 12:49). Yeshua sent his Jewish talmidim (disciples) out to “teach all the goyim (gentiles)…
and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mt.
28:19-20).
The Sabbath was not created simply for “the Jews” but for all
mankind. Thus when there was a debate over whether gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved, the Jerusalem assembly commented:
For Moshe, from the first generations, had proclaimers
in every city in the synagogues, who read him on every
Sabbath.
(Acts 15:21)
They assumed that gentile believers would be going to synagogue and hearing “Moses” (the Torah; the Five Books of Moses) read every
Sabbath.
The Sabbath was created and set apart for all mankind at the time of
creation. It was therefore kept by such as Adam, Enoch, Noah and
Avraham.
Who Done It?
So if the Sabbath was created and set apart by Messiah at the time of
creation, who changed the day of worship to Sunday?
Many people have been misled into believing that Constantine was
responsible for the corruption and Gentilization of Christianity and
moving the day of worship to Sunday.
On 7 March 321, Constantine I did in fact decree that Sunday was to
be observed as the Roman day of rest saying:
On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people
residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the
country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and
lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that
another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting;
lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the
bounty of heaven should be lost.
While Constantine certainly added to the apostasy of early
Christianity, he was not the first. It was in fact Ignatius of
Antioch who rebelled against the Jerusalem Council, usurped their
authority, seceded from Judaism, declared the Torah to have been
abolished, replaced the Seventh Day Sabbath with Sunday worship and founded a new, non-Jewish religion which he named “Christianity”.
Paul said to the Ephesians on his last visit to them:
Watch, therefore, over your nefeshot
and over the flock which the Ruach HaKodesh
has appointed you overseers [bishops]
that you feed the assembly of Messiah,
which he purchased by his blood.
I know that after I am gone
fierce wolves will enter in among you
without mercy upon the flock.
And also from among you there will rise up men speaking
perverse things, so that they might turn away the talmidim
to follow after them.
(Acts 20:28-30)
Paul seems to indicate that after his death leaders would begin to
rise up from the overseers [Bishops] in his stead that would draw
people to follow themselves and draw them away from Torah. In fact
Paul died in 66 C.E. and the first overseer (Bishop) of Antioch to
take office after his death was Ignatius in 98 C.E.. Ignatius
fulfilled Paul’s words precisely. After taking the office of Bishop
over Antioch Ignatius sent out a series of epistles to other
assemblies. His letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallianns,
Romans, Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans as well as a personal letter
to Polycarp overseer of Smyrnaea have survived to us.
The Ancient Nazarene Historian and commentator Hegesippus (c. 180 CE) writes of the time immediately following the death of Shim’on, who succeeded Ya’akov HaTzadik as Nasi of the Nazarene Sanhedrin and who died in 98 CE:
Up to that period (98 CE) the Assembly had remained like a
virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who
were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the
proclaiming of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of
concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of Emissaries
had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of
men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the inspired
Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the
confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery
of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the emissaries any
longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted
head to oppose the proclaiming of the truth by proclaiming
“knowledge falsely so called.”
(Hegesippus the Nazarene; c. 185 CE; quoted by Eusebius in
Eccl. Hist. 3:32)
Hegisippus indicates the apostasy began the very same year that
Ignatious became bishop of Antioch!
Up until the time of Ignatius, matters of dispute that arose at
Antioch were ultimately referred to the Jerusalem Council (as in
Acts 14:26-15:2). Ignatius usurped the authority of the Jerusalem
council, declaring himself as the local bishop as the ultimate
authority over the assembly of which he was bishop, and likewise
declaring the same as true of all other bishops and their local
assemblies. Ignatius writes:
…being subject to your bishop…
…run together according to the will of God.
Jesus… is sent by the will of the Father;
As the bishops… are by the will of Jesus Christ.
(Eph. 1:9, 11)
…your bishop…I think you happy who are so joined to him,
as the church is to Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is to the
Father… Let us take heed therefore, that we not set ourselves
against the bishop, that we may be subject to God….
We ought to look upon the bishop, even as we would
upon the Lord himself.
(Eph. 2:1-4)
…obey your bishop…
(Mag. 1:7)
Your bishop presiding in the place of God…
…be you united to your bishop…
(Mag. 2:5, 7)
…he… that does anything without the bishop…
is not pure in his conscience…
(Tral. 2:5)
…Do nothing without the bishop.
(Phil. 2:14)
See that you all follow your bishop,
As Jesus Christ, the Father…
(Smy. 3:1)
By exalting the power of the office of bishop (overseer) and
demanding the absolute authority of the bishop over the assembly,
Ignatius was actually making a power grab by thus taking absolute
authority over the assembly at Antioch and encouraging other Gentile overseers to follow suit.
Moreover Ignatius drew men away from Torah and declared the Torah to have been abolished, not only at Antioch but at other Gentile assemblies to which he wrote:
Be not deceived with strange doctrines;
nor with old fables which are unprofitable.
For if we still continue to live according to the Jewish Law,
we do confess ourselves not to have received grace…
(Mag. 3:1)
But if any one shall preach the Jewish law unto you,
hearken not unto him…
(Phil. 2:6)
It is also Ignatius who first replaces the Seventh Day Sabbath with
Sunday worship, writing:
…no longer observing sabbaths, but keeping the Lord’s day
in which also our life is sprung up by him, and through
his death…
(Magnesians 3:3)
Having seceded from the authority of Jerusalem, declared the Torah
abolished and replacing the Sabbath with Sunday, Ignatius had created a new religion. Ignatius coins a new term, never before used, for this new religion which he calls “Christianity” and which he makes
clear is new and distict religion from Judaism. He writes:
let us learn to live according to the rules of Christianity,
for whosoever is called by any other name
besides this, he is not of God….
It is absurd to name Jesus Christ, and to Judaize.
For the Christian religion did not embrace the Jewish.
But the Jewish the Christian…
(Mag. 3:8, 11)
By the end of the first century Ignatius of Antioch had fulfilled
Paul’s warning. He seceded from Judaism and founded a new religion
which he called “Christianity”. A religion which rejected the
Torah, and replaced the Seventh Day Sabbath with Sunday Worship.
Wasn’t Yeshua Raised on Sunday?
The reason most Christians give for observing Sunday as the day of
worship is that Sunday is the day that Messiah was raised from the
Dead. The well known Dispensationalist Theologian F.F. Bruce in
answering the question “Why do Christians observe Sunday… instead of Saturday?” writes:
… we need not look for a reason for that when we
consider that our Lord’s resurrection took place
on that day.
(Answers to Questions; F. F. Bruce; p. 242)
Now some Sabbatarians have argued that the resurrection was not on Sunday but on Saturday, but that is not really the point. Sabbath
keepers are guilty of having allowed Sunday keepers to change the
subject. The question is not “which day was Messiah resurrected?”
because there is not one word in the Scriptures about observing that
day as the day of worship in place of the Sabbath. The only question
before us is “which day is the Sabbath?” and does man have authority
to make another day set apart and transplant the day of worship to that other day?
Is Sunday Worship Mentioned in the “New Testament”?
Absolutely not. Sabbath is repeatedly represented as the day of
worship (Acts 13:14-15, 42-44; 15:21; 16:12-15; 18:1-14). However
there are three texts which Sunday keepers have cited to support
Sunday keeping. F. F. Bruce cites Acts 20:7; 1Cor. 16:2 and Rev. 1:10
as supposed examples of Sunday keeping in the “New Testament”.
Let us examine each of these:
Acts 20:7 “And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled
to break bread, Paul spoke with them because the next day he was
ready to depart, And he continued to speak until the middle of the
night.”
In fact this meeting cannot refer to a Sunday morning “church service”
because it says “he continued to speak until the middle of the night”
(20:7). Certainly we are not to believe that Paul was so long winded
as to have spoken for well over twelve hours! Clearly this was an
evening meeting. This is also evidence in the next verse which states
“there were many lamps burning in the upper room in which they were assembled” (20:8). Jewish days run from evening to evening (Gen. 1:5-31; Lev. 23:27, 32). (Thus the Sabbth runs from sundown Friday until sundown Saturdy). An evening meeting on the “first day of the week” by Jewish reckoning would be what we call Saturday night. In fact Jews have always and still do gather on Saturday night for a service called Havdalah. Havdalah is a service held to mark the end of the Sabbath and initiate the beginning of the week.
Paul had been resting on the Sabbath and was prepared to leave at
daybreak (i.e. “the next day”). This usage of the phrase “the next day”
or “tomorrow” to refer to daybreak rather than the next calendar day is common in ancient Jewish usage (Gen. 19:34 for example).
1Corinthians 16:2 On every first of the week, each man from you in
his home, let him lay aside and keep that which he is able, lest when I
should come then collections will occur.
This is another passage which F. F. Bruce (and other Sunday Keepers)
cite as a supposed “Sunday Worship” service. However there is
nothing in 1Cor. 16:2 to indicate a Sunday meeting is involved. In fact
the Aramaic text of 1Cor. 16:2 says plainly htybb “in his home”.
Unfortunately the Greek translator rendered this with par eautw “by
himself” or “at home”. Many English translations from the Greek
have omitted this phrase entirely. Surprisingly F. F. Bruce, who cites
this passage as support for Sunday worship, admits in his commentary that this was not taking place in a Sunday assembly at all. He writes about this verse:
Nor were the individual sums to be taken to church
and handed over to the community treasurer: each
member is to put something aside par’ heauto,
‘at home’, and store it up there.
(1 and 2 Corinthians; F. F. Bruce; p. 158)
In one book Bruce cites 1Cor. 16:2 as evidence of a Sunday Church
service, then in his own commentary to the same verse he admits that
this passage takes place in individual homes and that the “sums” (more likely it was food) were never even “taken to church”.
This passage is simply telling us that on the first day of each week, the Corinthians were to start out their work week by setting aside
whatever food they are able to so that no collection would need to be
made at the last minute when Paul arrived.
Revelation 1:10 And I was in the spirit on the first [day] of the week…
The Aramaic has “first [day] of the week”. The Greek translator
rendered this “the Lord’s Day”. There is no worship service involved
in this passage. The event took place at the time of the firstfruits
offering, which always occurs on the day after a Sabbath during
Passover (Lev. 23:9-14) it begins the counting of seven seeks (forty
nine days) until Shavuot (Pentecost) (Lev. 23:15-22). The Book of
Revelation is filled with firstfruits and Passover imagery (the lamb, the firstborn etc.). After telling is this was the first day of the week, the text tells us that Yochanan sees seven menorah’s of gold (1:12) (each menorah has seven branches 7×7=49). These were representing the 49 days counted from the firstfruits offering on the first day of the week during Passover, until Shavuot.
What Would Yeshua Do?
A common T-shirt in Christian circles today says WWJD “What
Would Jesus Do?” The implication is that we should act as Yeshua
acted. As the Scripture says:
He who says, I am in him, ought to conduct himself
according to his conduct.
(1Jn. 2:6)
So how did Yeshua conduct himself regarding the day of worship?
The Scriptures tell us:
And he entered the Synagogue, on the day of
the Sabbath, as he was accustomed.
(Luke 4:16)
Paul himself followed this adage himself saying “Be you followers of
me, even as I also am of Messiah” (1Cor. 11:1) thus we also read of
Paul that he was also accustomed to going to Synagogue on the
Sabbath (Acts 17:1-2).
The ball is now in your court. I heve faithfully presented the Scriptures to you. Is it really true that the Sabbath is just a principle that gentile Christians are free to incorporate on Sunday? Is it really only crucial to Jewish identity? Is it really OK to make Sunday your day of worship? Is it unscriptural to teach that observing Sunday rather than the seventh day (Saturday) as a day of worship is a sin? You now know that that the answer to all of these questions is “no”. The Sabbath was created for you. Will you conduct yourself according to his conduct?
Observing Sabbath Part 1
What is Prohibited on Sabbath?
By
James Scott Trimm
We are told in the Torah that no “work” is to be done on the Sabbath, but I am often asked “What constitutes work?”
The word the Torah uses In regards to the prohibitions of Sabbath which is translated into English as “work” is the Hebrew word m’lawkhaw meaning “all and any kind of creative ‘generative’ endeavor, changes to the environment or any object.” (Lev. 23:3; Ex. 34:21; Ex. 16:21-30).
But how do we define “work”?
ELOHIM rested from creative activity on Shabbat (Gen. 2:1-3). In Is. 58:13-14 “work” on the Sabbath seems to mean “doing your will” or “doing your own ways” or “wording words.” Thus resting from “work” on the Shabbat means to rest from creative activities and to rest from inflicting our own will on the universe.
The Torah gives us a very good clue as to how to understand the word “work” in this context.
The word m’lawkhaw (work) appears in Ex. 31:3 referring to the work of the artisans in building the tabernacle. This section of Torah is immediately followed by a reminder to rest from “work” on the Shabbat (Ex. 31:12-17). It seems then that m’lawkhaw in Ex. 31:12-17 must include the meaning of m’lawkhaw in Ex. 31:3. Thus the activities involved in making the Tabernacle are among those not normally permitted on Shabbat.
The Mishnah breaks the types of tasks performed in the building of the Tabernacle and the crafting of its artifacts into thirty nine categories of “work” as follows:
THE PRIMARY LABOURS ARE FORTY LESS ONE, [VIZ.:] SOWING, PLOUGHING, REAPING, BINDING SHEAVES, THRESHING, WINNOWING, SELECTING, GRINDING, SIFTING, KNEADING, BAKING, SHEARING WOOL, BLEACHING, HACKLING, DYEING, SPINNING, STRETCHING THE THREADS, THE MAKING OF TWO MESHES, WEAVING TWO THREADS, DIVIDING TWO THREADS, TYING [KNOTTING] AND UNTYING, SEWING TWO STITCHES, TEARING IN ORDER TO SEW TWO STITCHES, CAPTURING A DEER, SLAUGHTERING, OR FLAYING, OR SALTING IT, CURING ITS HIDE, SCRAPING IT [OF ITS HAIR], CUTTING IT UP, WRITING TWO LETTERS, ERASING IN ORDER TO WRITE TWO LETTERS [OVER THE ERASURE], BUILDING, PULLING DOWN, EXTINGUISHING, KINDLING, STRIKING WITH A HAMMER, [AND] CARRYING OUT FROM ONE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER: THESE ARE THE FORTY PRIMARY LABOURS LESS ONE.
(m.Shabbat 7:2)
Three of these are specifically mentioned in Scripture:
1. Preparation and cooking of food.
(Lev. 23:3; Ex. 34:21; Ex. 16:21-30)
2. Kindling a fire.
(Ex. 35:3)
3. Carrying anything out of a “domain”.
(Jer. 17:21-22)
The Talmud examines these thirty nine categories, further breaking them down some of them into more detailed sub-categories (b.Shabbat 73a-75b).
Observing Sabbath Part 2
What is Permitted on Sabbath?
By
James Scott Trimm
The Essene Halacha concerning Shabbat was the strictest of any sect of Judaism. Josephus writes of the Essenes:
“…they [Essenes] are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting
from their labors on the seventh day; for they not only get their food
ready the day before, that they not be obliged to kindle a fire on
that day, but they will not remove any vessel out of its place, nor go
to stool thereon.”
(Wars 2:8:9)
There is a lengthy discussion of the Sabbath in the Damascus Document, I will include here only some key points:
“No man shall eat on the Sabbath day aught save that which is prepared
or perishing (in the field). Nor shall one eat or drink unless in the
camp. (If he was) on the way and went down to wash he may drink where
he stands, but he shall not draw into any vessel. … No man shall walk
after the animal to pasture it outside his city more than two thousand
cubits. None shall lift his hand to smite it with (his) fist. If it
be stubborn he shall not remove it out of his house. No man shall
carry anything from the house to the outside or from the outside into
the house, and if he be in the vestibule he shall not carry anything
out of it or bring in anything into it. … Let not the nursing father
take the sucking child to go out or to come in on the Sabbath. … No
man shall help an animal in its delivery on the Sabbath day. And if
it falls into a pit or ditch, he shall not raise it on the Sabbath. …
And if any person falls into a place of water or into a place of… he
shall not bring him up by a ladder or a cord or instrument. No man
shall offer anything on the altar on the Sabbath, save the
burnt-offering of the Sabbath, for so it is written `Excepting your
Sabbaths’.”
(Damascus Document 10:14-11:18)
Note that the Essene Halacha was so strict as to place Sabbath observance above human life.
On the other hand, Pharisaic Halacha placed human life above the Sabbath. As we read in the Mishna:
Rabbi Mattiah ben Harash said, “He who has a pain in his throat, they
drop medicine into his mouth on the Sabbath, because it is a matter of
doubt as to danger to life. Any matter of doubt as to danger to life
overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath.”
(m.Yoma 8:6)
Yeshua’s halacha on this matter was very similar to that of the Pharisees, and very different from that of the Essenes.
For example the Talmud says:
R. Jonathan b. Joseph said: For it is holy unto you; I.e., it [the Sabbath] is committed to your hands, not you to its hands.
(b.Yoma 85b)
While Yeshua says:
“The Sabbath was created for man and not man for the Sabbath.”
(Mk. 2:27)
The Talmud days:
“R. Eleazar answered and said: If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the two hundred and forty-eight members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall [the saving of] the whole body suspend the Sabbath!”
(b.Yoma 85b)
While Yeshua said:
“If a man is circumcised on the day of the Sabbath that the Torah
of Moshe be not loosed, do you murmur against me because I have healed
a whole man on the Sabbath day?”
(John 7:23)
So in general terms, Yeshua and the Talmud are singing the same song concerning the Sabbath. However there is a difference.
The Talmud looses the Sabbath only when there is a “matter of doubt as to danger to life” but Yeshua’s halacha takes the matter a bit further. Yeshua’s halacha concerning Sabbath is based upon the following verse from Hosea:
For I desire mercy (Hebrew: CHESED), and not sacrifice:
and the knowledge of Elohim, rather than burntofferings.
(Hosea 6:6)
“CHESED” is a Hebrew word meaning “mercy, grace, undue favor, loving kindness.”
From this verse we learn that any matter of CHESED overrides the sacrifices. This is important, because we know that the sacrificial offerings override the Sabbath, because they are performed on the Sabbath despite the fact that they involve acts normally prohibited on the Sabbath. This is what Yeshua means when he says:
7 But if you had known what it means, For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,(Hosea 6:6) you would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of Man is Adonai; even of the Sabbath.
9 And when He had passed over from there, He entered into their synagogue.
10 And behold, a man which had his hand withered. And they asked Him, saying, Is it lawful on the Sabbath to heal the sick? And all this was, that they might accuse Him <before the beit din. >
11 And He said to them: What man among you, having one sheep that shall fall into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 And is not a man better than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.
13 Then said He to the man: Stretch out your hand. And he stretched it out, and it was restored to health, like as the other.
(Matt. 12:7-13)
This was not a “matter of doubt as to danger to life” but only a man with a withered hand. So our halacha on what is permitted on Sabbath is broader than that of Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism looses the Sabbath only when there is a “matter of doubt as to danger to life” however Nazarene Judaism looses the Sabbath whenever a matter of CHESED is at stake, this includes (but is not limited to) healing the sick, even when there is no question as to danger to life.
However if we allow Yeshua to teach us, we can go back to the second phrase of Hosea 6:6 and learn something new.
For I desire mercy (Hebrew: CHESED), and not sacrifice:
and the knowledge of Elohim, rather than burntofferings.
(Hosea 6:6)
Therefore, just as the Sabbath is loosed for a matter of CHESED, for the same reason, it is also loosed for a matter where “the knowledge of Elohim” is at stake. For example carrying Scriptures to a Torah study, or taking notes in a Torah study, or driving to Synagogue would be permitted on Sabbath.
Therefore acts normally prohibited on Sabbath, are permitted when there is either a matter of CHESED or a matter of “the knowledge of Elohim” at stake.
Nazarenes and the Name of YHWH
By James Scott Trimm
One major distinction between Nazarene Judaism and mainline Judaism of the first century was in regard to their usage of the name of YHWH. While mainline Judaism had limited and in some cases even banned the use of the name of YHWH, Nazarenes were at time persecuted for not participating in this ban.
Banning the Name
Although use of the Name of YHWH was clearly commonplace in Tanak times (Old Testament times), by the first century the Name was used only in the Temple. Even whe reading the Scriptures, mainline Judaism used euphemisms or substitutions instead of pronouncing the name (j.Meg. 71d). According to the Talmud, after the time of Simon the Just (a contemporary of Alexander the Great) the priest stopped using the Name in the blessings (b.Yoma 49b). The ban on the name however, did not continue in this form. Later in the Second Temple era the name was used, but only in the Temple as the Mishnah states:
…In the sanctuary one says the Name as it is written
but in the provinces, with a euphemism….
(m.Sotah 7:6; b.Sotah 38b; m.Tamid 7:2)
In fact the name was used in the Temple even in giving greetings, as the Mishnah states:
[speaking of behavior on the Temple grounds]
And they ordained that an individual should greet his fellow
with [God’s] name, in accordance with what is said, “And
behold Boaz came from Bethlehem; and he said to the
reapers, ‘YHWH be with you!’ And they answered, ‘YHWH
bless you”
(Ruth 2:4)
(m.Ber. 9:5)
The first century Jewish historian Josephus mentions the ban on using the name of YHWH. Josephus, writing on the events of Exodus 3, writes:
…Whereupon God declared to him [Moses] his holy Name,
which had never been discovered to men before;
concerning which it is not lawful for me to say anymore….
(Josephus; Antiquities 2:12:4)
This ban on speaking the name of YHWH seems to have been almost universal by the first century. Even the nonconformists of the Qumran community (generally held to be Essenes) held to the ban. The Manual of Discipline states:
Anyone who speaks aloud the M[ost] Holy Name of God, [whether in…]
or in cursing or as a blurt in time of trial or for any other reason, or while
he is reading a book or praying, is to be expelled, never again to return
to the society of the Yahad.
(1QS Col. 6 line 27b – Col. 7 line 2a)
After the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Pharisaic Judaism banned use of the Name of YHWH altogether. The new halacha was that the name was “to be hidden” (b.Pes. 50a) and “to be kept secret” (b.Kidd. 71a).
That the practice of using euphemisms in place of the Name of YHWH began at a very early date, long before the first century, is made clear from three important sources: the Septuagint, the Psalms and the Book of Daniel.
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Tanak which was made around 250 B.C.E.. There is much debate as to whether the Septuagint originally contained the name of YHWH or simply the euphemisms for the Name. However the Septuagint translators paraphrased Lev. 24:16 (15 in Jewish copies) in such a way as to make it clear that the ban on the name existed by the time the Septuagint was translated. The Hebrew text of Lev. 24:16 reads (in English):
And whoever blasphemes the name of YHWH
shall surely be put to death…
(Lev. 24:16 from the Hebrew)
However the Septuagint translators paraphrased the text to mean:
And he that names the name of the Lord,
Let him die the death…
(Lev. 24:16 LXX)
This paraphrase makes it clear that the ban on the name existed at the time the Septuagint was translated.
Further evidence that the ban in the name was very early can be found by comparing Psalms 14 and 53. These two Psalms are almost identical except that YHWH in verses 2, 4, 6 and 7 of Psalm 14 has been changed to ELOHIM (God) in Ps. 53. This is an important piece of evidence which tells us many things:
1. The practice of using euphemisms in place of the name of YHWH predates the
editing and redaction of the Book of Psalms.
2. At the time that the book of Psalms was edited the practice of substitution existed
but was not universal, since the name is used in most of the Psalms including
Psalm 53’s twin Psalm 14.
Final evidence that the ban on the use of the name of YHWH is much older than the first century is found in the Aramaic sections of Daniel. Although the name appears in the Hebrew portions of Daniel it is conspicuously missing from the larger, Aramaic portion of the book. This tells us that by the time that Daniel was written it was the custom of at least some, not to use the name in another language besides Hebrew.
Not only did mainline Judaism read substitutions such as “Elohim” and “Adonai” when they came to YHWH in reading the Tanak, the ancient scribes of the Tanak actually substituted in many places “Adonai” for YHWH in the text itself. These in many translations are printed as “Lord”. The official list given in the Massorah (107:15 Gingsburg edition) contain the 134 instances as follows:
Gen. 18:3,27,30,32; 19:18; 20:4 Ex. 4:10,13; 5:22,; 15:17; 34:9,9 Num. 14:17 Josh. 7:8 Judg. 6:15; 13:8 1Kings 3:10,15; 22:6 2Kings 7:6; 19:23 Isa. 3:17,18; 4:4; 6:1,8,11; 7:14,20; 8:7; 9:8,17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6,8,16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14,16; 49:14 Ezek. 18:25,29; 21:13; 33:17,29 Amos 5:16; 7:7,8; 9:1 Zech. 9:4 Mic. 1:2 Mal. 1:12,14 Ps. 2.4; 16:2; 22:19,30; 30:8; 35:3,17,22; 37:12; 38:9,15,22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11,17,19,22,26,32; 73:20; 77:2,7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3,4,5,8,9,12,15; 89:49,50; 90:1,17; 110:5; 130:2,3,6 Dan.1:2; 9:3,4,7,9,15,16,17,19,19,19 Lam. 1:14,15,15; 2:1,2,5,7,18,19,20; 3:31,36,37,58 Ezra 10:3 Neh.1:11; 4:14 Job 28:28.
(NOTE: Where verses are written twice or more, such as “Ex. 34:99″ means there it has been changed 2 times within the same verse.)
WHY THE BAN?
Those who enacted the ban on the use of the name in mainline Judaism did so out of extreme, though misguided, reverence for the name. The reasoning behind the ban was based on Ex. 20:7 which said in part “You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain” And Lev. 22:32 which says in part “and you shall not profane my holy name,”. These two commandments, when brought together with the tradition recorded in the Mishnah: “…make a hedge about the Torah.” (m.Avot 1:1) resulted in a custom of not pronouncing the name at all. Thus eliminating any chance of profaning the name or taking it in vain.
WAS THE BAN SCRIPTURAL?
While it is true that those who enacted the ban on the name had the best of intentions, it has been said “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” This certainly seems to have been the case with the ban on the Name of YHWH. In the Torah YHWH states:
…My Name shall be declared in all the earth.
(Ex. 9:16)
Thus the ban on use of the name conflicted directly with the Torah itself. There is a direct contradiction between the Rabbinical precept that the name should be “hidden” and “kept secret” (b.Pes. 50a; b.Kidd. 71a) and the Torah precept that the name should be “declared in all the earth.” The Tenach speaks of apostates “which think to cause my people to forget my name” (Jer. 23:27). The precept of keeping the name secret also conflicts with other Tanak passages:
“My people shall know my name”
(Is. 52:6)
“And those who know your name will put their trust in you”
(Ps. 9:10)
“I will deliver him; I will set him on high, because he has known my name”
(Ps. 91:14)
“…a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear YHWH
and who meditate on His name.”
(Mal. 3:16)
“Let them praise Your great and awesome name- He is holy.”
(Ps. 99:3)
“My mouth shall speak the praise of YHWH, and all flesh shall bless
His holy name forever and ever.”
(Ps. 145:21)
“Let them praise the name of YHWH…”
(Ps. 148:13)
Moreover Rabbinic Judaism has produced a tradition of reading euphemisms in place of YHWH when reading the Tenach (j.Meg. 71d) and even altered the text itself in places, changing YHWH to “adonai” (Massorah (107:15 Gingsburg edition) contain the 134 instances listed previously). This tradition also conflicts directly with the Torah itself which says:
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it…”
(Dt. 4:2)
“…you shall not add to it [the Torah] nor take away from it.”
(Dt. 12:32)
DID THE NAZARENES PARTICIPATE IN THE BAN?
Could Jn. 17:6, 26 mean that Yeshua actually pronounced the name? The Toldot Yeshu, a hostile Rabbinic parady on the Gospel story records the following legend:
After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraved the letters of God’s Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten. Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters. He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’” The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest.
(A similar legend about Yeshua appears in b.Shab. 104b; b.San. 67a; t.Shab. 11:15; j.Shab. 13d)
Now Hugh Schonfield theorized in his book According to the Hebrews that Toldot Yeshu is a hostile parody on the Gospel according to the Hebrews. So while this legend sounds fantastic there may be some truth at its root.
Now another passage in Matthew might also lead us that direction. The passage is Mt. 26:59-65:
59 Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against
Yeshua to put Him to death,
60 but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at least two false witnesses came forward
61 and said, “This [one] said “I am able to destroy the Temple of God and to build it in three days.”
62 And the High Priest arose and said to him, “Do you answer nothing? What do these men testify against you?”
63 But Yeshua kept silent. And the High Priest answered and said to him, “I adjure you by the living God that you tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 Yeshua said to him, “It is as you said, Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the High Priest tore his clothes, saying “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard his blasphemy!
Note the phrase TEMPLE OF GOD in verse 61. This phrase never appears in the Tenach which always has TEMPLE OF YHWH. Also in verse 64 THE POWER is a common euphemism for YHWH which should appear based on the fact that this verse combines Ps. 110:1 with Dan. 7:13 where YHWH does appear in Ps. 110:1. Could Yeshua have been being accused of blasphemy for having used the phrase “Temple of YHWH” could he have aggravated and confirmed the charge by citing the Ps. 110:1/Dan. 7:13 phrase with the name YHWH pronounced? The Mishnah sheds a great deal of light on the events of this trial. The Mishnah states:
He who blasphemes is liable only when he will have fully pronounced the Divine Name. Said R. Joshua ben Qorha, “on every day of the trial they examine the witnesses with a substitute name… once the trial is over, they would not put him to death with the euphemism, but they put everyone out and ask the most important of the witnesses, saying to him, “Say, what exactly did you hear?” And he says what he heard. And the judges stand on their feet and tear their clothing…
(m.San. 7:5)
Now from this passage of the Mishnah we learn many things about Yeshua’s trial. It was normal for the witness to use a euphemism in his testimony of what Yeshua said. We also know that a charge of blasphemy required that the offender had “fully pronounced the Divine Name.” It is therefore clear that Yeshua had been pronouncing the name of YWHH. Normally at the end of the trial the room would have been emptied and the witness asked to repeat the “blasphemy” without the euphemism. However in this case Yeshua surprised eveyone. He wanted his statement heard by all so he repeated one of his “blasphemous” statements right there in the beit din. We know that he used the actual name and not “the Power” here because it was called “blasphemy” and would not have been unless Yeshua had “fully pronounced the Divine Name.” That Yeshua also spoke the name of YHWH as part of his “blasphemy” was clear from the phrase “the High Priest tore his clothes” which agrees exactly with the halachah of the Mishnah “And the judges stand on their feet and tear their clothing…”
Ya’akov HaTzadik (James the Just), the leader of the Nazarenes after Yeshua’s death also recited the exact phrase Yeshua had recited “hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Dan. 7:13/Ps. 110:1) and was killed for having made the statement (Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 2:23). Was he also killed for blaspheming the name of YHWH?
On yet another occasion certain Jews (probably pharisees) “made insurrection with one accord against Paul” (Acts. 18:12) a ringleader of the Nazarenes (Acts). They said that he “persuaded men to worship God contrary to the law.” (Acts 18:13). Paul was later released with the Roman authorities saying “if it be a question of words and names and of your law, look you to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.” (Acts 18:15) It seems then that Paul was accused of persuading men to worship God using the word/name of YHWH in contradiction to the ban on the name practiced by other sects of Judaism at the time.
HOW IS THE NAME PRONOUNCED?
The general belief at large is that the Divine Name is pronounce “JEHOVAH.” Where did this pronunciation come from? Is it accurate?
A popular theory that has been circulating as of late has it that the name YHWH is actually four vowels IAUE. This theory is based largely on a statement made by Josephus in describing the headpiece of the High Priest. Josephus writes:
In which [headpiece] was engraved the sacred name. It consisted of four vowels.
(Wars. 5:5:7)
At first this statement seems to support a four vowel theory. However on closer examination it is clear that this is not what Josephus is saying. Josephus is not supplying information about the pronunciation of the name. In fact in Antiquities 2:12:4 Josephus states that it would not be lawful for him to do so. Josephus is instead referring to the four letters YHWH which appeared on the High Priest’s headpiece. But why would Josephus term these four consonants as “vowels”? As discussed earlier the Hebrew letters YUD, HEY and VAV (which make up YHWH) have no equivelants in Greek. They are generally transliterated in Greek with Greek letters that happen to be vowels. The reason for this is that when the Greeks borrowed the Phonecian/Paleo-Hebrew alphabet they used leftover consonants that did not occur in their language and used them as symbols for vowels, as Robert Whiting writes:
When the Greeks adapted the Phoenician writing system to their own language… they made a very significant change. They created signs for vowels and used them each time a vowel occurred. … The Greeks did not invent new signs for the vowels but simply converted some of the Phoenecian signs that they did not need for their own language into vowel symbols.
(The New Book of Knowledge Vol. 1 p. 193 “Alphabet” article by
Robert M. Whiting, the Oriental Institute, the University of Chicago)
As a result Hebrew YUD became the Greek vowel IOTA; Hebrew HEY became Greek vowel EPSILON and Hebrew VAV became Greek vowel UPSILON. For this reason Josephus writes that the four letters which appeared on the High Priest’s headpiece were four “vowels.” To the Greek speaking audience of the Greek edition of Wars of the Jews, the four letters on the High Priest’s headpiece were in fact four vowels.
Some who have supported the idea that the name of YHWH is four vowels have also pointed to the use of the letters YUD, HEY and VAV in Hebrew as vowels. However the use of these letters as vowels in Hebew is a later revision of the language. Moreover each of them serves as a vowel only when paired with a consonant, as a result none of these letters is ever a vowel when it initiates a word or syllable. Hebrew was originally a syllabary in which each letter symbolized a consonant vowel pair with the vowel being ambiguous. As Robert Whiting writes:
The Semitic peoples of Syria and Palestine developed purely syllabic writing systems… their signs expressed consonants plus any vowel.
(ibid)
It was not until the ninth century B.C.E. that the Hebrew letters YUD, HEY and VAV began to double as vowels (and then only when paired with consonants). As Ellis Brotzman writes:
From about the ninth century on, certain consonants came to be used to indicate vowels. These “helping” consonants are called matres lectionis, literally “mothers of reading.”
(Old Testament Textual Criticism by Ellis R. Brotzman p. 40)
Thus prior to this time the letters YUD HEY VAV HEY (YHWH) stood for four Hebrew consonants. Even in later Hebrew an initial YUD can never represent a vowel.
The Hebrew Tanak was originally written like all ancient Hebrew, without vowels. When the Masorites (traditionalists) added vowels to the Hebrew text in the middle ages they came across a serious problem. The name had been “kept secret” and “hidden” for hundreds of years. Since the text contained only consonants in its written form, the vowels were generally unknown. In order to create vowels for the written name and continue to keep the name “secret” and “hidden” the vowels for Adonai were translated into the word YHWH. Later the vowels for Eloah (God) were used creating YEHOWAH. These vowels for YHWH actually violate the rules of Hebrew grammar since they use the W as a consonant and a vowel at the same time. Since in modern Hebrew the Hebrew letter WAW (later called VAV) is pronounced “V” in place of its ancient pronunciation “W”, YEHOWAH became YEHOVAH. This became transliterated in the original KJV English as IEHOVAH and later when the J was added to English IEHOVAH became JEHOVAH. However the J and the V in “Jehovah” are incorrect, as are the vowels E-O-A which actually come from ELOAH. In fact only the two letters H-H are correct. The correct pronunciation of YHWH has however, been preserved.
The first evidence for the true pronunciation of YHWH is found in the Hebrew text itself in those Hebrew names of which the Divine Name forms a part. Now when a Hebrew name in the Tanak begins with part of the divine name, the vowels are given as E-O. Some examples are:
Yehoshaphat (Jehoshaphat) YEHO- Shaphat
Yehoshua (Joshua) YEHO- Shua
In these names the incorrect vowels from YEHOWAH have been transplanted into their names. However when we look instead at names which end with part of the Divine Name we find completely different vowels in the Masoretic text. Some examples are:
Yeshayahu (Isaiah) Yesha- YAHU
Yiramiyahu (Jeremiah) Yiremi- YAHU
Eliyahu (Elijah) Eli- YAHU
Moreover the “tri-gramaton” (the first three letters of YHWH) appear by themselves in the Tenach and always with the vowels being YAHU. Finally the Hebrew word Halleluyah (praise-Yah) has the first portion of the divine name with the vowels YAH.
Another source for the correct pronunciation of the name of YHWH is the Peshitta Aramaic text. The Peshitta is an Aramaic text of the Bible used by Aramaic speaking Assyrians, Syrians and Chaldeans. These Aramaic speaking peoples became Christianized in the first century C.E.. By the fourth century (long before the Masorites of the nineth century) these people created written vowels for the Aramaic text. When they added vowels to names that begin with part of the divine name they got names like YAHOSHAPHAT reather than YEHOSHAPHAT.
Further evidence as to the original pronunciation of YHWH can be found in ancient transliterations of the name into Egyptian hieroglyphics, which had written vowels. Although this author is not aware of any case in which the entire name of YHWH has been found transliterated into Egyptian hieroglyphics, there are cases where the abbreviated name (the first portion of the name) has been found transliterated in hieroglyphics. Budge’s AN EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHIC DICTIONARY give two transliterations that occur in Egyptian glyphs. The first is given on page 15 column A and is “IA” or “YA.” The other is on page 142 column A and transliterates in English as “IAA” or “YAA.” This supports the fact that the original pronunciation of the first syllable of the name was “YA.”
Another source of evidence for the correct pronunciation of the name of YHWH can be found in ancient transliterations of the name of YHWH into cuneiform script, which unlike Hebrew script, had written vowels. In 1898 A. H. Sayce published the discovery of three clay cuneiform tablets from the time of Hammurabi which contained the phrase “Jahweh (Jehovah) is God.” (Halley’s Bible Handbook p. 62). Now obviously the text read “Yahweh” and not “Jahweh” as was common to transliterate it in the 19th century. (This author believes this cuneiform should be examined to see if it reads YAHUWEH rather than YAHWEH).
A further source for evidence in cuneiform is the Murashu texts. The Murashu texts are Aramaic texts written in cuneiform script on clay tablets found at Nippur. These texts date back to 464 to 404 B.C.E. and contain many Jewish names transcribed in cuneiform with the vowels. Many of these names contain part of the divine name in the name. In all these names the first portion of the name appears as YAHU and never as YEHO. (“Patterns in Jewish Personal Names in the Babylonian Diasporia” by M.D. Coogan; Journal for the Study of Judaism, Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 183f ).
Transliterations of YHWH also occur in ancient Greek texts. Although late by comparison to the hieroglyphic and cuneiform evidence, these Greek transliterations also contain the name with vowels. The following chart shows a list of Greek transliterations of YHWH (in English), their date and their source:
Transliteration
source
date
IAO Qumran LXX first century
IAOUE Clement of Alexandria 150 – 212 C.E.
AwOUhEI Greek Papyri ?
IAw Theodoret ?
IAh Origin 250 C.E
IAw Epiphanius 380 C.E.
(NOTE: “OU” are pronounced together in
Greek as “oo” as in “zoo”)
Now transliterating the name of YHWH into Greek is not easy. This is because certain Hebrew letters/sounds do not occur in Greek. Among these are the letters YUD (Y); HEY (H) and VAV (W) the very letters which make up the name in Hebrew. When transliterating these letters into Greek substitutions are made. Consistently the Hebrew letter YUD (Y) is transliterated into Greek as IOTA (I). Thus all of our Greek witnesses agree that YHWH begins with YA. The next letter HEY (H) is impossible to write in Greek. Some of the Greek sources have attempted to transliterate it with OMEGA (which I have transliterated with a “w” and which is pronounced “o” as in “no.” Origin has tried to use ETA for this letter (I have transliterated it with an “h”). ETA as a character descends from the Paleo-Hebrew HEY but is pronounced “ey” as in “they.” Clement and the Greek Papyri agree that the next vowel is “oo” as in “zoo.” Clement gives the final syllable as “E” and the Greek Papyri has “hE” which agrees with a Hebrew termination of “-eh” Thus it is evident that the Greek transliterations are consistent with a Hebrew pronunciation of “YAHUWEH.”
It is clear when examining the many sources that the pronunciation of YHWH can be recovered as YAHUWEH sometimes abbreviated as YAHWEH, YAHU or YAH. This is attested to by the Yahwitic names of the Masoretic text, the Peshitta Aramaic and the Marashu texts. The true pronunciation of YHWH is also preserved in ancient transliterations of the name written in Egyptian Hieroglyphics, cuneiform and Greek, all of which had written vowels.
The restoration of the use of the name of Yahuweh with its correct pronunciation is as prophetically significant as the restoration of the ancient sect of the Nazarenes. Such a restoration of the name of Yahweh to his people is promised in scripture:
For then will I turn to the people a pure language, That they may call upon the name of YHWH…
(Zeph. 3:9)
Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know my name is YHWH.
(Jer. 16:21)
Therefore my people shall know my name…
(Is. 52:6)
…and they shall praise Me in the land of their captivity,
and shall invoke my name.
(Baruch 2:32)
We are living in wonderful times, as Yeshua tells us:
…You shall not see me henceforth, till you shall say:”Blessed is he who comes in the name of Yahuweh!”
(Mt. 23:39)
The Origin of the Essenes
By
James Trimm
John Hycranas was succeeded as High Priest and King by his son Alexander Jannaeus (103-76). Once, while he was officiating as High Priest at Sukkot, the Pharisees pelted him with their citrons. Jannaeus responded by slaughtering Pharisees by the thousands (Josephus; Ant. 13:13:5). Pharisees joined with Jannaeus’ foreign enemies, but when he overtook them, he had the conspirators crucified. (Josephus; Ant. 13:14).
It seems that at this point in time a radical group split off from the Pharisees. This group became known as the Essenes. This group was led by a figure known to us only as the “Teacher of Righteousness”. The Teacher of Righteousness was at odds with a figure referred to simply as the “Wicked Priest” whom most scholars identify with Alexander Jannaeus.
At the same time the Essenes were at odds with the group from which they had split off from, which they refer to with several euphemisms, most notably the “wall builders” (clearly the Pharisees).
The Essenes describe their origin this way:
“…we separated from the majority of the people and from all their uncleanness and from being party to or going along with them in these matters.”
(4QMMT C:7-9)
At the time the “majority” were the Pharisees, as Josephus writes:
“…the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the majority on their side…”
(Ant. 13:10:6)
The Essenes separated from the Pharisees because they felt that the Pharisaic halacha was not strict enough, and that as a result the Temple was being defiled:
“They [the wall-builders] also defile the sanctuary, for they do not separate clean from unclean according to the Law.”
(Dam. Doc. 5, 6-7)
The Essenes found the Pharisaic “wall” of restrictions to be too lax:
“The Wall-Builders who went after “Precept”—Precept is a Raver of whom it says, ‘they shall surely rave’ (Mic. 2:6)…”
(Dam. Doc. 4, 19)
“But against his enemies, the Wall-Builders, his anger burns.”
(Dam. Doc. 8, 18)
Speaking of the Wall-Builders the Damascus Document states they fall into “three traps of Belial (4, 14-16) These three traps are given as “fornication… wealth… defiling the sanctuary.” (4, 17-18).
The first of these is that of “taking two wives in their lifetimes” (Dam. Doc. 4, 20-21) that is in allowing for divorce. This is similar to the position of the Pharisaic House of Shammai which allowed for divorce only in case of unchastity (m.Gittin 9:10). However the prevailing Halachah among the Pharisees was expressed by the House of Hillel Pharisees which said a man could divorce a woman “even if she spoiled his dish” (ibid).
The trap of “wealth” would seem to be more of an attack on the Sadducees, who tended to be wealthy, rather than the Pharisees, who represented the majority of the population. This trap may refer to the relationship by which Pharisees intimidated the wealthy Sadducees into implementing Pharisaic Halacha.
The Essenes believed that the Pharisees were defiling the sanctuary with their lax halacha. In the document known as MMT (Miqsat Ma’ase HaTorah) “Some of the Works of the Torah” the Essenes lay out twenty-four points of halacha related to purity about which they disagreed with the majority (the Pharisees), and because of which they believed the Pharisees were defiling the Temple. Many of the twenty-four points made in MMT are exact counterpoints of Pharisaic halacha given later in the Mishna.
The Essenes also held a stricter halacha than the Pharisees on the observance of the Sabbath. As Josephus writes:
“…they are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting from their labors on the seventh day…”
(Wars 2:8:9)
Finally the Essenes held a stricter halacha on oaths than the Pharisees. The Pharisees had a complex wall established around the commandments concerning oaths. These are laid out in the Mishna. However the Essene wall was even stricter, allowing for no oaths at all. As Josephus writes:
“…whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury for they say that he who cannot be believed without [swearing by] God is already condemned.”
(Wars 2:8:6)
And as we read in the Damascus Document:
“A man must not swear either by Aleph and Lamedh (Elohim) or by Aleph and Daleth (Adonai)…”
(Dam. Doc. 15:1)
The Essenes began when its first adherents became followers of an individual known simply as the Teacher of Righteousness. They followed him to Damascus where they all entered into a covenant together which they believed was the New Covenant. This New Covenant was centered around purity:
“For when Israel abandoned Him by being faithless, He turned away from them and from His sanctuary and gave them up to the sword. But when He called to mind the covenant He made with their forefathers, He left a remnant for Israel… They considered their iniquity and knew they were guilty men… He raised up for them the Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of his heart…”
(Dam. Doc. A 1, 1-11)
“…the captives of Israel… went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of Damascus…”
(Dam. Doc. 6, 5)
“…They [who have entered the covenant] must distinguish between defiled and pure, teaching the difference between holy and profane. They must keep the Sabbath day according to specification, and the holy days and the fast day according to the commandments of the members of the new covenant in the land of Damascus…”
(Dam. Doc. 6, 17-19)
They saw their salvation as coming from their faith in this Teacher of Righteousness:
” ‘As for the righteous man, by faith to him one may find life.’ (Hab. 2:4b) This refers to all those who obey the Law among the Jews whom God will rescue from among those doomed to judgment, because of their suffering and their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.”
(Hab. Com. 7, 17 – 8, 3)
They also saw their justification as coming from these New Covenant purity regulations which they came to refer to as the “Works of the Law”
These are some of our pronouncements concerning the Law of God. Specifically, some pronouncements concerning the Works of the Law that we have determined [are beneficial] and all of them concern defiling mixtures and purity….
A lengthy list of pronouncements is then given. Then the document concludes:
“Now we have written to you some of the Works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people,… And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness…”
(4QMMT)
Thus the Qumran Community taught that they were all partakers in a New Covenant established by their Teacher of Righteousness, which offered them justification through their faith in him and his teachings, specifically purity regulations which were known as “Works of the Law”. In other words their idea of the “New Covenant” was based on these “Works of the Law”.
Yochanan and the Essenes
By
James Scitt Trimm
A careful reading of the Gospels will show that John the Baptist had his own “disciples” (John 1:35) who continued on as such, apart from the Yeshua movement even after John and Yeshua had died (Acts 19:1-3). The flavor of John chapter one also indicates that John did not live alone in the wilderness, but lived with a community of followers near Bethabara (John 1:28) a town just eight miles from Qumran.
Now one of the most important similarities between John the Baptist and his disciples, and the Qumran community is quite obviously that of geography. As mentioned, John and his disciples resided “in the wilderness” near a town just eight miles from Qumran. In fact the caves in which the scrolls were found are just five miles from the location along the Jordan at which John was baptizing. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament use the phrase “in the wilderness” (drawn from Isaiah 40:3) almost as a proper noun, to describe this area. One NT passage in particular seemed a mystery until the discovery of the Scrolls. Luke 1:80 states:
“…the child [John the Baptist] grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel.”
(Luke 1:80)
What would a child be doing “in the wilderness?” Could John have been raised at the Qumran community? An apocryphal tradition once circulated in the Church of the East may offer some insight. The Protevangelion of James, once read in some eastern churches, records a tradition that at the time of the slaughter of the innocents,
“Elizabeth took her son and went up unto the mountains, and looked around for a place to hide him; and there was no secret place to be found. Then she groaned within herself, and said, ‘O mountain of YHWH, receive the mother with the child.’ For Elizabeth could not climb up. And instantly the mountain was divided and received them. And there appeared to them an angel (or messenger) of YHWH, to preserve them.”
(Protevangelion 16:3-8)
Could this tradition be preserving an ancient tradition that John and his mother were taken in through an opening in the mountains (a cave) and a “messenger of YHWH” at Qumran took them in. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that Hugh Schonfield has shown that there are a number of parallelisms between DuTillet Hebrew Matthew and the Protevangelion, “which cannot be accidental.” . Moreover Joesphus tells us that the Essenes commonly raised other peoples children (Josephus; Wars 2:8:3). Thus it would seem that John the Baptist was raised up in the Qumran community.
As a Levite, and descendant of Zadock, John would have held a prominent place in the Qumran community, which favored the priesthood heirs. However, John’s normal life at Qumran was interrupted when “the word of Eloah came to Yochanan… in the wilderness” (Luke 3:2). In a rigid community where everyone had a rank and no one spoke out of turn, John’s message may not have been welcome. This would explain why John and his disciples relocated near nearby Bethabara.
Both Matthew and Mark tell us that John ate locusts (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6). Now The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that the Qumran community also made locusts as part of their diet. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls even tell us how they were to be cooked (Dam. Doc. xii, 11-15).
Both the Qumran community, and John quoted Isaiah 40:3 as being a prophecy foretelling of their work (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; Jn 1:23; Dam. Doc. viii, 12-14; ix, 20). This verse appears in most New Testaments as:
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.’ “
However, the cantor markings in the Masoretic Text give us the understanding:
“The voice of one crying ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of YHWH; make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim.’ “
As a result of their use of this verse, both John and the Qumran community referred to themselves as being “in the wilderness” and both the Qumran community and the early believers in Yeshua called their movement “the way”. (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23; Dam. Doc. viii, 12-14; ix, 20).
As a result of their use of this verse, both John and the Qumran community referred to themselves as being “in the wilderness” and both the Qumran community and the early believers in Yeshua called their movement “the Way”.
Another strong parallel between John and the Qumran community is that of the importance given to the practice of water immersion/baptism (Heb: T’vilah). The Torah requires “washing” for “uncleanness” (Leviticus 16-18) and “uncleanness” can result from sin (Leviticus 18:1ff for example.) King David spoke of this practice in the Psalms (Ps. 51:2, 7). In the Qumran community this practice was given great importance (Man. Disc. 3, 4f; v, 13; Dam. Doc. 10, 10-13) and it was certainly regarded as of high priority to John (Matthew 3:6, 11; Mark 1:4-5; Luke 3:2-3, 7; Acts 19:3-4). Both believed that water baptism was only symbolic of a greater cleansing of wickedness performed by the Ruach HaKodesh (Man. Disc. 4, 12-13).
One final similarity between John and the Qumran community was that both stressed that the day of fiery judgment was eminently approaching. Now having discussed the similarities between John the Baptist and the Qumran community, let us note the differences. Essenes always wore white (Josephus; Wars 2:8:3) yet John wore camel’s hair (Matthew 3:4). Secondly, the Qumran community only ate food provided by their community yet John foraged for himself (Matthew 3:4). Finally and most importantly the Qumran community was not even a little bit evangelical. The Manual of Discipline specifically commands its adherents to “bear unremitting hatred towards all men of ill repute… to leave it to them to pursue wealth and mercenary gain… truckling to a depot.” (Man. Disc. ix 21-26). But John called these men of ill repute to “Repent, for the Kingdom of Elohim is offered.” (Matthew 3:2). This new teaching must have been the “word of Eloah” which John “received in the wilderness” (Luke 3:2) since it is later echoed by Yeshua (Matthew 4:17) and Yeshua’s disciples (Matthew 10:7).
Yeshua, his Talmidim and the Essenes
By
James Trimm
Yeshua came to be immersed by John in the wilderness at about the age of 30 and was proclaimed by John to be the “lamb” of Isaiah 53:7 (John 1:29). Certain of John’s students then became students of Yeshua (John 1:35-51). Yeshua then began to proclaim, as John had proclaimed: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is offered.” (Matthew 3:17). Later He sent his twelve students out with the same proclamation (Matthew 10).
Despite the fact that Yeshua’s teachings largely agreed with that of the Pharisaic School of Hillel, there were occasions where Yeshua’s teachings agreed with the School of Shammai against the School of Hillel. An important example of this is the issue of divorce where Yeshua agreed with Shammai against Hillel (Matthew 5:31-32 & m.Gittin 9:10). There were also occasions when Yeshua’s teachings agreed with that of the Essenes against that of the Pharisees. One example is on the issue of oaths (compare Matthew 5:33-37 & Damascus Document- Geniza A; Col. 15; Lines 1-3).
While Yocahan was essentially an Essene, Yeshua did not appear to live the Essene lifestyle, as we read in Matthew 11:18-19:
“Yochanan came neither eating nor drinking…”
“The Son of man came eating and drinking…”
(Matthew 11:18-19)
Nonetheless there are many important similarities between the teachings of Yeshua and those of the Essenes/Qumran community. Yeshua went out into the wilderness to be tempted (Matthew 4:1f). Yeshua’s twelve talmidim (students) remind us of the council of twelve at Qumran (Manual of Discipline 1QS 8:1). Yeshua’s twelve talmidim seemed to be headed by three (Kefa (Peter), James (Ya’akov) and Yochanan (John) and the twelve laymen of Qumran were headed by three priests (1QS 8:1).
In Matthew 10:9-11 Yeshua instructs his Talmidim as follows:
“Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor lesser coin in your belts. Pack not for the journey, either two coats, or sandals, or a staff, for the laborer is worthy of his food. And into whatever city or town you will enter, enquire who in it is honorable, and there abide until you go out from there.”
(Matthew 10:9-11)
Some light on this text may be acquired by examining a statement by Josephus concerning the first century Essene sect of Judaism:
“…and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go into such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and provide garments and other necessaries for them.”
(Josephus; Wars 2:8:4)
Yeshua’s talmidim had for the most part, come from an Essene background. It would appear that they were therefore able to travel within Essene circles from town to town without having to carry additional supplies.
Also note that Yeshua and his Talmidim traveled armed (Luke 22:38) Were Yeshua and his Talmidim circulating to some extent within the Essene community network?
Also in Luke 22:24 (see also 9:46):
“And there was also strife among them about who among them was greatest…”
What? What kind of prideful, arrogant, self-righteous men had Yeshua chosen as his twelve emissaries? Are they really bickering over which of them is better than the other? The Dead Sea Scrolls offer some insight on what otherwise looks like a childish squabble that should be totally uncharacteristic of the kind of men Yeshua would have chosen as his twelve talmidim and emissaries (see comments to Matthew 10:2). In the Manual of Discipline we read:
“This is the rule for the session of the general membership, each man being in his proper place. The priest shall sit in the first row, the elders in the second, the rest of the people, each in his proper place…. So that each man may state his opinion to the society of the Yahad. None should interrupt the words of his comrade, speaking before his brother finishes what he has to say. Neither should anyone speak before another of higher rank.”
(Manual of Discipline 1QS 6, 8-11)
The Essenes of Qumran were informed of their rank once a year at an annual review as we read elsewhere in the same document:
“They shall do as follows annually… the priests shall pass in review first, ranked according to their spiritual excellence, one after another. Then the Levites shall follow, and third all the people by rank, one after another, in their thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens. Thus shall each Israelite know his proper standing in the Yahad of God…”
(Manual of Discipline 1QS 2, 19-22)
And regarding the Great Messianic Banquet (see comments to Matthew 26:17-30):
“The procedure for the [mee]ting of the men of reputation [when they are called] to the banquet held by the society of the Yahad, when [God] has fa[th]ered (?) the Messiah (or, when the Messiah has been revealed) among them: [the Priest,] as head of the entire congregation of Israel, shall enter first, trailed by all [his] brot[hers, the Sons of] Aaron, those priests [appointed] to the banquet of the men of reputation. They are to sit be[fore him] by rank. Then the [Mess]iah of Israel may en[ter], and the heads of the th[ousands of Israel] are to sit before him by rank. … all the heads of the congregation’s cl[ans], together with [their] wis[e and knowledgeable men]. Shall sit before them by rank. [When] they gather [at the] communal [tab]le, [having set out bread and w]ine so the communal table is set [for eating] and [the] wine (poured) for drinking, none [may r]each for the first portion of the bread or [the wine] before the Priest. For [he] shall [bl]ess the first portion of the bread and the wine, [reac]hing for the bread first. Afterw[ard] the Messiah of Israel [shall re]ach for the bread. [Finally,] ea[ch] member of the whole congregation of the Yahad [shall give a bl]essing, [in descending order of] rank. This procedure shall govern every me[al], provided at least ten me[n are ga]thered together.”
(1Qsa 2, 11-22)
Since Passover is the spiritual new year for Israel, it stands to reason that this annual review coinsided with Passover. Yeshua’s talmidim are sitting down for the Passover Sader, for the acting out of the Messianic Banquet (see comments to Matthew 26:17-30). To their mainds they may have even been having the actual Messianic Feast (in light of the comments at Matthew 10:1 & 10:9-11) Yeshua’s talmidim, being mostly of Essene background (see comments to John 1:28-51) and sitting down for the Sader were anticipating that Yeshua would be assigning them each a rank so that they would each “know their proper standing”. This was not out of arrogance but out of humility. They did not want to be speaking presumptuously ahead of their rank. The statements involved in this dispute were likely not arrogant presumptuous claims of “I am greater [in rank] than you” but rather “_____ is surely greater [in rank] than I”.
In Matthew 21:23-27 The Pharisees challenge Yeshua as to where his s’mikhah, or authority comes from. Yeshua responds by asking them about where Yochanan’s authority came from. Yeshua was not evading their question. Yeshua was raising this point because Yeshua’s earthly authority (s’mikhah) came from Yochanan (John 1:6-8, 15, 26-27, 29-37) and Yochanan’s authority was from an Essenes rather than a Pharisaic source (see comments to Matthew 3:1). Thus Yeshua’s s’mikhah traced back through Yochanan to the Essene line of s’mikhah. Yeshua was putting the Pharisees in the position of either acknowledging Essene Halachic authority or declaring it to be false. It would appear that the Pharisees were hesitant to question the s’mikhah of a sect that was known for being even stricter on observance than they were.
Many of Yeshua’s halachic teachings parallel those of the Qumran community. Yeshua opposed the taking of oaths (Matthew 5:34) as did the Essenes (Josephus; Wars 2:8:6; Manual of Discipline 1QS 15:1-3). Yeshua’s use of Genesis 1:27 to prove his halachic position on divorce is paralleled in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“…they are caught in two traps: fornication, by taking two wives in their lifetimes although the principle of creation is: “male and female He created them.”…they are caught in two traps:”
(Dam. Doc. Col. 4 line 20 through Col. 5 line 1)
Yeshua’s halachah on the issue of “CORBAN” (an offering) being used as an excuse to violate Torah in Matthew 15:1-8 parallels a similar ruling at Qumran (Damascus Document 16:13).
Matthew records a very interesting event involving Yeshua and the Temple Tax:
“…they that received tribute came to Kefa (Peter), and said, ‘Does not your master pay tribute?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ And when he came into the house Yeshua prevented him, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children, or of strangers?’ Kefa (Peter) said to him, ‘Of strangers.’ Yeshua said to him, ‘Then the children are free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go you to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up; and when you have opened his mouth, you shall find a piece of money: that take, and give to them for me and you.’ “
(Matthew 17:24-27)
Here Kefa indicates the Yeshua pays the Temple tax, but Yeshua indicates that neither himself, nor Kefa nor aparantly any of his followers owe the Temple tax. Yeshua does not seem to argue that he does not owe such a tax because he is the Messiah, for he extends the same privilage to Kefa and aparantly all of his followers. Is Yeshua teaching against Torah? The answer is no. The Torah does command that a Temple tax must be payed by every male 20 and older (Exodus 30:11-16) but is ambiguos as to how often it must be payed. The Pharisaic Halachah (and aparenetly the Sadducean Halachah) had the tax being paid annually during the month of Adar (m.Shek. 1:1, 3) However the Qumran community had a different Halachah. They taught:
“…concerning the Ransom: the money of the valuation which a man gives as ransom for his life shall be half a shekel in accordance with the shekel of the sanctuary. He shall give it only once in his life.”
(4Q159 Frag 1; Col. 2; lines 6-7)
Now if Yeshua held to this Essene Halachah then He would not believe that he or his followers owed the tax, if they had already paid it at least once in their lifetime. This would explain why Kefa said that Yeshua pays the tax, while Yeshua claims that he and his followers don’t owe the tax.
Like the Qumran community Yeshua speaks allegorically of “Living Water” coming from a well. . In John chapter four “living water” is symbolically drawn from Jacob’s well, and brings salvation and eternal life. In the Manual of Discipline “living water” is the teachings of the community and is symbolicly drawn from the well of Num. 21:18 which is identified by the Scroll to be symbolic of the Law. Thus we may conclude that in John 4 Yeshua draws upon a Midrash (allegorical interpretation) which existed in his time (John 4:10 & Dam. Doc. VI, 4-5; VII, 9-VIII, 21).
Yeshua’s use of the Passover Sader as a sort of Messianic banquet certainly reminds us of the Messianic banquet of the Qumran Essenes (Josephus; Wars 2:8:5; Manual of Discipline 6:3-6 & 1QS Sa. 2, 17-20). The Qumran material even reads “the Messiah of Israel shall reach for the bread” (1QSa. 2:20-21) a phase which certainly reminds us of the “Last Supper” account of the New Testament. There were however some very important point with which Yeshua greatly disagreed with the Essenes. The Essenes held the strictest rules of resting on the Sabbath than any of the Jews (Josephus; Wars 2:8:9) The Qumran community, with its stricter Halacha likely did not permit healing on the Shabbat at all. They did not allow carrying medicine on the Shabbat nor did they allow using a tool to save a life on the Shabbat (Dam. Document col. 10; lines 14-18). Now Y’shua’s Halacha on the issue seems to have been less strict. There is conflict between Yeshua and Qumran on the plucking and rubbing of wheat in Matthew 12:1=Luke 6:1=Mark 2:23. The activity described is clearly permitted by the Torah in general, though not necessarily on the Shabbat (Deuteronomy 23:26 (23:25 in non-Jewish editions)). This was forbidden by Qumran halacha which stated:
“A man may not go about in the field to do his desired activity on the Sabbath… A man may not eat anything on the Sabbath except food already prepared.”
(Dam. Doc. Col. 10; lines 20-22).
Also Yeshua’s teaching that it is permitted to rescue an animal from a pit. (Matthew 12:11 and Luke 14:3-6) is in direct conflict with Qumran Halacha.(Dam. Doc. col. 10; lines 14-18).
Yeshua’s followers had much in common with the Essenes. Both were called “The Way” (Acts 9:2 & 1QS 9,18) and “B’nai Or” (Sons of Light) (Luke 16:8; John 12:36; Ephesians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; Man. Of Disc. 1,9; 2, 24; 1QM). Like the Essenes they shared all things in common (Acts 2:44-45; Josephus; Ant. 18:1:5; Wars 2:8:3) and lying about such assets was regarded as a great sin (Acts 5:1-10). Although further study is needed, there may be some good connections between the Qumran hierarchy and that of the Nazarenes. Both groups seemed to have made some use of the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9 is quoted in Jude 1:14-15; seven fragmentary copies of Enoch were found at Qumran). Like the Qumran community, the Nazarenes also seem to have used Hebrew manuscripts of Tanak books which agreed in places with the text behind the Septuagint. The Nazarene belief in two comings of the Messiah is similar to the Qumran belief in two Messiahs. The Qumran community believed in a priestly Messiah who was a Melchizadek figure whom they termed EL, ELOHIM and YHWH (11Q13), a figure they believed was prophesied of in such passages as Dan. 9:24-27; Isaiah 52 (and presumably 53) and Isaiah 61:1. In like manner the Nazarenes saw their Messiah Yeshua as a Melchizadek figure (Hebrews 7) who fulfilled the very same prophecies.
The following is a commentary on Leviticus 25 found in cave 11 of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It could have written by a Nazarene, except for the fact that it predates the birth of Yeshua.
The document is very interesting as it speaks of a Messiah who it identifies as “EL” and “ELOHIM”. It also quotes Isaiah 61:2 substituting “Melchizadek” for YHWH.
This Melchizadek figure “shall atone for all the Sons of Light” thus “releasing them from the debt of all their sins” in a fulfillment of the true meaning of Yom Kippur and “establish a righteous kingdom”. This will be the fulfillment of the “Salvation” (Hebrew: Yeshua) proclaimed from the mountains in Isaiah 52:7 (which in context would identify this Melchizadek with the servant of Isaiah 53. This figure is then identified with the Messiah who is “cut off” in Daniel 9:26. This makes the blocks of seven years in Daniel 9:24-27 to tie in with the “year of favor” of Isaiah 61:1-3 and thus as the ultimate fulfillment with Lev. 25:13 as a fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. Finally this connects to a prophetic fulfillment of the blowing of the trumpet in Lev. 25:9.
And now, without further adue, The Melchizadek Document:
The Melchizedek Document (11Q13)
Translated by
James Scott Trimm
And concerning what Scripture says:
“In this year of Jubilee you shall return,
everyone of you, to your property”
(Lev. 25:13)
And what is also written:
“And this is the manner of the remission; every creditor shall remit the claim that
is held against a neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the
community, because Elohim’s remission has been proclaimed”
(Deut.15;2)
the interpretation is that it applies to the Last Days and concerns the captives,
just as Isaiah said:
“To proclaim the Jubilee to the captives”
(Isa. 61;1)
(…) just as (…) and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, for (… Melchizedek) , who will return them to what is rightfully theirs. He will proclaim to them the Jubilee, thereby releasing them from the debt of all their sins. He shall proclaim this decree in the first week of the jubilee period that follows nine jubilee periods.
Then the “Day of Atonement” shall follow after the tenth jubilee period, when he shall atone for all the Sons of Light, and the people who are allotted to Melchizedek. (…) upon them (…) For this is the time decreed for the “Year of Melchizedek’s favor“, and by his might he will judge Elohim’s holy ones and so establish a righteous kingdom, …as it is written about him [Melchizedek] in the Songs of David:
“Elohim has taken his place in the council of EL;
in the midst of the ELOHIM he holds judgment”
(Ps. 82:1)
Scripture also says about him [Melchizedek]:
“Over it take your seat in the highest heaven;
EL will judge the peoples”
(Ps. 7:7-8)
Concerning what scripture says:
“How long will you judge unjustly,
and show partiality with the wicked?
Selah”
(Ps. 82;2)
the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, because all of them have rebelled, turning from Elohim’s precepts and so becoming utterly wicked. Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the vengeance required by Elohim’s statutes. Also, he will deliver all the captives from the power of Belial, and from the power of all the spirits destined to him. Allied with him will be all the
“righteous Elohim” (Isa. 61;3).
(The …) is that whi(ch …all) the Elohim. The visitation is the Day of Salvation that He has decreed through Isaiah the prophet concerning all the captives, inasmuch as Scripture says:
“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace,
who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion “Your Elohim
reigns”.
(Isa. 52;7)
This scriptures interpretation: “the mountains” are the prophets, they who were sent to proclaim Elohim’s truth and to prophesy to all Israel. “The messengers” is the Anointed (Messiah) of the spirit, of whom Daniel spoke:
“After the sixty-two weeks, a Messiah shall be cut off”
(Dan. 9;26)
The “messenger who brings good news, who announces Salvation” is the one of whom it is written:
“to proclaim the year of the YHWH’s favor,
the day of the vengeance of our Elohim;
to comfort all who mourn”
(Isa. 61;2)
This scripture’s interpretation: he is to instruct them about all the periods of history for eternity (… and in the statutes) of the truth. (…) (…. dominion) that passes from Belial and returns to the Sons of Light (….) (…) by the judgment of Elohim, just as t is written concerning him:
“who says to Zion “Your Elohim reigns”
(Isa. 52;7)
“Zion” is the congregation of all the sons of righteousness, who uphold the covenant and turn from walking in the way of the people. “Your Elohim” is Melchizedek, who will deliver them from the power of Belial.
Concerning what scripture says:
“Then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud;
in the seventh month . . . ”
(Lev. 25;9)
— the rest of the document has not survived–
Yeshua and Hillel
By James Trimm
Yeshua and Hillel on LoveOne of the most significant parallels between Yeshua and Hillel is Their profound teaching of Love. Yeshua’s teaching of love was a radical departure from the teachings at Qumran. Now Philo tells us that the Essenes had great “desire to promote brotherly love” (Philo; The Hypothetica 11:2) this brotherly love seems to have been only to fellow members of the Yachad (unity). This is reflected in the Damascus Document’s use of Lev. 19:18. In the Torah Leviticus 19:18 reads:
You shall not avenge,
nor bear any grudge against the children of my people,
But you shall love your neighbor as yourself:
I am YHWH.
Now the Damascus Document interprets this passage as follows:
As for the passage that says, “Take no vengeance and bear no grudge against your kinfolk” (Lev. 19:18) any covenant member who brings against his fellow an accusation not sworn to before witnesses or who makes an accusation in the heat of anger or who tells it to his elders to bring his fellow into repute, the same is a vengence-taker and a grudge-bearer….
(Damascus Document 9, 2)
Note that this Qumran interpretation of Lev. 19:19 would limit “neighbor” in Lev. 19:18 to “any covenant member” i.e. a member of the Yachad. In fact the Qumran sect taught:
…bear unremitting hatred towards all men of ill repute…
to leave it to them to pursue wealth and mercenary gain…
truckling to a depot.
(Man. Of Disc. Ix, 21-26)
By contrast Hillel is quoted as saying:
Be disciples of Aaron,
loving peace and pursuing peace,
loving people and drawing them near to the Torah.
(m.Avot 1:12)
The Qumran attitude was one of hatred to the sinner. There was no concept of “drawing them near to the Torah” but rather to “leave it to them to [sin]… truckling to a depot.” Yet Hillel took the opposite approach. Hillel’s attitude was to “Love” the men of ill repute and draw them near to the Torah. This was also Yeshua’s approach.
Yeshua taught:
You have heard that it was said
“You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you,
do good to those who hate you,
and pray for those who spitefully use you persecute you
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven;
for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good,
and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?
Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brethren only,
what do you do more than others?
Do not even the tax collectors do so?
(Mt. 5:43-47)
Yeshua here begins by quoting the Tanak “Love your neighbor” (Lev. 19:18) but then gives the Qumran corollary “hate your enemy.” Yeshua differs with this “hate your enemy” teaching in agreement with the love philosophy of Hillel. Apparently the Qumran community inferred from “Love your neighbor” (Lev. 19:18) that they should therefore bear unremitting hatred toward their enemies. To Yeshua (and presumably Hillel) the issue is the interpretation of “neighbor.” In his Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:29-36) Yeshua argues that we cannot be sure who our “neighbor” is, so in order to make sure we do not violate Lev. 19:18 we should love everyone.
Hillel, Yeshua and the Golden Rule
Another strong parallel between Hillel and Yeshua is that of the so called “Golden Rule.” There is a story in the Talmud in which Hillel gives a summary of the Torah. The Talmud says:
…it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai
and said to him, “Make me a proselyte, on condition that you
teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.” Thereupon
he repulsed him with the builders cubit which was in his hand.
When he went before Hillel, he said to him “Do not to others
what you would not have them do to you: that is the whole Torah,
while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.”
(b.Shab. 31a)
A similar incident occurs in the Gospels:
But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees,
they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him
a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Yeshua said to him, ” ‘You shall love YHWH your God with all
your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ “This is
the first and great commandment. “And the second is like it:
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
“On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Mt. 22:34-40 = Mk. 12:28-31 = Lk. 10:25-37)
Here Yeshua is pressed to summarize the Torah and answers with the Sh’ma (Dt. 6:4-9) and the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). This is remarkably similar to Hillel’s answer to the same question. It is important to note that the Pharisees agreed that Yeshua’s answer was correct. Yeshua elsewhere gives a summary of the Torah which parallels Hillel’s answer even closer:
Whatever you would that men should do to you,
do you even to them,
for this is the Torah and the Prophets.
(Mt. 7:12 = Lk. 6:31)
Priority of Chesed to Hillel and Yeshua
Within Rabbinic literature we have record of over 350 disputes between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. Generally Shammai gave the stricter interpretation, while Hillels understandings were more relaxed. According to the Zohar (Ra’aya Meheimna 3:245a) The School of Shammai was based on GEVURAH (“severity”) while the School of Hillel was based on CHESED (“grace”/”mercy”). This is very significant. In Mark’s account of Yeshua’s summary of the Torah (Mk. 12:28-33) A “scribe” comes to question Yeshua. In Matthew’s account this “scribe” is identified as a Pharisee (Mt. 22:34-36). According to Mark’s account this Pharisee not only agreed with Yeshua’s summary of Torah and repeated it adding:
…and to love his neighbor as himself,
is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
(Mt. 12:33b)
It is not unlikely from this context that the Pharisee was quoting a
now-lost saying of Hillel here. In making this statement the Pharisee, who apparently was from the School of Hillel, was pointing to Hosea 6:6:
For I [YHWH] desire mercy (CHESED), and not sacrifice;
and the knowledge of ELOHIM more than burnt offerings.
This Pharisee seemes to have identified “love your neighbor” of Lev. 19:18 with the CHESED of Hosea 6:6. Remember the relaxed halachic positions of the School of Hillel were based on CHESED, it is indeed likely that Hosea 6:6 served as a proof text for many of their halachic rulings, since this passage assigns a halachic weight to CHESED. We also find Yeshau using Hosea 6:6 in support of his relaxed halachic rulings regarding the Shabbat (Mt. 12:7 = Hosea 6:6) hereYeshus argues from Hosea 6:6 that CHESED is of greater weight than the sacrifices. Since CHESED out weighs sacrifice, and sacrifice out weighs Shabbat, then CHESED out weighs Shabbat.
It seems that both Yeshua and Hillel emphasised love for all men,
Taught the “gloden rule” and had many of their halachic rulings rooted in CHESED (“mercy”).
Paul Argues Talmud Before the Sanhedrin
Paul Argues Talmud Before the Sanhedrin
A Deeper Understanding of Acts 23:6

By James Scott Trimm
In Acts 22:30-23:10 Paul is brought before the Sanhedrin for judgment. Paul’s defense in this trial has been poorly understood in the past. In order to have a proper understanding of Paul’s defense, requires having a basic understanding of the Talmud.
Paul realizes that he has not been brought before the Pharisaic Sanhedrin, which was headed by Hillel and his descendants, but to the political Sanhedrin made up of Sadducees and Pharisees and headed by the High Priest.
In Acts 23:3 he questions the High Priest’s right to judge him, accusing him of violating Torah. In verse 4 Paul is asked why he dares to criticize the High Priest. In verse 5 Paul responds with sarcasm, saying “I did not know my brothers, that he was the Cohen”. Paul knew that Chananyah was not a valid High Priest, and this was his point in verse 5.
In Acts 23:6 Paul proclaims himself (in the present tense) to be a Pharisee and he then makes the defense “concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am being judged.”
As verse 8 tells us “the Sadducees said there is no resurrection”. The Sadducees (Tzadokim) were founded by a certain Zadok. Zadok was a talmid (disciple) of Antigonus of Soko who misunderstood his teaching. Antigonus taught:
“Be not like servants who serve their master
for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their
master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear
of Heaven be upon you.”
(m.Avot 1:3)
The Mishna Avot of Rabbi Natan tells us how Zadok misunderstood the teachings of Antigonos:
Antigonos of Soko had two students. They would con his teachings by rote and then teach the other students… They started to question the meaning of this teaching. They asked themselves why our teachers taught this way. Is it possible that a worker could function faithfully all day long and not receive his just wage at the end of the day? [They reasoned that] if our teachers were sure that there is another world and a resurrection of the dead they would not have worded their teaching in this way. They seceded from Torah and two schismatic schools derived from them: Sadducees and Boethusians. The Sadducees were named for Zadok and the Boethusians for Boethos…
(Mishna Avot of Rabbi Natan 1:3)
Zadok misunderstood Antigonos’ teaching. He wrongly concluded that since we should no keep Torah to gain a reward, that there must not be any reward. Zadok concluded that there is no reward to be obtained in the afterlife, nor any punishment to be avoided. The Sadducees believed that there is no afterlife and no resurrection. As Josephus writes:
But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls
die with the bodies….
(Josephus; Antiquities 18:2:4)
Matthew writes:
…the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection…
(Matt. 22:23)
And as we read here in Acts:
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection,
neither angel, nor spirit…
(Acts 23:8)
Now there is a Pharisaic tradition recorded in the Mishna tractate Sanhedrin which deals with which “apostate doctrines” were worthy of disfellowshipment. The Mishna passage in question reads:
All Israelites have a share in the world to come…
And these are the ones who have no part in the World to Come:
He who says, the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which is not
derived from the Torah…
(m.San. 10:1)
The Talmud is made up the Mishna and the Gemara. In the Talmud a passage of Mishna is followed by commentary known as Gemara. In the Talmud the Gemara to m.Sanhedrin 10:1 begins at b.Sanhedrin 90a and runs through b.Sanhedrin 99a.
At around b.Sanhedrin 97a this section of Gemara transitions from a discussion of the doctrine of the resurrection (in 90a-96b) to a discussion on the timing of the coming of Messiah (in 97a-99a). This is not just a random shift, but a logical transition.
The transition point of this Gemara reads as follows:
Rabbi Nahman said to Rabbi Isaac: “Have you heard when Bar Nafle will come?”
“Who is Bar Nafle?”, he asked.
“Messiah,” he answered,
“Do you call Messiah Bar Nafle?”
“Even so,” he rejoined, “As it is written: “In that day, I will raise up the tabernacle
of David ha-nofelet [that is fallen]. (Amos 9:11)”
(b.San 97a)
This Gemara defines “David” in this passage to refer to the Davidic Messiah and the “tabernacle” to refer to his physical body. Since the context of this Gemara is that of the resurrection, “raise up” in this context most certainly refers to “resurrection” This is very profound, because we have in this Gemara a reference to a “resurrection” of the physical body of Messiah being seen in Amos 9:11.
There is also evidence that this understanding of the “Tabernacle of David” in Amos 9:11-12 as being a reference to the Messiah existed by the first century. A document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in cave 4 gives the following commentary in Amos 9:11:
“I shall raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen” (Amos 9:11).
This passage describes the fallen Branch of David,
whom He shall raise up to deliver Israel.
(Q174 III, 12-13)
This must be the reason that Ya’akov cites the verse in Acts 15:16 as having an application not only in the Millennial Kingdom, but in the very time period of the Acts 15 council. Ya’akov was well aware that the “Tabernacle of David” was a reference to the body of the Messiah, and that its being “raised up” was understood as a prophecy of a resurrection of the Messiah after he had “fallen” (died).
But now lets return to Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrin in Acts 23:6. Paul is in effect claiming m.Sanhedrin 10:1 as his defense and in doing so he is also claiming the Gemara attached to that Mishna, the doctrine of the death and resurrection of the Messiah as foretold in Amos 9:11. In fact Paul was appealing to a ruling by the Pharisaic Sanhedrin as recorded in m.San. 10:1. The result is that the political Sanhedrin falls into chaos, because on this very issue the Pharisees of the Pharisaic Sanhedrin had pronounced all Sadducees as apostates.
No doubt, if Paul had not been immediately removed from the room, he would have taken the opportunity to begin proclaiming the death and resurrection of Messiah as found in Amos 9:11 as a prophecy of Yeshua as the Messiah.
The Story of Rabbi Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus:
Talmudic Sage and Nazarene
By
James Scott Trimm
Rabbi Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus was one of the most prominent tannaim of the first and second centuries and the sixth most frequently mentioned Rabbi in the Mishnah.
The Talmud says of his Beit Din:
Our Rabbis taught: Justice, justice shalt thou follow, means, Thou shalt follow an eminent Beth din, as for example, [follow] R. Eliezer [b. Hyrkanus] to Lydda. or R. Johanan b. Zakkai to Beror Hail.
(b.Sanhedrin 32b)
He was one of the greatest of the five students of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai who was a student of Hillel the Great (m.Avot 2:8).
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said of his student Rabbi Eliezer:
If all of the sages of Israel were on one side of the scale,
and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus were on the other,
he would outweigh them all.
(m.Avot 2:8)
So Rabbi Eliezer was one of the most important Rabbis in the Talmud, He was also a Nazarene!
The Talmud records that Rabbi Eliezer was arrested for “Minuth”:
Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of Minuth they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. Said the governor to him, ‘How can a sage man like you occupy himself with those idle things?’ He replied, ‘I acknowledge the Judge as right.’ The governor thought that he referred to him — though he really referred to his Father in Heaven — and said, ‘Because thou hast acknowledged me as right, I pardon; thou art acquitted.’ When he came home, his disciples called on him to console him, but he would accept no consolation.
(b.Avodah Zarah 16b)
As the story continues:
Said R. Akiba to him, ‘Master, wilt thou permit me to say one thing of what thou hast taught me?’ He replied, ‘Say it.’ ‘Master,’ said he, ‘perhaps some of the teaching of the Minim had been transmitted to thee [17a] and thou didst approve of it and because of that thou wast arrested?’
He exclaimed: ‘Akiba thou hast reminded me.’ I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one [of the disciples of Yeshua the Nazarene] Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name, who said to me: It is written in your Torah, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot . . . into the house of the Lord thy God. May such money be applied to the erection of a retiring place for the High Priest? To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught [by Yeshua the Nazarene], For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return.’ (Micah 1:7) they came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth. Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostasy; for thereby I transgressed the scriptural words, Remove thy way far from her — which refers to minuth — and come not nigh to the door of her house, — which refers to the ruling power.’
(b.Avodah Zarah 16b-17a)
(The same story appears with few differences in the Midrash Rabbah to Eccl.)
The account above attempts to imply that Rabbi Eliezer was not truly guilty, but had only repeated a halacha he had heard from one of the Minim. However the reality is that Rabbi Eliezer was excommunicated from Rabbinic Judaism for his “heresy” and remained excommunicated until the day of his death.
Who were the “Minim”? The Fourth Century “Church Father” Jerome writes:
Today there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called ‘Nazarenes’; they believe that Messiah, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Miriam, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe.”
(Jerome; Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine)
Minæans was apparently a Latinized form of Hebrew MINIM (singular is MIN) a word which in modern Hebrew means “apostates” but was originally an acronym for a Hebrew phrase meaning “Believers in Yeshua the Nazarene”. The Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah whom influenced Eliezer was almost certainly either Yeshua’s talmid Ya’akov (Jacob/James) or Ya’akov HaTzadik (James the Just).
The conflict between Rabbi Eliezer and his Rabbinic colleagues came to a culmination when Rabbi Eliezer refused to recognize the authority of the Rabbinic Sanhedrin:
It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,’ they retorted. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!’ Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water,’ they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,’ whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?’ Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!’ But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.’ What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.
(b.Baba Metzia 59b)
The account in the Talmud continues to recount Rabbi Eliezer’s excommunication:
R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed [with joy], he replied, saying, ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.’ It was said: On that day all objects which R. Eliezer had declared clean were brought and burnt in fire. Then they took a vote and excommunicated him. Said they, ‘Who shall go and inform him?’ ‘I will go,’ answered R. Akiba, ‘lest an unsuitable person go and inform him, and thus destroy the whole world.’ What did R. Akiba do? He donned black garments and wrapped himself in black, and sat at a distance of four cubits from him. ‘Akiba,’ said R. Eliezer to him, ‘what has particularly happened to-day?’ ‘Master,’ he replied, ‘it appears to me that thy companions hold aloof from thee.’ Thereupon he too rent his garments, put off his shoes, removed [his seat] and sat on the earth, whilst tears streamed from his eyes. The world was then smitten: a third of the olive crop, a third of the wheat, and a third of the barley crop. Some say, the dough in women’s hands swelled up.
A Tanna taught: Great was the calamity that befell that day, for everything at which R. Eliezer cast his eyes was burned up. R. Gamaliel too was travelling in a ship, when a huge wave arose to drown him. ‘It appears to me,’ he reflected, ‘that this is on account of none other but R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus.’ Thereupon he arose and exclaimed, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Thou knowest full well that I have not acted for my honour, nor for the honour of my paternal house, but for Thine, so that strife may not multiply in Israel! ‘At that the raging sea subsided.
(b.Baba Metzia 59b)
It was only after his death that his excommunication was reversed by Joshua ben Hananiah.
The fact that Eliezer was actually a Nazarene is also supported by a halacha which he teaches concerning vows:
R. Elieazar says: they open a vow for a man
by reference to the honor of his father or mother.
(m.Nedarim 9:1)
This clearly echoes the teaching of Yeshua:
3 But He answered them and said: And why do you transgress the commandments of Elohim–by means of your decrees?
4 Is it not written in your Torah from the mouth of Elohim, Honor your father and your mother? And moreover written, And he that curses his father and his mother will surely die?
5 But you say, Whoever says to father and mother, It is all an offering– whatever of mine might profit you,
6 And he honors not his father and his mother. Thus have you made void the commandments of Elohim, on account of your judgments.
(Matt. 15:3-6 HRV)
This parallel is especially significant when we realize that Rabbi Eliezer was also quoted as saying “I have never taught anything which I had not learned from my masters” (b. Sukkot 28a).
At the approach of his death it is reported that he was surrounded by his former companions and pupils who remained with him to the end discussing with him questions related to Torah (b.San. 68a, 101a). Rabbi Akiva in his eulogy stated, “Since the death of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, the Book of the Torah is concealed” (Sotah 49b).
Nazarene Judaism is True Chasidic Judaism
By James Scott Trimm
One of the ancient terms used for followers of YHWH in the Tanak is the term “Chasidim”:
Sing praises to YHWH, you His Chasidim, and give thanks to His set-apart Name.
(Psalm 30:5(4))
Love YHWH, all you Chasidim! YHWH preserves the faithful, but abundantly requites him who acts haughtily.
(Psalm 31:24(23))
For YHWH loves justice; He will not forsake His Chasidim. The righteous shall be preserved forever, but the children of the wicked one shall be cut off.
(Ps. 37:28)
The word Chesed means “mercy” “kindness” “undue favor” “grace”. The Chasidim were under the CHESED of Elohim, and sought to treat others with that same CHESED.
What became of the original Chasidim? According to the Mishna:
Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets handed it on to the men of the Great Assembly.
(m.Avot 1:1)
This was a body of 120 Elders and is said to have introduced a regular order of prayers including the Shemoneh Esreh (eighteen benedictions) which eventually evolved into the Siddur. The Great Assembly collected the sacred writings and determined which books were to be regarded as canonical.
We do not know much more about the Great Assembly. We do know that one of the last members of this counsel was “Simon the Righteous” (219-196 B.C.E.). The Mishna says:
Simeon the Righteous was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He used to say, “On three things the world stands: On the Torah, On the Ministry, and on Chesidim (kindness, grace).”
(m.Avot 1:2)
Ben Sira calls him “the leader of his brothers and the pride of his people.” (Sira 50:1) and dedicates an entire chapter to his good reputation. Simon was the earliest post-biblical sage cited in the Mishna. Simon was succeeded as High Priest by his son Onias III of whom we read in 2nd Maccabees:
While the holy city was inhabited in unbroken peace and the laws were very well observed because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness.
(2nd Maccabees 3:1)
About this time Antiochus Epiphanies rose to power over Israel and at about this same time period the High Priesthood passed from Onias III to his brother Jason by way of corruption:
…Jason the brother of Onias obtained the high priesthood by corruption, promising the king at an interview three hundred and sixty talents of silver and from another source of revenue, eighty talents… he at once shifted his countrymen over to the Greek way of life… and introduced new customs contrary to the Torah.
(2nd Maccabees. 4:7-8, 10, 11)
Jason’s High Priesthood was illegitimate and not regarded as valid as we read in 2Maccabees:
…Jason, who was ungodly and no high priest…
(2nd Maccabees 4:13)
The corruption of the High Priesthood and the banishment of the true High Priest must have forced the disbandment of the Great Assembly.
At this time (175-140 BCE) many who wished to remain true to Torah escaped into the wilderness (1st Maccabees 1:62-64; 2:29) These refugees became know as the Chassidim (1st Maccabees 2:41; 7:12-14; 2nd Maccabees 14:6).
While we know little about these Chasidim, they were probably led by a certain Antigones of Soko. The Mishnah says of him:
Antigones of Soko received [Torah] from Simeon the Righteous. He used to say, “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.”
(m.Avot 1:3)
This might be seen as the root teaching of Chasidism. The Chasidim were called “chasidim”
One of his talmidim was Yose ben Yozer:
Yose ben Yozer… received it from them. Yose ben Yozer used to say: Let your house be a gathering place for sages. And wallow in the dust of their feet. And drink in their words with gusto.
(m.Avot 1:4)
Ben Yozer was the last of the Chasidim:
When Rabbi Yose Qatnuta died, the Chasidim passed away. And why was he called “Qatnuta”? Because he was least of the Chasidim.
(m.Sotah 9:15)
Yose ben Yozer was said to be among the sixty Chasidim who, at the instigation of the high priest Alcimus, the son of his sister, were crucified by the Syrian general Bacchides (1st Maccabees 7:16) in 161 BCE.
The Midrash Rabba reports the following dialogue between Alcimus and Yose ben Yoezer while he was on the way to execution:
Alcimus: “See the profit and honors that have fallen to my lot in consequence of what I have done, while you, for your obstinacy, have the misfortune to die as a criminal.”
Yose, quietly: “if such is the lot of those who anger Elohim, what shall be the lot of those who accomplish His will?”
Alcimus: “Is there any one who accomplished His will more than thou?”
Yose: “If this is the end of those who accomplish His will, what awaits those who anger Him?”
On this Alcimus was seized with remorse and committed suicide.
(Genesis Rabba 1:65)
Yose Ben Yozer also served as the first Nasi of the Beit Din which eventually became the Pharisaic Sanhedrin.
THE HOUSE OF HILLEL AND CHESED
House of Hillel Pharisaic Judaism was the succession of the Chassedim and the main line of Judaism. From this point forward the only Pharisee Sanhedrin we know of was led, not by “pairs” but by Hillel’s descendants.
Pharisees polarized into two schools of thought: The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. The two schools held differing view on many halachic issues and argued throughout the first century. Eventually the School of Hillel prevailed in these arguments and serves as the foundation of modern Rabbinic Judaism. There are also many important connections between the School of Hillel and the ancient sect of the Nazarenes.
Within Rabbinic literature we have record of over 350 disputes between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. Generally Shammai gave the stricter interpretation, while Hillels understandings were more relaxed. According to the Zohar (Ra’aya Meheimna 3:245a) The School of Shammai was based on GEVURAH (“severity”) while the School of Hillel was based on CHESED (“grace”/”mercy”).
A classic example of the conflict can be seen in one of the first passages of the Mishna, which records a conflict between the two houses over how to recite the Shema:
The House of Shammai says:
In the evening one should recline in order to recite the shema, and in the morning they should stand. As it is written “when you lie down and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7)
But the House of Hillel says:
Everyone may recite the Shema in his own way, as it is written:
“And you shall go by the way” (Deuteronomy 7:7)
(m.Berachot 1:3)
Note that the House of Shammai were concerned primarily with the outward expression, with whether one was standing or reclining, while the House of Hillel were less concerned with such outward expression and much more concerned with the way in which one recited the Shema, that they made it their own way, that they meant it and walked in it. Note the difference in emphasis of the two houses.
Hillel was more concerned with the inner man, while Shammai was more concerned with the outer man. Hillel was concerned with the Spirit of the Law, while Shammai was more concerned with the Letter of the Law.
This overriding concept of sincerity is also found in the Mishna in tractate Menachot:
“…all are the same, the one who offers much and the one who offers little, on condition that a man will direct his intention to Heaven”
(m.Menachot 13:11)
YESHUA AND CHESED
In Mark’s account of Yeshua’s summary of the Torah (Mark 12:28-33) A “scribe” comes to question Yeshua. In Matthew’s account this “scribe” is identified as a Pharisee (Matthew 22:34-36). According to Mark’s account this Pharisee not only agreed with Yeshua’s summary of Torah and repeated it adding:
…and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
(Mark 12:33b)
It is not unlikely from this context that the Pharisee was quoting a now-lost saying of Hillel here. In making this statement the Pharisee, who apparently was from the School of Hillel, was pointing to Hosea 6:6:
For I [YHWH] desire mercy (CHESED), and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of ELOHIM more than burnt offerings.
This Pharisee seemes to have identified “love your neighbor” of Leviticus 19:18 with the CHESED of Hosea 6:6. Remember the relaxed halachic positions of the School of Hillel were based on CHESED, it is indeed likely that Hosea 6:6 served as a proof text for many of their halachic rulings, since this passage assigns a halachic weight to CHESED. We also find Yeshau using Hosea 6:6 in support of his relaxed halachic rulings regarding the Shabbat (Matthew 12:7 = Hosea 6:6) here Yeshua argues from Hosea 6:6 that CHESED is of greater weight than the sacrifices. Since CHESED out weighs sacrifice, and sacrifice out weighs Shabbat, then CHESED out weighs Shabbat.
One of the most significant parallels between Yeshua and Hillel is Their profound teaching of Love. Yeshua’s teaching of love was a radical departure from the teachings at Qumran. Now Philo tells us that the Essenes had great “desire to promote brotherly love” (Philo; The Hypothetica 11:2) this brotherly love seems to have been only to fellow members of the Yachad (unity). This is reflected in the Damascus Document’s use of Leviticus 19:18. In the Torah Leviticus 19:18 reads:
You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of my people, But you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am YHWH.
Now the Damascus Document interprets this passage as follows:
As for the passage that says, “Take no vengeance and bear no grudge against your kinfolk” (Leviticus 19:18) any covenant member who brings against his fellow an accusation not sworn to before witnesses or who makes an accusation in the heat of anger or who tells it to his elders to bring his fellow into repute, the same is a vengence-taker and a grudge-bearer…
(Damascus Document 9, 2)
Note that this Qumran interpretation of Leviticus 19:19 would limit “neighbor” in Leviticus 19:18 to “any covenant member” i.e. a member of the Yachad. In fact the Qumran sect taught:
…bear unremitting hatred towards all men of ill repute… to leave it to them to pursue wealth and mercenary gain… truckling to a depot.
(Manual of Discipline IX, 21-26)
By contrast Hillel is quoted as saying:
Be disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and drawing them near to the Torah.
(m.Avot 1:12)
The Qumran attitude was one of hatred to the sinner. There was no concept of “drawing them near to the Torah” but rather to “leave it to them to [sin]… truckling to a depot.” Yet Hillel took the opposite approach. Hillel’s attitude was to “Love” the men of ill repute and draw them near to the Torah. This was also Yeshua’s approach.
Yeshua taught:
You have heard that it was said “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you persecute you that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
(Matthew 5:43-47)
Yeshua here begins by quoting the Tanak “Love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18) but then gives the Qumran corollary “hate your enemy.” Yeshua differs with this “hate your enemy” teaching in agreement with the love philosophy of Hillel. Apparently the Qumran community inferred from “Love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18) that they should therefore bear unremitting hatred toward their enemies. To Yeshua (and presumably Hillel) the issue is the interpretation of “neighbor.” In his Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-36) Yeshua argues that we cannot be sure who our “neighbor” is, so in order to make sure we do not violate Leviticus 19:18 we should love everyone.
Another strong parallel between Hillel and Yeshua is that of the so called “Golden Rule.” There is a story in the Talmud in which Hillel gives a summary of the Torah. The Talmud says:
…it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, “Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.” Thereupon he repulsed him with the builders cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him “Do not to others what you would not have them do to you: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.”
(b.Shab. 31a)
A similar incident occurs in the Gospels:
But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Yeshua said to him, ” ‘You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matthew 22:34-40 = Mark 12:28-31 = Luke 10:25-37)
Here Yeshua is pressed to summarize the Torah and answers with the Sh’ma (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) and the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). This is remarkably similar to Hillel’s answer to the same question. It is important to note that the Pharisees agreed that Yeshua’s answer was correct. Yeshua elsewhere gives a summary of the Torah which parallels Hillel’s answer even closer:
Whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even to them, for this is the Torah and the Prophets.
(Matthew 7:12 = Luke 6:31)
PAUL AND CHESED
Paul was also teaching a restoration of Chasidism when he writes:
Because all have sinned, and are found lacking of the glory of Eloah. And they are justified by favor (CHESED) freely, and by the salvation that is in Yeshua the Messiah…
(Romans 3:23-24)
And sin will not rule over you, for you are not, “Under the Law”, but under favor [CHESED]. What then, should we sin because we are not “Under the Law”, but under favor [CHESED]? Absolutely not!
(Romans 6:14)
When we were dead in our sins, He gave us Life with the Messiah: and by His favor [CHESED], He saved us…
(Ephesians 2:5)
Paul was professing the doctrine of Chasidism, that we do not observe the Torah as one trying to earn something (the “Under the Law” teaching) because we are under CHESED (grace, favor).
DEVEKUT
So if we do not observe Torah as one wishing to earn something, what is our motive? The Torah answers this question:
…you shall diligently keep all of these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave [DEVEKUT] unto him.
(Deuteronomy 11:22)
You shall walk after YHWH your Elohim, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him, and cleave [DEVEKUT] unto him.
(Deuteronomy 13:5 (13:4))
DEVEKUT means “communion” or “cleaving”. We must observe Torah as one cleaving to YHWH. The Hebrew word for “cleaving” is DEVEKUT. When we observe Torah it should not be an empty act, but an act of DEVEKUT, of cleaving or communion to YHWH.
When we observe Torah, it must not be an empty act of observance, or one simply aimed at earning something (even “Salvation”) but it must be an act of cleaving to YHWH. Torah observance with the right intent brings us more into attachment with YHWH.
In the Eighteenth Century Rabbi Yisroel (Israel) ben Eliezer (known as the Baal Shem Tov “Master of the Good Name”) began an effort to restore Chasidic Judaism within Rabbinic Judaism. He taught that Judaism must be centered not simply around doing the Torah, but around feeling the Torah.
In restoring the ancient Sect of the Nazarenes we are ourselves restoring true Chasidic Judaism. We can proudly proclaim Nazarene Judaism to be the true form of Chasidic Judaism!
Yeshua, the Besht and Hasidic Origins
By
James Scott Trimm
In my previous article Nazarene Judaism is True Chasidic Judaism , I covered the history of the original Chasidim (Hasidim) mentioned in the Book of the Maccabees, and even earlier in the Psalms, and showed that Nazarene Judaism of the First century sought to restore the principles of ancient Hasidic Judaism. At the end of that article I pointed out that the modern Rabbinic movement of Hasidic Judaism was also an attempt in Rabbinic Judaism to restore the principles of ancient Hasidic Judaism.
In this article I want to explore the many parallels between the Rabbinic restoration of Hasidic Judaism and that of the First century Nazarenes. I believe that these parallels are so strong as to point to the conclusion that many of the key figures in the restoration and progress of Hasidic Judaism, were in fact believers in Yeshua as Messiah, and may even have been called (whether they realized it or not) to slowly guide Judaism back to Messiah.
I want to explore how this information lays a foundation for both outreach to the Hasidic Jewish community, as well as a deeper understanding for seasoned believers in the teachings of Yeshua and his Talmidim through an understanding of their Jewish roots.
This path may not be for everyone, but if you seek a better understanding of the deep things of YHWH, as well a common ground for outreach to Rabbinic Hasidic Jews, this path may be for you.
Is Nazarene Hasidic Judaism the new defining path of the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim? Absolutely not! It is only a path within the greater assembly, one that I personally have found enriching. If you feel the calling to follow this path, then the Nazarene Hasidic Movement Worldwide is here for you.
A Parallel Development
Both Nazarene Judaism and Rabbinic Hasidic Judaism grew out of similar social conditions. In both situations the Jewish people were dominated by foreign powers. Both followed the disappointments of the promises of false Messiahs. And both grew out of a time when the Jewish religious establishment had grown out of touch with the needs and concerns for the common Jew.
During the time of the rise of the ancient sect of Nazarene Judaism the Roman Empire ruled the Land of Israel as well as most of the “Known World” with an iron fist. The House of Herod was hated as an obvious puppet of Rome and the people were greatly oppressed and longed for freedom and independence.
It was in this atmosphere that a great Messianic anticipation grew, and false Messiahs arose only to leave the people disappointed and downtrodden:
36 For from before this time, Todah rose up, and said concerning his nefesh, that he was something great: and about four hundred men followed him. And he was killed, and those who followed him were scattered, and became like nothing.
37 And Y’hudah HaGalili rose up after him, in the days that men were registered for the poll tax, and caused many people to turn after him. And he died, and all those who followed him, were scattered.
(Acts 5:36-37 HRV)
This demoralization of the Jewish people was compounded by a widespread feeling that the religious establishment had lost touch with the concerns of the common people. The Sadducees were deeply in league with the nobles, the Pharisees were concentrating on halachic details, and the Essenes were reclusive and isolated from the common man. The people were hungry for restoration.
Some 1,700 years later in Poland an amazingly parallel situation arose. Like the ancient Nazarene sect of Judaism, the Rabbinic restoration of Chassidic Judaism flourished in the face of oppression:
…the social and economic circumstances of Polish Jewery were deplorable. Jews were the target of religious incitement by the Catholic church; secular authorities imposed onerous taxes. Pogroms were frequent; the ritual murder charge was promoted to arouse the peasantry against Jewish communities; opportunity for general education was almost non-existent, and the morale of Polish Jewry was at its lowest ebb.
(The Hasidic Anthology; Newman, Louis, 1934; p. lxi)
Like the Jews of the Second Temple Era, these Jews cried out for a Messiah to deliver them. At about that time arose a false Messiah Shabbatai Tzvi, who restored a sense of pride among the Jewish people. He was claimed by many to be the Messiah until 1666 when he converted to Islam in order to save his own skin. Jacob Frank was there to pick up the pieces, but his movement quickly degenerated:
…In the darkness of night and behind closed doors and windows they held their meetings, and sought by means of song and dance, not without erotic accompaniments, to arouse themselves to that orgiastic, ecstatic state which they believed was necessary preliminary for all religious fervor.
(Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 391, 1948)
The Messianic hopes of these false Messiah’s left the Jewish people with shattered promises and broken hopes. Rabbinic Judaism was in crisis. And while the people needed a new hope, the religious establishment concentrated on debating the fine points of halacha. As Martin Buber observed hese scholars treated the “ignorant” masses with contempt. (The Origin and Meaning of Hasidim, 1960 p. 60). One Chasidic saying of the time observed:
The pious Mitnagdim [anti-Hassidim] are afraid of transgressing against the Code of Torah, but the Hasidim are in fear of transgressing against Elohim.
(Ideas and Ideals of the Hassidim; Dr. Aron Milton, 1969, p. 14)
The ancient sect of the Nazarenes also sought to demystify the mystical teachings of Judaism (which in those days were kept in secrecy among the Essenes) by bringing these mystical teachings to the common people (1Cor. 1-2, 12). The Hasidic movement of the seventeenth century also sought to demystify these same basic teachings which had come to be known as “Kabbalah”.
Yeshua and the BESHT
There are also many parallels between Yeshua, the founder of Nazarene Judaism (a restoration of ancient Chasidic Judaism) and the Besht (Rabbi Yisroel ben Eliezer known as the Ba’al Shem Tov (Master of the Good Name), the founder of modern Rabbinic Chaddidism. Both were especially drawn to the poor and needy. Both dedicated their lives to the well being of the Jewish people. Both administered healing with compassion to the downtrodden. And while neither of these men wrote a word of their own, their followers after their deaths recorded their words and deeds.
The Shivchei HaBesht records the words and deeds of the Besht, just as the gospels record the words and deeds of Yeshua. Both record claims of miracles performed by their respective subjects and both were written about fourty-five years after their subjects death. While the book of Hebrews makes the claim that Yeshua never sinned (Heb. 4:15) the followers of the Besht ultimately made the same claim about him (Tales of the Hasidim: The Early Masters; Martin Buber, 1947 p. 35).
Yeshua began his ministry at about the age of thirty (Luke 3:23). The Besht began teaching while in his thirties.
Ha Satan came to earth and sought to prevent Yeshua from succeeding in his work:
3 And the tempter came; he said to Him, If you are the Son of Elohim, say that these stones be made bread.
4 And Yeshua answered and said: It is written, For not by bread alone will man live, but by everything that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH, will man live.
5 Then HaSatan took Him up to the Set-Apart city, and set Him on a turret of the temple,
6 And said to Him, If you are the Son of Elohim, drop yourself down. For surely it is written, For He will give His angels charge concerning you, to keep you in all your ways; upon the palms of their hands they will bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.
7 And Yeshua answered him and said: It is also written, You shall not tempt YHWH your Elohim.
8 And again HaSatan took Him up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all: from the kingdoms of the world, and their glory.
9 And said to Him, All these will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me.
10 Then said Yeshua to him: Get yourself gone, adversary, for it is written,
YHWH your Elohim you shall worship, and Him alone you shall serve.
11 Then HaSatan left Him: and behold, angels drew near and attended Him.
(Matt. 4:3-11 HRV)
Interestingly there is a traditions concerning the Besht which claims that HaSatan came to earth seeking to interfere in his mission as well:
The hours when the hosts of Heaven gathered to listen to the voices of mortals, were hours of grace. But Satan was there too. He knew very well that what was in the making down there [on earth] would threaten his power on earth. So he entered into the body of a sorcerer who could change himself into a werewolf.
Once when Israel [the Besht] was walking through the woods and singing with the little ones in his care, the monster fell on them, and the children screamed and scattered in all directions. Some of them fell ill from the shock and the parents decided to put a stop the the young school assistant [the Besht]. But he remembered what his father had said as he lay dying, went from house to house, promised the people to protect their children, and succeeded in persuading them to entrust them to him once more. The next time he shepherded them through the wood, he took a sound stick with him and when the werewolf attacked again, he struck him between the eyes, so that he was killed on the instant. The following day they found the sorcerer dead in his bed.
(Tales of the Hasidim: The Early Masters; Martin Buber, 1947 p. 36-37).
In another parallel, Yeshua was known to associate with sinners:
10 And it came to pass, as they sat down to eat in the house, behold, many transgressors and sinners came in, and ate with Yeshua and His talmidim.
11 And the P’rushim, seeing, they said to His talmidim, Why does your teacher eat with transgressors and sinners?
12 But when Yeshua heard, He answered, saying:
There is no need of a physician to heal the healthy,
but to heal them that are sick.
13 Therefore, go you and learn what is written:
I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,
for I have not come to call the righteous,
but the sinners.
(Matt. 9:10-13 HRV)
And Yeshua also stood against those who dismissed the common man:
9 And He spoke this saying against the men who were confident concerning their nefeshot–that they were righteous, and were despising everyone.
10 Two men went up to the Temple to pray: one a Parush, and the other a publican.
11 And that Parush was standing with his nefesh and thus praying, Eloah, I thank you that I am not like the rest of mankind: extortioners, and covetous, and adulterers, and not like this publican.
12 On the contrary, I fast twice in a week, and I tithe everything that I own.
13 But that publican was standing from afar, and did not even want to raise his eyes to heaven: but was beating upon his breast and saying, Eloah: have mercy on me, a sinner!
14 I say to you that this [publican] went down to his house more justified, than that Parush: for everyone who raises his nefesh up will be humbled, and everyone who humbles his nefesh, will be raised up.
(Luke 18:9-14 HRV)
The Besht taught very similar views:
I let sinners come close to me, if they are not proud. I keep the scholars and the sinless away from me if they are proud. For the sinner who knows that he is a sinner, and therefore considers himself base—God is with him, for He ‘dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleanness.’ But concerning him who prides himself on the fact that he is unburdened by sin, God says, as we know from the Gemara: ‘There is not enough room in the world for myself and him.’
(Tales of the Hasidim: The Early Masters; Martin Buber, 1947 p. 71-72).
Yeshua was once asked concerning fasting:
14 Then approached Him the talmidim of Yochanan, saying, Why [do we] and the P’rushim fast often, but Your talmidim fast not?
15 And Yeshua said unto them:
Can the sons of the bridegroom cry, as long as they have the
bridegroom with them? But the days will come, when the
bridegroom will be taken from them, and then will they fast.
(Matt. 9:14-15 HRV)
Similarly we read of that the Besht was asked:
What is the essence of the service? We know that in former times ‘men of deeds’ lived who fasted from one Sabbath to the next. But you have done away with this, for you said that whoever mortifies his flesh will have to render account as a sinner, because he has tormented his soul. So do tell us: what is the essence of service?
The Ba’al Shem Tov replied: ‘I have come into this world to point another way, namely that man should try to attain to three loves: the love of Elohim, the love of Israel, and the love of the Torah—it is not necessary to mortify the flesh.
(Tales of the Hasidim: The Early Masters; Martin Buber, 1947 p. 52)
Yeshua emphasized joy in our lives:
These things I have spoken to you that My joy might be in you,
and [that] your joy might be perfect.
(Yochanan 15:11 HRV)
Likewise the Besht said:
No child can be born except through pleasure and joy.
By the same token, if one wishes his prayers to bear fruit,
he must offer them with pleasure and joy.
(The Hasidic Anthology; Newman, Louis, 1934; p. 203)
Yeshua emphasized loving ones neighbor and judging him by the same standards by which you judge yourself:
34 But when the P’rushim heard that He had silenced the Tz’dukim, they took counsel together.
35 And one of them, which was a doctor of the Torah,616 asked Him, and tested Him, and said to Him,
36 Rabbi, which is the greatest commandment in the Torah?
37 And Yeshua answered him, and said: You shall love YHWH your Elohim: with all your heart, and with all your nefesh, and with all your might.
38 This, is the greatest commandment in the whole Torah.
39 And this is the first, but the second is like it: And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the Torah and the Prophets.
(Mt. 22:34-40)
1 Judge not, and you will not be judged: condemn not, and you will not be
condemned.
2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged: and with what measure you mete, it will be measured to you again.
3 And how [do] you see the splinter in your brother’s eye, but see not the beam that is in your own eye?
4 And how [do] you say to your brother, Suffer it now brother,d so that I may pull out the splinter out of your eye: and behold, a beam is in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite! Pull out at the first, the beam from your own eye: and then you will be able to see, to pull out the splinter out of your brother’s eye.
12 Therefore whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the Torah and the Prophets.
(Mt. 7:1-5, 12)
The Besht likewise said:
It lies upon you to love your comrade as one like yourself. And who knows as you do your many defects? As you are nonetheless able to love yourself, so love your fellow no matter how many defects you may see in him.
(The Ba`al Shem Tov’s Instruction in Intercourse with God, translated by Martin Buber (English transl. by Maurice Friedman) in Buber’s Hasidism and Modern Man:] 244)
Yeshua was known for having a special love for children:
13 Then were brought to Him children, that He should lay hands on them and pray, but His talmidim rebuked them.
14 And Yeshua said: Allow the children, and hinder them not from coming to Me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Matt. 19:13-14 HRV)
Likewise of the Besht’s students said of him:
I wish people would kiss the Holy Torah in the same manner the Besht used to kiss the children when he gathered them to bring them to their studies.
(Ideas and Ideals of the Hassidim; Dr. Aron Milton, 1969, p. 32)
In fact just as Yeshua was resurrected, many of the the followers of the Besht came to claim concerning him:
…those whom he had bidden attend to his body and his burial,
said they had seen the Ba’al Shem’s soul ascend as a blue flame.
(Tales of the Hasidim: The Early Masters; Martin Buber, 1947 p. 84)
Of course there are also serious differences between Yeshua and the Besht. Yeshua was, of course the Messiah, while the Besht made no such claim. And of course some of these claims about the Besht may well more rooted in legend than in reality (such as claims that he was sinless).
In restoring the ancient Sect of the Nazarenes we are ourselves restoring true Chasidic Judaism, and so there should be no surprise to see many parallels between Nazarene Judaism and Rabbinic Chasidic Judaism. Both are sects of Judaism seeking to restore the original Chasidim.
Yeshua Taught Chabad Before Chabad
By
James Scott Trimm
Yeshua said:
“He who seeks will not cease till he finds,
and having found he will be amazed,
and having been amazed he will reign,
and having reigned he will rest.”
-Yeshua the Messiah
(The Gospel according to the Hebrews 7:9)
(The Gospel according to the Hebrews is a lost apocryphal Gospel once used by the ancient sect of the Nazarenes.)
How are we to understand “He who seeks”?
By this we are to understand he who seeks the wisdom of the Torah, for seeking is wisdom.
And how are we to understand “having found”?
The one who finds is he who understands the Torah, for having sought the wisdom of Torah he finds understanding of Torah.
And how are we to understand “having been amazed”?
The amazement is in the knowledge of Torah, for seeking the wisdom of Torah and finding the understanding of Torah one is amazed through the knowledge of Torah.
And how are we to understand “having reigned”?
By this we are to understand the faith that comes from knowledge for he reigns over his evil inclination through this faith.
And how are we to understand “rest”?
By this we are to understand the joy that is brought forth in our hearts through faith when we rule over our evil inclination.
This is the very same progression which is taught in the Tanya. (The Tanya is a book written by the first Rebbe of the Chabad movement, laying out an intellectual basis for Hasidic Judaism.) Yeshua was teaching Tanya centuries before the Tanya was even written.
Breslov, Chabad and Yeshua
By
James Scott Trimm
Within Hasidism there seem to be two primary currents. One current is strongly emotionally driven and as typified by the teaching of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov, the founder of Breslov Hasidism. The other is more intellectually driven and typified by the teaching of Rebbe Zalman, the founder of the Chabad movement. There are many other sects and schools of Hasidism in Rabbinic Judaism, but I believe these two currents best typify the overall thinking of Hasidism in Rabbinic Judaism.
Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
Rebbe Nachman was the grand son of the Ba’al Shem Tov. His teachings emphasized the importance of love and joy in spiritual life. His teaching is typified in his saying:
Always remember:
Joy is not merely incidental to your spiritual quest.
It is vital!
Yeshua also emphasized the importance of joy:
These things have I spoken unto you,
that my joy might remain in you,
and that your joy might be full
(Jn. 15:11)
And now come I to you;
and these things I speak in the world,
that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
(Jn. 17:13)
Rebbe Nachman stressed a personal and intimate relationship with Elohim, saying:
How very good it is, when you can awaken your heart
and plead until tears stream from your eyes,
and you stand like a little child crying before its Father.
Likewise Yeshua said:
And said, Verily I say unto you,
Except you be converted, and become as little children,
you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(Matt. 18:3)
Rebbe Nachman taught:
Answer insult with silence.
When someone hurts you,
do not answer in kind.
You will then be worthy
of genuine honor–
honor that is inner honor,
honor from Above.
(Rebbe Nachman of Breslov; L.M. I:6)
Likewise Yeshua said:
…if one would smite you on the right
cheek, turn unto him the other.
(Matthew 6:39 HRV)
Of course it is easy to see the obvious parallels between Yeshua’s teaching and that of Rebbe Nachman.
Rebbe Zalman, Chabad and the Tanya
Rebbe Zalman was a student of one of the Ba’al Shem Tov’s greatest students. Those opposed to the Hasidic movement in Rabbinic Judaism criticized it as irrational, just pumped up emotional hype. Rebbe Zalman responded to this criticism with his monumental work, The Tanya.
The Tanya became the basis for a Hasidic movement called Chabad, taken from a acronym for the Hebrew words for Widsom, Understanding and Knowledge.
The Tanya teaches that each Jew has within him a second soul called a “Soul of Elohim”. Some have misunderstood this as some form of racism, but in fact in the Tanya, a Jew is not a racial term, but a term for one who follows the faith of Judaism. This concept actually parallels the Christian teaching that a Christian has a second Spirit called the Holy Spirit within them. It also parallels that same teaching in the Ketuvim Netzarim.
The Tanya refers back to the concept of the Three Pillars of the Godhead as found in the Zohar, and says that the two outer pillars of Wisdom and Understanding are brought together through Knowledge, just as Adam and Eve were brought together through knowing one another and produced offspring (Gen. 4:1), likewise Wisdom and Understanding as Father and Mother/Holy Spirit within us, come together in Knowledge which is the Middle Pillar of the Godhead and is the Son of Yah. The Tanya teaches that when the Tanak refer to Israel as Elohim’s son, it is because Israel has this Son of Yah within them, and it is this Son of Yah within us that brings forth seven emotions, and the Hasidic Joy.
Thus Zalman taught that Hasidic Joy flows from Wisdom, Understanding and Knowledge as the Son of Yah indwells us!
The parallels between the teaching of the Tanya and those of the Ketuvim Netzarim (the Writings of the Nazarenes) are uncanny!
And in the very abbreviated material above, I have only scratched the surface!
Conclusion
The many parallels between the teaching of Hasidism and that of Yeshua and the Ketuvim Netzarim (The writings of the Nazarenes, commonly known as the “New Testament”) are far beyond coincidence.
In restoring the ancient Sect of the Nazarenes we are ourselves restoring true Chasidic Judaism, and so there should be no surprise to see many parallels between Nazarene Judaism and Rabbinic Chasidic Judaism. Both are sects of Judaism seeking to restore the original Chasidim.
Judaism vs. Christianity
The Two Inclinations
By
James Scott Trimm
When we look at the basic emphasis of Judaism* and of Christianity, we find that there is a core difference at their very root. This core difference is closely tied to the two inclinations within man, the Yetzer Ra (the evil inclination) and the Yetzer Tov (the good inclination).
R. Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded:
What is meant by the text, Then the Lord God
formed [va-yetzer] man? [The word va-yetzer] (Gen. 2:7)
is written with two yods, to show that God created
two inclinations, one good (tov) and the other evil (ra).
(b.Ber. 61a)
It has been taught: R. Jose the Galilean says,
The righteous are swayed by their good inclination,
as it says, My heart is slain within me. (Ps. 109:22)
The wicked are swayed by their evil inclination,
as it says, Transgression speaks to the wicked,
methinks, there is no fear of God before his eyes.
(Ps. 36:1) Average people are swayed by both
inclinations, as it says, Because He stands at
the right hand of the needy, to save him from them
that judge his soul. (Ps. 109:31) Raba said: People
such as we are of the average.
(b.Ber. 61b)
Likewise we read in the Wisdom of Ben Sira:
It was He who created man in the beginning.
And He left him in the power of his own inclination (Heb: yetzer).
If you will, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
He has placed before you fire and water:
Stretch out your hand for whichever you wish.
(Sira 15:14-16)
Paul writes of the two inclinations as well saying:
14 For we know that the Torah is of the spirit,
but I am of the flesh and I am sold to sin.
22 For I rejoice in the Torah of Eloah in the inward son of man.
(Romans 7:14, 22 HRV)
Because of this, we are not weary, for even if our
outer man is corrupted, yet that which [is] inside
is renewed day by day.
(2Cor. 4:16 HRV)
for the flesh desires a thing which is opposed to
the Spirit and the Spirit desires a thing that is
opposed to the flesh and the two of these are
opposed to each other, that you do not do the thing
which you desire.
(Gal. 5:17 HRV)
And as we read in Tanya:
Just as two kings wage war over a town,
which each wishes to capture and rule,
that is to say, to dominate its inhabitants according to his will,
so that they obey him in all that he decrees for them,
so do the two souls— the Divine and the vitalizing animal soul…
wage war against each other over the body and all its limbs.
(Tanya Chapter 9)
Now through our intellect, we receive the Wisdom of the Torah, and having heard the Wisdom of Torah we subject it to Understanding. When Wisdom (chochmah) is subjected to Understanding (binah) the result is Knowledge (da’at)… it is Knowledge that brings Wisdom and Understanding together. When we receive as Wisdom a precept of Torah, and that precept like a seed enters into Understanding then that precept becomes part of us as our Knowledge. As we read in the Tanya:
Specifically: the faculties of ChaBaD in his soul are clothed in the comprehension of the Torah, which he comprehends in Pardes, to the extent of his mental capacity and the supernal root of his soul.
(Tanya Chapter 4)
Now, when an intellect conceives and comprehends a concept with its intellectual faculties, this intellect grasps the concept and encompasses it. This concept is [in turn] grasped, enveloped and enclothed within that intellect which conceived and comprehended it.
The mind, for its part, is also clothed in the concept at the time it comprehends and grasps it with the intellect. For example, when a person understands and comprehends, fully and clearly, any halachah (law) in the Mishnah or Gemara, his intellect grasps and encompasses it and, at the same time, is clothed in it.
(Tanya Chapter 5)
And after a bit more we read:
Since, in the case of knowledge of the Torah, the Torah is clothed in the soul and intellect of a person, and is absorbed in them, it is called “bread” and “food” of the soul. For just as physical bread nourishes the body as it is absorbed internally, in his very inner self, where it is transformed into blood and flesh of his flesh, whereby he lives and exists— so, too, it is with the knowledge of the Torah and its comprehension by the soul of the person who studies it well, with a concentration of his intellect, until the Torah is absorbed by his intellect and is united with it and they become one. This becomes nourishment for the soul, and its inner life from the Giver of life, the blessed En Sof, Who is clothed in His wisdom and in His Torah that are [absorbed] in it [the soul].
This is the meaning of the verse, “Yea, Thy Torah is within my inward parts.”
It is also stated in Etz Chayim, Portal 44, ch. 3, that the “garments” of the soul in the Can Eden (Paradise) are the commandments while the Torah is the “food” for the souls which, during life on earth, had occupied themselves in the study of the Torah for its own sake. It is [similarly] written in the Zohar. As for the meaning of “For its own sake,” it is [study with the intent] to attach one’s soul to G-d through the comprehension of the Torah, each one according to his intellect, as explained in Peri Etz Chayim.
(Tanya Likutei Amarim 5)
And as we read in the Zohar:
Rabbi El’azar said, “Whoever engages in Torah for her own sake,
does not die by means of the Yetzer Ra (Evil Inclination),
since he grasps the Tree of Life, never letting go.”
(Zohar 1:168a)
This is the key. The basis of true Judaism is studying and observing Torah “for its own sake” as we read in the Mishna:
Antigones of Soko received [Torah] from Simeon the Righteous. He used to say, “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.”
(m.Avot 1:3)
The main basis of true Judaism is to study and observe Torah “for its own sake” out of the love and awe for Elohim that naturally results and unites us with Elohim. This does not mean that there is no reward, or that there is no afterlife, but it means that we are not motivated by that reward. So if we do not observe Torah as one wishing to earn something, what is our motive? The Torah answers this question:
…you shall diligently keep all of these commandments
which I command you, to do them, to love YHWH your Elohim,
to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him.
(Deut. 11:22)
You shall walk after YHWH your Elohim,
and fear him, and keep his commandments,
and obey his voice, and you shall serve him,
and cleave unto him.
(Deut. 13:5 (13:4))
We must observe Torah as one cleaving to YHWH. The Hebrew word for “cleaving” is DEVEKUT (DEVEKUS in Ashkenazi). When we observe Torah it should not be an empty act, but an act of DEVEKUT, of cleaving or communion to YHWH.
The motive of Devekus is a pure motive, “for its own sake” and this is true Judaism.
Christianity has a very different guiding motive. When I speak to Christians about Torah observance, their first question is “Do I have to do those things to be saved?” And if they are told that they do not have to do those things to be saved, then they are totally disinterested in them. In short, Christianity tends to be primarily interested in what they do or not have to do to obtain a reward. This is the complete opposite of Judaism.
This agrees well with what we read in the Tanya:
The explanation [of the questions raised above] is to be found in the light of what Rabbi Chayim Vital wrote in Sha’ar ha-Kedushah (and in Etz Chayim, Portal 50, ch. 2) that in every Jew, whether righteous or wicked, are two souls, as it is written, “The neshamot (souls) which I have made,” [alluding to] two souls. There is one soul which originates in the kelipah and sitra achra, and which is clothed in the blood of a human being, giving life to the body, as is written, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” From it stem all the evil characteristics deriving from the four evil elements which are contained in it. These are: anger and pride, which emanate from the element of Fire, the nature of which is to rise upwards; the appetite for pleasures— from the element of Water, for water makes to grow all kinds of enjoyment; frivolity and scoffing, boasting and idle talk from the element of Air; and sloth and melancholy— from the element of Earth. From this soul stem also the good characteristics which are to be found in the innate nature of all Israel, such as mercy and benevolence. For in the case of Israel, this soul of the kelipah is derived from kelipat nogah, which also contains good, as it originates in the esoteric “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.” The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever, as is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 49, ch. 3, that all the good that the nations do, is done from selfish motives. So the Gemara comments on the verse, “The kindness of the nations is sin,”— that all the charity and kindness done by the nations of the world is only for their own self-glorification, and so on.
(Tanya; Likutei Amarim 1)
The Tanya is telling us that even when the Goyim do good things, it is always with a selfish motive, and thus it originates from the Yetzer Ra, not the Yetzer Tov. So is it with Christianity, though Christians may at times do good deeds, their primary focus is on “being saved” which in their vocabulary is synonymous with having a reward in the afterlife. The primary focus on Christianity is a selfish motive, rooted in the Yetzer Ra, while the primary focus of true Judaism is to cleave to YHWH through studying and observing Torah “for its own sake” and is rooted in the Yetzer Tov.
I know this will be a controversial statement to some, but true Judaism is rooted in the Yetzer Tov but the focus of Christianity is rooted in the Yetzer Ra.
( * Though out this article I refer to “Judaism” and “true Judaism”- be aware that I see Nazarene Judaism as “true Judaism” – The Nazarenes being the original Jewish followers of Yeshua ),
Paul and the Zohar on Grace and Works
By
James Scott Trimm
Is man judged by his works or by grace [CHESED]? Is Elohim unjust in judging a man by his works? How do we resolve passages form the Tanak which tell us that Elohim judges each man according to his works?
You might find it interesting that Paul and the Zohar address these same questions, and give very similar answers:

5 But because of the hardness of your heart that does not repent, you lay up for yourself a treasure of wrath: for the day of wrath, and for the revelation of the righteous judgment of Eloah,6 Who recompenses to everyone, according to his works. (Psalm 62:13 (12); Prov. 24:12)
7 To those who in the patience of good works, seek glory, and honor, and immortality: He gives to them, eternal life.
8 But [to] those who resist, and do not obey the truth, but obey iniquity: He will recompense wrath, and fury,…
5 … Is Eloah unrighteous who brings to pass His wrath? I speak as a son of man.
6 Absolutely not! If so, how will Eloah judge the world?…
23 Because all have sinned, and are found lacking of the glory of Eloah.
24 And they are justified by favor (CHESED) freely, and by the salvation that is in Yeshua the Messiah…
(Romans 2:5-8; 3:5-6, 23-24) R. Hiya discoursed on the text: Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: Far be it from Elohim that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty that he should commit iniquity. For the work of man will he requite unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways (Job 34:10-11). ‘Elohim,’ he said, ‘in creating the world, meant it to be based on justice, and all that is done in the world would be weighed in the scales of justice, were it not that, to save the world from perishing, Elohim screened it with mercy [CHESED], which tempers pure justice and prevents it from destroying the world. The world is thus governed in mercy [CHESED] and thereby is able to endure.(Zohar 1:180b) 
Paul and the Zohar are singing the same song, both are teaching CHEDED-ISM.
A Torah that Unites with my Mind:
Paul and Tanya Sing the Same Song
By
James Scott Trimm
Romans 7:21 is a perfect example of a passage in which the original Aramaic makes Paul’s meaning clear, while the Greek translator totally lost Paul’s meaning.
The Greek text reads:
Εὑρίσκω ἄρα τὸν νόμον
τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν,
ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται.
Which the KJV translates:
I find then a law, that,
when I would do good,
evil is present with me.
(Rom. 7:21 KJV)
However the original Aramaic (as we read in the Peshitta) actually reads:
משכח אנא הכיל לנמוסא דשלם לרעיני
הו דצבא דנעבד טבתא
מטל דבישתא קריבא הי לי
Which I have translated in the Hebraic Roots Version:
I find, therefore, a Torah that unites with my mind,
which desires to do good,
whereas evil is near to me.
(Rom. 7:21 HRV)
The Greek translator omitted the words דשלם לרעיני “that unites with my mind” and in doing so, misses Paul’s meaning.
In the Aramaic Paul is teaching the same teaching we find in the Tanya (but centuries before the Tanya was written). As we read in Tanya:
For, when a person actively fulfils all the precepts which require physical action, and with his power of speech he occupies himself in expounding all the 613 commandments and their practical application, and with his power of thought he comprehends all that is comprehensible to him in the Pardes of the Torah— then the totality of the 613 “organs” of his soul are clothed in the 613 Commandments of the Torah.
Specifically: the faculties of ChaBaD (Wisdom, Understanding and Knowledge) in his soul are clothed in the comprehension of the Torah, which he comprehends in Pardes, to the extent of his mental capacity and the supernal root of his soul. And the middot, namely fear and love, together with their offshoots and ramifications, are clothed in the fulfilment of the commandments in deed and in word, namely, in the study of Torah which is “The equivalent of all the commandments.” For love is the root of all the 248 positive commands, all originating in it and having no true foundation without it, inasmuch as he who fulfils them in truth, truly loves the name of G-d and desires to cleave to Him in truth; for one cannot truly cleave to Him except through the fulfilment of the 248 commandments which are the 248 “Organs of the King,” as it were, as is explained elsewhere; whilst fear is the root of the 365 prohibitive commands, fearing to rebel against the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He; or a still deeper fear than this— when he feels ashamed in the presence of the Divine greatness to rebel against His glory and do what is evil in His eyes, namely, any of the abominable things hated by G-d, which are the kelipot and sitra achra, which draw their nurture from man below and have their hold in him through the 365 prohibitive commands [that he violates].
(Tanya Likutei Amarim Chapter 4)
Now, when an intellect conceives and comprehends a concept with its intellectual faculties, this intellect grasps the concept and encompasses it. This concept is [in turn] grasped, enveloped and enclothed within that intellect which conceived and comprehended it.
The mind, for its part, is also clothed in the concept at the time it comprehends and grasps it with the intellect. For example, when a person understands and comprehends, fully and clearly, any halachah (law)…, his intellect grasps and encompasses it and, at the same time, is clothed in it. Consequently, as the particular halachah is the wisdom and will of G-d, … when a person knows and comprehends with his intellect such a verdict in accordance with the law … he has thus comprehended, grasped and encompassed with his intellect the will and wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, Whom no thought can grasp, nor His will and wisdom, except when they are clothed in the laws that have been set out for us. [Simultaneously] the intellect is also clothed in them [the Divine will and wisdom].
This is a wonderful union, like which there is none other, and which has no parallel anywhere in the material world, whereby complete oneness and unity, from every side and angle, could be attained.
Hence the special superiority, infinitely great and wonderful, that is in the commandment of knowing the Torah and comprehending it, over all the commandments involving action, and even those relating to speech, and even the commandment to study the Torah, which is fulfilled through speech. For, through all the commandments involving speech or action, the Holy One, blessed be He, clothes the soul and envelops it from head to foot with the Divine light. However, with regard to knowledge of the Torah, apart from the fact that the intellect is clothed in Divine wisdom, this Divine wisdom is also contained in it, to the extent that his intellect comprehends, grasps and encompasses, as much as it is able so to do, of the knowledge of the Torah, every man according to his intellect, his knowledgeable capacity, and his comprehension in Pardes.
Since, in the case of knowledge of the Torah, the Torah is clothed in the soul and intellect of a person, and is absorbed in them, it is called “bread” and “food” of the soul. For just as physical bread nourishes the body as it is absorbed internally, in his very inner self, where it is transformed into blood and flesh of his flesh, whereby he lives and exists— so, too, it is with the knowledge of the Torah and its comprehension by the soul of the person who studies it well, with a concentration of his intellect, until the Torah is absorbed by his intellect and is united with it and they become one. This becomes nourishment for the soul, and its inner life from the Giver of life, the blessed En Sof, Who is clothed in His wisdom and in His Torah that are [absorbed] in it [the soul].
This is the meaning of the verse, “Yea, Thy Torah is within my inward parts.”
(Tanya Likutei Amarim Chapter 5)
Channukah and the First Hasidim
By
James Scott Trimm
Did you know that the first Hasidim played a very important part in the Chabbukah story?
At this time of the apostasy leading to the Channukah story (175-140 BCE) many who wished to remain true to Torah escaped into the wilderness:
Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves
not to eat any unclean thing.
Wherefore the rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats,
and that they might not profane the holy covenant:
so then they died.
And there was very great wrath upon Israel….
Then many that sought after justice and judgment
went down into the wilderness, to dwell there:
(1Macc. 1:62-64; 2:29)
These refugees became know as the Hassidim:
Then came there unto him a company of Hassidim
who were mighty men of Israel,
even all such as were voluntarily devoted unto the law.
(1Macc. 2:42)
Those of the Jews that he called Hassidim,
whose captain is Judas Maccabeus, nourish war and are seditious,
and will not let the rest be in peace.
(2Macc. 14:6)
These Hasidim were led by a certain Antigones of Soko. The Mishnah says of him:
Antigones of Soko received [Torah] from Simeon the Righteous.
He used to say,
“Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages,
but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage –
and let the awe of Heaven be upon you.”
(m.Avot 1:3)
This was the core teaching of the Hasidim, and it became the core teaching of the 18th century restoration of Hasidic Judaism by the Ba’al Shem Tov.
Antigones of Soko’s brightest student was Yose ben Yozer (known also as Yose Qatnuta):
Yose ben Yozer… received it from them.
Yose ben Yozer used to say:
Let your house be a gathering place for sages.
And wallow in the dust of their feet.
And drink in their words with gusto.
(m.Avot 1:4)
Yose Ben Yozer was the last of the Hassidim:
When Rabbi Yose Qatnuta died, the Hasidim passed away.
And why was he called “Qatnuta”?
Because he was least of the Hasidim.
(m.Sotah 9:15)
Yose ben Yozer was said to be among the sixty Hasidim who, at the instigation of the high priest Alcimus, the son of his sister, were crucified by the Syrian general Bacchides in 161 BCE:
Then did there assemble unto Alcimus and Bacchides a company of scribes, to require justice.
Now the Hasidim were the first among the children of Israel that sought peace of them:
For said they, One that is a priest of the seed of Aaron is come with this army, and he will do us no wrong.
So he spake unto them, peaceably, and sware unto them, saying, we will procure the harm neither of you nor your friends.
Whereupon they believed him: howbeit he took of them threescore men, and slew them in one day, according to the words which he wrote,
(1Macc. 7:12-16)
The Midrash Rabba reports the following dialogue between Alcimus and Yose ben Yozer while he was on the way to execution:
Alcimus: “See the profit and honors that have fallen to my lot in consequence of what I have done, while you, for your obstinacy, have the misfortune to die as a criminal.”
Yose, quietly: “if such is the lot of those who anger Elohim, what shall be the lot of those who accomplish His will?”
Alcimus: “Is there any one who accomplished His will more than thou?”
Yose: “If this is the end of those who accomplish His will, what awaits those who anger Him?”
On this Alcimus was seized with remorse and committed suicide.
(Genesis Rabba 1:65)
Rebbe Zalman laid out the intellectual basis of the teaching of Hasidism in the 18th century in a book called the Tanya, which became the foundation for the Hasidic movement known as Chabad.
The Tanya teaches that each Jew actually has two souls (from the perspective of the Tanya a “Jew” is a believer, just as in a Christian book the term “Christian” would refer to a believer), One soul is the animal soul, which has only selfish motives, while the higher soul is a divine soul, and is actually a spark of Elohim Himself.
The animal soul tends to give heed to the evil inclination, while the divine soul tends to give heed to the good inclination.
The Tanya teaches that our goal is to reach a point where we are guided by the divine soul and do not give heed to the animal soul at all.
Moreover the Tanya teaches that if our motive in keeping Torah is at all selfish, such as a desire to earn something, or a desire to avoid a punishment, then ultimately that act is rooted in our animal soul and is not from a pure motive. Instead our Torah observance should be rooted in our divine soul, and be motivated only by a natural inclination to observe Torah simply from a love for and an awe of Elohim.
It is for this reason that the book of Maccabees says that the Hassidim “were voluntarily devoted unto the law” because their Torah observance was of their own free will, and not motivated by any inducement.
And this is the meaning of Antigones of Soko’s words:
“Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages,
but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage –
and let the awe of Heaven be upon you.”
(m.Avot 1:3)
Now there are actually four books of the Maccabees and these are each written on each of the four levels of understanding known as PaRDeS. PaRDeS is the Hebrew word for “paradise” and is an acronym (notarikon) for the words Pashat (literal); Remez (implied); Drash (allegorical or homiletical) and Sod (Hidden, Secret, Mystical).
The First Book of Maccabees gives the plain literal version of the story (Pashat).
The Second Book of Maccabees is written on the Remez level, giving the details only implied by the first book.
The Third Book of Maacabees is written on the Homiletical/Allegorical (Drash) level. This book actually has nothing to do with the Maccabees, but tells a story with a similar theme about another attempt to destroy the Jews that took place about fifty years earlier in Egypt.
But it is the Fourth Book of Maccabees that I want to discuss here. The Fourth Book is written on the Sod level, and it deals with the same general subject as the Tanya.
The Tanya teaches that by programming our minds with Torah, the intellect of a man’s divine soul allows him to subdue the seven emotions of his animal soul, allowing him to follow Elohim with a pure motive, set free from the selfish motives of his animal soul:
For when the intellect in the rational soul deeply contemplates and immerses itself exceedingly in the greatness of G-d, how He fills all worlds and encompasses all worlds, and in the presence of Whom everything is considered as nothing— there will be born and aroused in his mind and thought the emotion of awe for the Divine Majesty, to fear and be humble before His blessed greatness, which is without end or limit, and to have the dread of G-d in his heart. Next, his heart will glow with an intense love, like burning coals, with a passion, desire and longing, and a yearning soul, towards the greatness of the blessed En Sof. This constitutes the culminating passion of the soul, of which Scripture speaks, as “My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth,.. .” and “My soul thirsteth for G-d,…” and “My soul thirsteth for Thee….” This thirst is derived from the element of Fire, which is found in the divine soul. As students of natural science affirm, and so it is in Etz Chayim, the element of Fire is in the heart, whilst the source of [the element of] Water and moisture is in the brain, which is explained in Etz Chayim, Portal 50, to refer to the faculty of chochmah, called “The water of the divine soul.” The rest of the middot are all offshoots of fear and love and their derivations, as is explained elsewhere.
Similarly is it with the human soul, which is divided in two— sechel (intellect) and middot (emotional attributes). The intellect includes chochmah, binah and da at (ChaBaD), whilst the middot are love of G-d, dread and awe of Him, glorification of Him, and so forth. ChaBaD [the intellectual faculties] are called “mothers” and source of the middot, for the latter are “offspring” of the former.
The explanation of the matter is as follows:
The intellect of the rational soul, which is the faculty that conceives any thing, is given the appellation of chochmah—כ”ח מ”ה— the “potentiality” of “what is.” When one brings forth this power from the potential into the actual, that is, when [a person] cogitates with his intellect in order to understand a thing truly and profoundly as it evolves from the concept which he has conceived in his intellect, this is called binah. These [chochmah and binah] are the very “father” and “mother” which give birth to love of G-d, and awe and dread of Him.
(Tanya; Likutei Amarim; Chapter 3)(Tanya; Likutei Amarim; Chapter 3)
This is also the message of the Fourth Book of Maccabees. The Fourth Book tells us how many of the martyrs from the Hasidim of the Channukah story were able to endure their tortures and resist the temptation to recant their testimony even in the face of the most torturous deaths. According to this book, the Torah our minds allows our mind to have sovereignty over the seven emotions.
1:1 The word of philosophy that I am about to discuss before you:
If the true mind of shalom (peace) is sovereign to the fear of Elohim. I am an upright adviser to you, that you should pay earnest attention in philosophy.
1:2 For it is also necessary for all men to suffer, more especially these are steps to virtue.
1:3 For I bear a good report:
If the mind of balance is over the emotions that stand against temperance, showing that the mind of virtue rules over gluttony [and] over lust.
1:4 And it is not only over the walk, but also over the other emotions that hinder righteousness. It is shown to be sovereign, over fornication [and] evil and over other emotions that impede courage, over rage, and that a man be not soft before tribulation, and over fear.
1:13 The question therefore is this: If the mind is sovereign over emotion.
1:14 But you may ask: What is the mind? And what is emotion? And what are the kinds of emotion? And is the mind sovereign over all of them?
1:15 The mind therefore is thus: That in uprightness we choose the life of wisdom.
1:16 Now wisdom is knowledge of the hosts, of the Godhead, and of manhood and of their effects.
1:17 Now this is the discipline that is in the Torah, that through it also you learn of the Godhead greatly and of manhood to our advantage and obtaining favor.
1:18 Now the forms of wisdom are these: prudence, righteousness, [courage] and temperance.
1:19 Now the head of all of them is prudence because through it the mind rules over all emotions.
1:30 For reasoning is the leader of the virtues, but it is the sole ruler of the passions. Observe then first, through the very things which stand in the way of temperance, that reasoning is absolute ruler of the passions.
1:31 Now temperance consists of a command over the lusts.
1:32 But of the lusts, some belong to the soul, others to the body: and over each of these classes the reasoning appears to bear sway.
(4Macc. 1:4, 13-19, 30-32 HRV)
20 Of the passions, pleasure and pain are the two most comprehensive; and they also by nature refer to the soul.
21 And there are many attendant affections surrounding pleasure and pain.
22 Before pleasure is lust; and after pleasure, joy.
23 And before pain is fear; and after pain is sorrow.
24 Wrath is an affection, common to pleasure and to pain, if any one will pay attention when it comes upon him.
25 And there exists in pleasure a malicious disposition, which is the most multiform of all the affections.
26 In the soul it is arrogance, and love of money, and vain gloriousness, and contention, and faithlessness, and the evil eye .
27 In the body it is greediness and gormandizing, and solitary gluttony.
(4Macc. 1:20-27 HRV)
Let us learn to be like the Hasidim of the Channukah story. Let us internalize the Torah in the wisdom, understanding and knowledge of our divine soul, and overcome the selfish motives of our animal soul. Let us observe the Torah not as one seeking a reward, or wanting to avoid punishment, but from a natural inclination from the pure motive to serve Elohim. If we do this, when tribulation comes, we may be able to endure the suffering and emotions of our animal soul and follow Elohim with the pure motives of our divine soul.
The Torah and Our Joy in Messiah
(Part 1)
By
James Scott Trimm
We read in the Torah:
4 HEAR, O YISRA’EL: YHWH OUR ELOHIM, YHWH IS ONE.
5 And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
6 And these words which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.
7 And you shall teach them diligently unto your children: and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
8 And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.
9 And you shall write them upon the door posts of your house, and upon your gates.
(Deut. 6:4-9 HRV)
And:
Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
(Deut. 11:18 HRV)
But what does it really mean to have the Torah in our hearts?
The Messiah is the Torah
Just as the Tanak identifies the Torah as the Way (Deut. 9:12; 11:22-28; 30:15-16) the Truth (Ps. 119:142, 151) the Life (Deut. 32:46-47) the Light (Prov. 6:23; Ps. 119:105; Is. 8:20; 51:4) and the Word (Is. 1:10; 2:3) the Ketuvim Netzarim identifies Yeshua as the Messiah as the Way, the Truth, the Life (Jn. 14:6) the Light (Jn. 8:12; 1:4-5, 9; 3:19; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46; 14:6) and the Word (Jn. 1:1-3; 14-18; Rev. 19:13). Because the Messiah is the Torah itself incarnate which “appeared on earth and lived among men” (Baruch 3:29).
We read in the Book of Baruch:
29 Who has gone up into heaven, and taken her [wisdom]
and brought her down from the clouds?
30 Who has gone over the sea, and found her,
and will buy her for pure gold?
(Baruch 3:29-30)
This is a reference back to the Torah where we read:
9 And YHWH your Elohim will make you over-abundant in all the work of
your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle,
and in the fruit of your land, for good; for YHWH will again rejoice
over you for good, as He rejoiced over your fathers,
10 If you shall hearken to the voice of YHWH your Elohim, to keep His
commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the
Torah; if you turn unto YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, and with
all your soul.
11 For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not too
hard for you, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that you should say: `Who shall go up for us
to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may
do it?’
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should says: `Who shall go
over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it,
that we may do it?’
14 But the word if very near unto you, in your mouth, and in your
heart, that you may do it.
15 See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil,
16 In that I command you this day to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in
His ways, and to keep His commandments and His statues and His
ordinances; then you shall live and multiply, and YHWH your Elohim
shall bless you in the land where you go in to possess it.
(Deut. 30:9-16)
Then a few lines later Baruch writes:
37 Afterward she appeared upon earth and lived among men.
4:1 She is the book of the commandments of Elohim,
and the Torah that endures forever.
All who hold fast will live,
and those who forsake her fast will die.
(Baruch 3:29-30)
The Torah has long been recognized in Judaism as a living entity through which YHWH created the Heavens and the Earth. As we read in the Midrash Rabbah:
The Torah declares: ‘I was the working tool of the Holy One, blessed be He.’ In human practice, when a mortal king builds a palace, he builds it not with his own skill but with the skill of an architect. The architect moreover does not build it out of his head, but employs plans and diagrams to know how to arrange the chambers and the wicket doors. Thus Elohim consulted the Torah and created the world, while the Torah declares, IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED (I,1), BEGINNING referring to the Torah, as in the verse, YHWH made me as the beginning of His way (Prov. VIII, 22).
(Genesis Rabbah 1:5)
Let us now look at a passage of the Ketuvim Netzarim which Christians have totally misunderstood, Romans 10:4. It appears in the most Christian translations to say that “Christ is the end of the law”. The Aramaic word used for “end” here is SAKA. Back in 1893 when James Murdock S.T.D. (A Christian) translated the Aramaic Peshitta into English for the first time, he translated this word as “aim”. He noted the original Aramaic word in the margin and further defined it “end, scope, summary”. This Aramaic word is used in the Rabbinic literature to mean “number” “sum” or “total”. In the Babylonian Talmud this word is used as follows “…the SUM of pupils for a teacher in the primary class is twenty five” (b.Bat. 21a) The root verb for this Aramaic noun means “to calculate, count, sum up” or “to look out for, to hope for”.
With this Aramaic word, Paul is saying, not that the Messiah is the TERMINATION of the Torah, but that Messiah is the aim, goal, scope, summary, number, total and sum of the Torah! Paul is saying that the Messiah is the Torah. Messiah is the sum of the Torah.
Rom 10:5 then continues with:
For Moses thus wrote of the righteousness that is by the Torah that `he who does these will live by them.’
(Lev. 18:5)
Remember now, Paul has just said that the Messiah is the sum of the Torah, and now he is quoting the Torah to prove that “life” comes from the Torah.
Then in Rom. 10:6-8 Paul continues:
And of the righteousness that is by trust, he thus says: `Do not say in your heart: who has ascended to heaven’ (Deut. 30:12) and brought down the Messiah? `And who has descended’ to the depth of She’ol `and brought up’ (Deut. 13:13) the Messiah from among the dead? But what does it say? `The answer is near to you, to your mouth and to your heart,’ (Deut. 30:14) which is the word of trust that we proclaim”
Now Christian commentators have taken Paul to be contrasting “the righteousness that is by the Torah” (Rom. 10:5) with “the righteousness that is by faith” (Rom. 10:6) to prove that Messiah is the “end”/”termination” of the Law as stated in Rom. 10:4.
There are several problems with this interpretation.
To begin with, we have already shown that Paul’s point in Rom. 10:4 is not that Messiah is the termination of the law, but that Messiah is the goal and sum of the Torah.
Secondly Rom. 10:5 and Rom 10:6f both quote passages from the Torah to prove their points.
Thirdly, these commentators totally mangle the point Paul is making in Rom. 10:6-8.
When Paul was teaching the Bereans in Acts 17, we are told that they checked “the Scriptures” to see if what Paul said could be found there, and Paul said they were more noble than others he had taught, for doing this. Now the only Scriptures they had at the time were those of the Tanak (“Old Testament”) so Paul would look to the passages he cites from the Tanak to see that we are applying his words accurately as they are in the Tanak.
So lets be good Bereans and look at the portion of Torah Paul actually quotes in Rom. 10:6-8, see what it actually says in context, and see how Paul is using it. Paul is quoting from Deut. 30:12-14.
Now the first and most important point is that in Deut. 30:12-13 it is the Torah that we do not have to have brought down to us, but in Paul’s citations in Rom. 10:6-7 it is the “Messiah” who does not have to be brought down to us. Paul is applying his logic that Messiah is the sum of the Torah from Rom. 10:4 (thus reaffirming that we are
correct in our understanding of SAKA in Rom. 10:4).
In Baruch that which is brought down from heaven in Deut. 30:12-13 is personified Wisdom (compare 1Cor. 1:24 ) which is identified with an incarnation of the Torah itself having come down to earth to dwell with men.
Moreover, when Paul says “the answer is near to you, to your mouth, and to your heart, which is the word of trust that we proclaim” (Rom. 10:8) Deut. Says “But the WORD is very near unto you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it” (Deut. 30:14). So the “answer” and the “word of trust/faith” in Rom. 10:8 is the “word” in Deut. 30:14, but in Deut. 30:14 that “word” is CLEARLY the Torah! In other words Rom. 10:8 might be understood “the TORAH is near to you, to your mouth, and to your heart, which is the TORAH of trust/faith that we proclaim”.
Fourth, we find that Deut. 30:15-16 parallel the meaning of Lev. 18:5 so that we can see that Paul is citing these two passages together, not because he is contrasting them, but because they teach the same thing!
Finally if we look back to Rom. 10:6 which is quoting Deut. 30:12 and we look closely at the phrase Paul quotes “who shall go up for us to heaven” in the original Hebrew of Deut. 30:12, and if we take the first letter of each word to from a new word (this is a technique known as “Notarikon”) then we spell the Hebrew word MILAH (which can mean “word” or “circumcision”) and if we take the last letter of each word we find the name YHWH, so hidden and imbedded in this Hebrew phrase is the phrase “Word of YHWH”. Paul’s point is that both the Messiah and the Torah are the “Word of YHWH”.
The Messiah is YHWH
The opening of the Shema reads:
SH’MA YISRAEL YHWH ELOHEYNU YHWH ECHAD
“Hear O Israel, YHWH, our Elohim, YHWH is one (ECHAD)”
(Deut. 6:4)
Let us examine other passages in the Torah to understand how this word ECHAD (“one”) is used in the Torah:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and they shall become one [ECHAD] flesh.
(Gen. 2:24)
And YHWH said, “Indeed the people are one [ECHAD] and they
all have one language…
(Gen. 11:6)
Thus it is clear that the word ECHAD in no way requires a singularity and can refer to a composite unity.
Now let us to explore how this passage is understood by the Zohar:
The [profession of] unity that every day is [a profession of] unity
is to be understood and to be perceived. We have said in many places
that this prayer is a profession of Unity that is proclaimed:
”Hear O Yisrael, YHWH“ first, [then] “Eloheynu” [and] “YHWH” they are all One and thus He is called “One”.
Behold, these are three names, how can they be one? Is it because we call them one? (literally: And also concerning the proclamation that we call them one?). How these are one can only through the vision of the Holy Sprit be known. And these are through the vision of the closed eye (or the hidden eye) To make known that these three are one.
And this is the mystery of the voice that is heard. The voice is one. And is three GAUNIN: fire and air and water. And all these are one in the mystery of the voice.
And also here “YHWH, Eloheynu, YHWH” these are One. Three GAUNIN that are One. And this is the voice of the act of a son of man in [proclaiming] the Unity.
And to which he sees by the Unity of the “All” from Eyn Sof (the Inifinite One) to the end of the “All”. Because of the voice in which it is done, in these are three that are one.
And this is the [profession] of the daily profession of Unity that is revealed in the mystery of the Holy Spirit.
And there are many GAUNIN that are a Unity, and all of them are true, what the one does, that the other does, and what that one does, the other does.
(Zohar 2:43)
(The Aramaic word GA’UN (sing.)/GAUNIN (plural) comes from the word for “color” and refers to an “aspect, element, substance, essence”. )
Thus the Zohar understands the Sh’ma to mean that YHWH, Elohim and YHWH are three GA’UNIN. This section of the Zohar also recalls a reading from the Sefer Yetzirah:
Three “mothers”: Alef; Mem and Shin
Their foundation is a pan of merit
a pan of liability
and the tongue of decree deciding between them.
(Sefer Yetzirah 3:1)
Three “mothers”, Alef, Mem, Shin
in the universe are air, water, fire…
(Sefer Yetzirah 3:4a)
(Note: The letter SHIN has a gematria (numerical value) of 300 which is the same as the gematria of the phrase ”Ruach Elohim” (the Spirit of Elohim).)
As it we will demonstrate the “tongue of decree deciding between them” is the Middle Pillar of the Godhead which reconciles the two outer pillars of the Godhead.
The Zohar also calls these three GAUNIN the three pillars of the Godhead. The Zohar teaches that the two outer pillars are reconciled by the middle pillar just as the “tongue of decree” decides between the two pans of the scale in the Sefer Yetzirah. The Zohar reads as follows:
Why, it may be asked, was it necessary to repeat the word “light”
in this verse? The answer is that the first “light” refers to the
primordial light which is of the Right Hand, and is destined for
the “end of days”; while the second “light” refers to the Left Hand,
which issues from the Right.
The next words, “And God saw the light that it was good” (Gen. 1:4),
refer to the pillar which standing midway between them,
writes both sides, and therefore when the unity of the three,
right, left, and middle, was complete, “it was good”, since there
could be no completion until the third had appeared to remove
the strife between Right and Left, as it is written, “And God separated
between the light and between the darkness.” …
This is the Middle Pillar: Ki Tov (that it was good) threw light
above and below and on all other sides, in virtue of YHWH,
the name which embraces all sides.
(Zohar 1:16b)
The First Century Jewish Writer Philo says similarly that the Word reconciles the two sides:
…the Divine Word (Logos)…fills all things and becomes a mediator and arbitrator for the two sides….from the Divine Word (Logos), as from a spring, there divide and break forth two powers. One is the creative through which the Artificer placed and ordered all things. This is named “God”. And the royal, since through it the Creator rules over created things. This is called “Lord” And from these two powers have grown the others. For by the side of the creative power there grows the propitious of which is named “beneficial” while (besides) the royal the legislative, of which is aptly named “punitive”. And below these and beside them is the ark.”
(Philo on Q&A on Exodus, II.68)
According to the Zohar the Middle Pillar of the Godhead is the Son of Yah:
Better is a neighbor that is near, than a brother far off.
This neighbor is the Middle Pillar in the Godhead,
which is the Son of Yah.
(Zohar 2:115)
The Zohar also says of the Son of YHWH:
The Holy One, blessed be He, has a son, whose glory (tifret)
shines from one end of the world to another. He is a great
and mighty tree, whose head reaches heaven, and whose roots
are set in the holy ground, and his name is “Mispar” and his
place is in the uppermost heaven… as it is written, “The heavens
declare (me-SaPRim) the glory (tifret) of God” (Ps. 19:1).
Were it not for this “Mispar” there would be neither hosts
nor offspring in any of the worlds.
(Zohar 2:105a)
This Zohar passage is intended to recall a passage from the Bahir:
Why are they called Sephirot?
Because it is written (Ps. 19:2),
“The heavens declare (me-SaPRim) the glory (tifret) of God.”
(Bahir 125)
The Zohar also says concerning the Son of Yah:
“We may also translate “he who withholds blessings
from the Son” (Prov. 11:26), whom the Father and Mother
have CROWNED and blessed with many blessings,
and concerning whom they commanded, “Kiss the SON
lest he be angry” (Ps. 2:12), since he is invested
with judgment (GEVURAH) and with mercy (CHESED)”
(Zohar 3:191b)
According to the Zohar, the Middle Pillar of the Godhead is not only known as the “Son of Yah” but also as “Metatron”:
Better is a neighbor that is near, than a brother far off.
This neighbor is the Middle Pillar in the godhead,
which is the Son of Yah.
(Zohar 2:115)
The Middle Pillar is also known as “Metatron”:
The Middle Pillar [of the godhead] is Metatron,
Who has accomplished peace above,
According to the glorious state there.
(Zohar 3:227)
In the Zohar we are also told that Metatron is “the firstborn”:
“And Abraham said to his oldest servant of his house…” (Gen. 24:2) Who is this of whom it said “his servant?” In what sense must this be understood? Who is this servant? R. Nehori answered:
“It is in no other sense to be understood than expressed in the word “His servant,”
His servant, the servant of Elohim, the chief to His service. And who is he? Metatron, as said. He is appointed to glorify the bodies which are in the grave.
This is the meaning of the words “Abraham said to His servant” that is to the servant of Elohim. The servant is Metatron, the eldest of His [YHWH's] House, who is the firstborn of all creatures of Elohim, who is the ruler of all He has; because Elohim has committed to Him the government over all His hosts.
(Zohar 1:129b)
So in Judaism both Israel and “The Son of Yah” are identified as the “first-born Son of YHWH”.
According to the first century Jewish writer Philo, this firstborn Son of Elohim is also known as “The Word.”
Philo Writes of the Word (Logos):
For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son. The other is the rational soul, the priest of which is the real true man,
(On Dreams 215)
And if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, neverthless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his Firstborn Word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for He is called, “the Authority”, and “the Name of God”, and “the Word”, and “man according to God’s image”, and “He who sees Israel”. . . For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred Word; for the image of God is his most ancient word.
( On the Confusion of Tongues XXVIII:146-147)
Thus, indeed, being a shepherd is a good thing, so that it is justly attributed, not only to kings, and to wise men, and to souls who are perfectly purified, but also to God, the ruler of all things; and he who confirms this is not any ordinary person, but a prophet, whom it is good to believe, he namely who wrote the psalms; for he speaks thus, “The Lord is my shepherd, and he shall cause me to lack Nothing;” (Ps. 23:1.) and let every one in his turn say the same thing, for it is very becoming to every man who loves God to study such a song as this, but above all this world should sing it. For God, like a shepherd and a king, governs (as if they were a flock of sheep) the earth, and the water, and the air, and the fire, and all the plants, and living creatures that are in them, whether mortal or divine; and he regulates the nature of the heaven, and the periodical revolutions of the sun and moon, and the variations and harmonious movements of the other stars, ruling them according to law and justice; appointing, as their immediate superintendent, his own right reason, his first-born son, who is to receive the charge of this sacred company, as the lieutenant of the great king; for it is said somewhere, “Behold, I am he! I will send my messenger before thy face, who shall keep thee in the Road.”(Ex. 23:20.)
(On Husbandry 50-51)
The Targums were authoritative Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the Tanak which were read in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftorah readings. Whenever the Targums come to passages where YHWH is anthropomorphisised or seen, or where two or more YHWHs are indicated by the text, the Targums will often substitute “The Word [Memra] of YHWH” for YHWH. For example in Gen. 19:4 the Tanak has:
Then YHWH caused to rain upon S’dom and upon Amora,
brimstone and fire from YHWH, out of heaven.
The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one YHWH rains fire from another YHWH) But Targum Jonathan substitutes “The Word of YHWH/the LORD” for the first of the two YHWHs as follows:
And the Word of the YHWH caused to descend
upon the peoples of Sodom and Gommorah,
brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven.
In another example the Torah has:
Ex. 24:1a (YHWH is the speaker, see Ex. 20:1-2)
Now He [YHWH] said to Moses, “come up to YHWH…”
But Targum Jonathan paraphrases the speaker in Ex. 20:1 with the substitution “the Word [Memra] of YHWH” in place of “YHWH.”
And the Word of the Lord spoke all these glorious words…
So it would seem that one of these entities called “YHWH” in these Torah passages was actually understood by the Targumists as being the “Word of YHWH.” It was, according to Targum Onkelos, this Word of YHWH that Abraham trusted in:
And Abraham trusted in the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and He counted it to him for righteousness.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 15:6)
Moreover Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH:
And Abraham worshipped and prayed
in the name of the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and said, “You are YHWH who does see, but You cannot be seen.”
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 22:14)
Note that here Abraham prays “in the name of the Word of YHWH” to the YHWH who “cannot be seen.” Here two YHWHs are very apparent. Abraham is praying in the name of the Word of YHWH but is praying to the YHWH who cannot be seen. This idea is reinforced elsewhere as follows:
And Hagar praised and prayed
in the name of the Word [Memra] Of YHWH
who had revealed Himself to her…
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 16:3)
It was this Word of YHWH that Jacob also trusted in:
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying,
“If the Word [Memra] of YHWH will be my support,
and will keep me in the way that I go,
and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
so that I come again to my father’s house in peace;
then shall the Word [Memra]of YHWH be my God.
(Targum Onkelos on Gen. 28:20-21)
King David also urged Israel to trust in the Word of Yah as the Targum of Psalm 62 reads:
Trust in the Word of Yah at all times,
O people of the house of Israel!
Pour out before Him the sighings of your heart;
Say, God is our trust forever.
(Targum on Psalm 62:9)
This “Word of YHWH” was, according to Targum Jonathan, the Creator:
And the Word [Memra] of YHWH
created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)
This idea is also put forward in the Jerusalem Targum:
And the Word [Memra] of YHWH said to Moses:
“I am He who said unto the world ‘Be!’ and it was:
and who in the future shall say to it ‘Be!’ and it shall be.”
And He said: “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel:
‘I Am’ has sent me to you.”
(Jerusalem Targum Ex. 3:14)
The Fragmentary Targum of the Torah also expresses that the Word of YHWH was the Creator:
The first night, when the “Word of YHWH”
was revealed to the world in order to create it,
the world was desolate and void,
and darkness spread over the face of the abyss
and the “Word of the Lord” was bright and illuminating
and He called it the first night.
(Fragmentary Targum Ex. 12:42)
That the Word of YHWH was the Creator can also be seen in the Tanak itself:
By the Word of YHWH were the heavens made,
And all the hosts of them by the Spirit of His mouth.
(Ps. 33:6)
The Word was also the covenant maker. For example the Noachdic covenant was between the Word and all mankind:
And YHWH said to Noah,
“This is the token of the covenant
which I have established between My Word [Memra]
and between all flesh that is upon the earth.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 9:17)
The Word also made the Abrahamic covenant as Targum Onkelos also paraphrases:
And I will establish my covenant
between My Word [Memra] and between you…
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 17:7)
The Word of YHWH was also the giver of the Mosaic Covenant and the Torah as the Jerusalem Targum (as quoted above) makes the Torah giver “the Word of YHWH” in Ex. 20:1. It was to th e Word that Jacob turned to for salvation:
Our father Jacob said: “My soul does not wait for salvation
such as that wrought by Gideon, the son of Joash,
for that was but temporal; neither for a salvation
like that of Samson, which was only transitory;
but for that salvation which You have promised to come,
through Your Word unto Your people, the children of Israel;
for your salvation my soul hopes.”
(Targum Jonathan Gen. 49:18)
That the Word of YHWH is the savior is expressed elsewhere:
But Israel shall be saved by the Word of YHWH
with an everlasting salvation…
By the Word of YHWH shall all the seed of Israel be justified…
(Targum Jonathan Is. 45:17, 25)
But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah,
and I will save them by the Word of YHWH, their God.
(Targum Jonathan Hosea 1:7)
Furthermore Philo tells us that “The Word” (Logos) and the Messiah are one and the same:
“The head of all things is the eternal Word (Logos) of the eternal God, under which, as if it were his feet or other limbs, is placed the whole world, over which He passes and firmly stands. Now it is not because Messiah is Lord that He passes and sits over the whole world, for His seat with His Father and God but because for its perfect fullness the world is in need of the care and superintendence of the best ordered dispensation, and for its own complete piety, of the Divine Word (Logos), just as living creatures (need) a head, without which it is impossible to live.”
(Q&A on Exodus, II, 117)
(To be Continued in Part 2)
The Torah and our Joy in Messiah
(Part 2)
By
James Scott Trimm