The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh by Qadesh La Yahweh Press

The

Festivals

and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The

FESTIVALS

and SACRED DAYS OF YAHWEH

The

Festivals

and Sacred Days of Yahweh Volume One

A Scriptural Study by Qadesh La Yahweh Press

Fourth Edition 2022

Printed in the United States of America Fourth Edition No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission except in the case of brief quotations.

THIS BOOK IS NOT TO BE SOLD. Obtain the truth and do not sell wisdom, instruction, and understanding. (Proverbs, 23:23)

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 98-85161 ISBN: 0-9623638-6-3

Editorial Staff C. Runfola S. Guevarra P. Carey

Researched and written by R. Clover

Contents NOTE TO READER ............................................................................... xvii

Preliminary Discussion INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE VOLUMES .................................. The Debate ....................................................................................... Format for the Three Volumes ...................................................... VOLUME I Part I: Required Under Grace? ........................................... Part II: Phasekh and Shabuath: Background and Controversy ............................................................... VOLUME II Part I: The Authority for the Christian Transformation... Part II: Scriptural Definitions .............................................. Part III: Messiah’s Phasekh .................................................. VOLUME III Part I: The Sabbath, Seventh Month, and Prophetic Meanings ................................................... Part II: The New Moon and the New Year ........................

LAYING A FOUNDATION................................................................... Yahushua the Messiah .................................................................... The Term Christian ......................................................................... The Term jsp (Phasekh) ............................................................... Yahweh’s yd[wm (Moadi) ................................................................. A gj (Khag) ........................................................................................ A ˆwtbç (Sabbathon) ......................................................................... Different Observances .................................................................... Jew, Jews, and Jewish ..................................................................... Conclusion ........................................................................................

1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5

5 6 7 7 9 13 15 16 18 20 21 22

PART ONE

Required Under Grace? INTRODUCTION TO PART I ................................................................ 25 A twqj (Khoquth) ............................................................................. The Condemned Sacred Days ....................................................... The Dovgmasin (Dogmasin) Against Us ........................................... Obvious Flaws ................................................................................. The Task of Part I ............................................................................ vii

25 27 29 31 33

viii

Contents The Order ......................................................................................... 34

II.

THE INHERITANCE .............................................................................. 35 Heirs .................................................................................................. Granted to Abraham and the Messiah ........................................ The Legal Mechanism .................................................................... What Is the Inheritance? ................................................................ The Resurrection and Eternal Life ................................................ Conclusion ........................................................................................

III.

THE CONDITIONAL INHERITANCE ................................................. 47 Promised Inheritance Not Yet Received ...................................... Was the Land Already Received? ................................................. Behavioral Conditions .................................................................... Conditional Under Grace ............................................................... Conclusion ........................................................................................

IV.

71 73 75 77 81 82 84

THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN ............................................................... 85 Sin Defined ....................................................................................... Different Torahs ............................................................................... Sin from the Beginning .................................................................. Can We Sin Under Grace? .............................................................. Where is the Knowledge of Sin? ................................................... The Statutes of the Old Covenant ................................................ Sin More Sinful ................................................................................ Conclusion ........................................................................................

VII.

57 61 64 69

UNDER GRACE .................................................................................... 71 Grace ................................................................................................. Heirs by the Conditions of Grace ................................................. Death of the Testator ....................................................................... Sinless Sacrifice ................................................................................ Grace Manifested ............................................................................ Grace Revealed ................................................................................ Conclusion ........................................................................................

VI.

47 49 50 51 55

THE TORAH ......................................................................................... 57 An Augmentation ........................................................................... The Torah: A Series of Covenants ................................................. Dogmasin ........................................................................................... Conclusion ........................................................................................

35 37 39 41 44 45

85 87 88 91 92 94 96 99

ACTS OF JUSTIFICATION IN THE TORAH ...................................... 101 Trust and the Torah ......................................................................... 101 Acts of Justification Revealed ....................................................... 105 The Ruach .......................................................................................... 106 Trust Working Through Love......................................................... 108 Abraham: Our Example ................................................................. 111

Contents

ix Conclusion ........................................................................................ 113

VIII.

ARE THEY REQUIRED? ..................................................................... 115 Order of Prominence ...................................................................... 115 Two Sets of Requirements .............................................................. 116 Examples of this Principle ............................................................. 117 Before Mount Sinai ......................................................................... 120 Phasekh and Unleavened Bread Before Sinai ............................. 121 Moadi After Yahushua’s Death ...................................................... 125 Phasekh and Unleavened Bread .............................................. 126 Other Festivals and Sacred Days ............................................. 127 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 129

PART TWO

Phasekh and Shabuath: Background and Controversy PHASEKH AND UNLEAVENED BREAD: EXODUS, 12:3-20, AND 23:15 ........................................................ 133 SHABUATH (PENTECOST): LEVITICUS, 23:15 -17, 21, AND DEUTERONOMY, 16:9-10 ....... 135 INTRODUCTION TO PART II ............................................................. 137 The Task of Part II ........................................................................... 137 Section I: Different Jewish Schools .......................................... 137 Section II: Early Christian Schools ........................................... 138 Essential Christian Differences ..................................................... 139

IX.

WHAT ARE PHASEKH AND UNLEAVENED BREAD? ................. 141 The Covenant Meal ......................................................................... 141 Meaning of Phasekh ....................................................................... 142 Unleavened Bread ........................................................................... 146 The Story of Phasekh ...................................................................... 146 Easter Versus Phasekh .................................................................... 149 Eucharist and Communion ........................................................... 152 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 154

THE FESTIVAL OF SHABUATH (PENTECOST) ................................ 155 Pentecost ........................................................................................... 155 Three Aspects ................................................................................... 156 Day of the Omer Wave Offering ............................................... 157 The 50 Days ................................................................................. 160 The 50th Day ............................................................................... 161 Other Requirements ........................................................................ 163 Dependent on Phasekh .................................................................. 164 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 167

Contents SECTION I

Different Jewish Schools INTRODUCTION: SECTION I ............................................................. 173 The Jewish Factions ........................................................................ 173 Byn ha-Arabim .................................................................................. 174 One Correct View ............................................................................ 175 The Pentecost Debate ..................................................................... 177 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 178

XI.

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND ............................. 179 The Dark Period .............................................................................. 179 Historical Setting ............................................................................. 180 Political Turmoil .............................................................................. 182 Greek and Other Cultural Influence ............................................ 185 The Hasidim .................................................................................... 189 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 194

XII.

SADDUCEES VERSUS PHARISEES .................................................... 195 The Sadducees ................................................................................. 196 Sadducean Philosophical Approach ............................................ 198 The Pharisees ................................................................................... 200 Pharisaic Philosophical Approach ................................................ 203 Sadducees Versus Pharisees .......................................................... 204 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 208

XIII.

THE HASIDIC SYSTEM (SYSTEM B) ............................................... 209 Hasidic Roots ................................................................................... 209 Hasidic Interpretation .................................................................... 210 Scriptural Issues for the Hasidim ................................................. 211 Ancient Records .............................................................................. 214 The Book of Jubilees .................................................................. 214 Philo .............................................................................................. 215 Josephus ....................................................................................... 219 Mishnah ....................................................................................... 221 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 222

XIV.

THE ARISTOCRATIC SYSTEM (SYSTEM A) .................................... 223 Aristocratic Interpretation ............................................................. 223 Issues for the Aristocratic View .................................................... 225 Early Aristocratic View .................................................................. 227 The Ancient Samaritans ................................................................. 228 Ancient Samaritan Understanding ............................................... 230 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 232

Contents

XV.

THE NEO-ARISTOCRATIC SYSTEM (SYSTEM C) ......................... 235 Sadducean Influence ....................................................................... 235 The Karaites ..................................................................................... 237 The Phasekh of the Karaites ..................................................... 238 The Samaritans ................................................................................ 240 Different Samaritan Sects .......................................................... 241 The Neo-Samaritan Phasekh .................................................... 243 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 244

XVI.

COUNTING SHABUATH (PENTECOST) ........................................... 245 Four Approaches ............................................................................. 245 Aristocratic Pentecost System .................................................. 247 Pharisaic Pentecost System ....................................................... 250 The Oldest System .......................................................................... 252 The Triumph of the Pharisees ....................................................... 254 Day of the Sinai Covenant ............................................................. 256 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 258

SECTION II

Early Christian Schools INTRODUCTION: SECTION II ............................................................ 265 The Christian Systems .................................................................... 266 A Common Foundation ................................................................. 270 The Last Supper: Abib 14 .......................................................... 271 Seven Days of Unleavened Bread ................................................ 272 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 273

XVII. THE QUARTODECIMANS AND QUASI-QUARTODECIMANS ....... 275 Keepers of the 14th ......................................................................... 275 The Original Christian View ......................................................... 277 Phasekh Supper on the 14th .......................................................... 279 No Animal Sacrifice ........................................................................ 283 According to Messiah and Scriptures .......................................... 285 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 288

XVIII. THE SEVEN DAYS OF THE QUARTODECIMANS AND QUASI-QUARTODECIMANS ............................................................... 289 The Quartodeciman High Sabbath ............................................... 289 The Early Western View ................................................................. 292 The Seven Days ............................................................................... 293 Common Apostolic Source ............................................................ 295 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 296

xii

XIX.

Contents

MORE EVIDENCE OF THE QUASI-QUARTODECIMAN SEVEN DAYS ........................................................................................ 299 Anatolius of Alexandria ................................................................. 299 The 14th-20th, Not 15th-21st .................................................... 300 A Further Misunderstanding .................................................... 301 Counting from Sunset to Sunset .............................................. 303 Final Points .................................................................................. 304 The Audians ..................................................................................... 305 Other Records .................................................................................. 307 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 309

XX.

THE ROMAN SYSTEM (SYSTEM E) ................................................ 311 Countering the Quartodecimans ................................................... 311 Time of the Change ......................................................................... 312 Conversion to the Hasidic System ............................................... 315 Irenaeus ............................................................................................ 317 The View of Irenaeus ...................................................................... 319 Clement of Alexandria ................................................................... 319 Origen ............................................................................................... 322 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 323

XXI.

THE SEVEN DAYS OF SYSTEMS E, F, AND G .............................. 325 System E ........................................................................................... 325 The Last Supper: Not the Legal Phasekh? .................................. 326 Hippolytus ................................................................................... 327 Peter of Alexandria .................................................................... 327 Chrysostom ................................................................................. 329 The Seven Days ............................................................................... 331 Authority from Constantine .......................................................... 333 Hybrid Syrian System F ................................................................. 334 Modern Hybrid System G ............................................................. 337 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 338

XXII. THE CHRISTIAN PENTECOST .......................................................... 339 The Early Assembly ........................................................................ 339 The 50th Day ............................................................................... 340 Day of the Omer Wave Offering ............................................... 342 The 50-Day Period ..................................................................... 343 Aristocratic Christian Pentecost .................................................... 344 The Sovereign’s Resurrection Day ............................................... 347 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 351

XXIII. THE ROLE OF PENTECOST ON THE CHRISTIAN PHASEKH ..... 353 A Shift in Emphasis ........................................................................ 353 The Eucharist Phasekh ................................................................... 355 The New Symbolism ...................................................................... 357

Contents

xiii The Dividing Line ........................................................................... 358 Death Versus Resurrection ............................................................. 360 A Time of Rejoicing ......................................................................... 363 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 365

XXIV. A TIME FOR MOURNING ................................................................. 367 The Pre-Phasekh Fast ..................................................................... 367 The Fifteen Days of Phasekh ......................................................... 369 The Christian Days of Unleavened Bread ................................... 370 The Use of Unleavened Bread ....................................................... 373 The Triduum .................................................................................... 374 Two Parts of the Triduum .............................................................. 376 Narrowing Phasekh ........................................................................ 378 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 379

SUMMATION TO VOLUME I ............................................................. 381 APPENDICES A B

The Preexistence of the Messiah .......................................... 385 Proof of His Preexistence .................................................. 386 The Yahu Covenant ................................................................ 399 An Akhad Covenant ............................................................ 399 From the Foundation ......................................................... 400 Yahu Subject to Yahweh ..................................................... 401 Why Do It This Way? ......................................................... 403 Why Yahu Yahweh Became Flesh ......................................... 407 Testator of the Will ............................................................. 407 Heir ....................................................................................... 409 The Seed of Abraham Through David ............................ 411 Perfection ............................................................................. 414 Conclusion ........................................................................... 417 Circumcision ............................................................................ 419 Testimony of the New Testament ..................................... 419 Testimony from the Old Testament ................................. 424 Conclusion ........................................................................... 428 Why Not Eat from the Tree of Life? ..................................... 431 The Tree, Eating, and Fruit ................................................ 431 The Tree of Life ............................................................... 432 Eating ................................................................................ 433 Fruit ................................................................................... 434 Yahu is the Tree of Life ....................................................... 435 The Tree of Life in the Temple .......................................... 438 Conclusion ........................................................................... 440 Polycarp’s Death ...................................................................... 441 The Text ................................................................................. 441 Variant Dates ....................................................................... 442 Source of Confusion ............................................................ 444

xiv

Contents

The Day of His Death ........................................................ 446 The Age and Time of Polycarp .......................................... 448 Conclusion ............................................................................ 449 The Year of Polycarp’s Death ................................................ 451 Narrowing the Time Span ................................................. 451 The Irenaeus Connection ................................................... 453 The Beginning of the Year .................................................. 455 Timing the High Sabbath ................................................... 459 Conclusion ............................................................................ 461 ynda in Psalm, 110:1 ................................................................. 463

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................... 467 INDEXES ................................................................................ 505

Illustrations

A B

CHARTS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COVENANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 MONTH EQUIVALENCY CHART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

C D

ARISTOCRATIC SYSTEM A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 HASIDIC SYSTEM B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

E F G H I

NEO -ARISTOCRATIC SYSTEM C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QUARTODECIMAN SYSTEM A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QUASI -QUARTODECIMAN SYSTEM D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROMAN SYSTEM E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HYBRID SYRIAN SYSTEM F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

172

J K L M

MODERN HYBRID SYSTEM G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EUSEBIUS’ LIST OF EARLY ROMAN BISHOPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMPARISON OF DAY SYSTEMS BY ANATOLIUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COVENANTS OF YAHWEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

264

260 261 262 263

297 298 398

Note to Reader

his book has been assembled with the serious student of scriptural studies in mind. Its objective is to familiarize the reader, not only with the arguments, both pro and con, regarding the various systems and practices for the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh but also to provide detailed evidence demonstrating that knowledge of the exact systems and practices advocated by Scriptures are attainable. The text is also designed for use in discussing and teaching specific subjects dealing with the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh. To assist in this endeavor, the Contents not only lists the chapter headings, which express the broader issues examined, but the sub-topics as well. This format, when used in conjunction with the extended indexes, will provide quick and easy access to specific topics and items of evidence. We have departed from some conventions to assist those not experienced with historical pursuits but desirous of seeking the truth in each matter. For example, we have included in our footnotes references to various dictionaries and concordances which make available definitions for ancient, foreign terms. These will provide quick verification for new students who often have no easy way of checking the accuracy of the author’s translations. Along with a substantial bibliography, we list secondary sources as well in order to assist in authenticating various statements we have cited from ancient authors. Not everyone can get copies of rare documents and ancient historical texts or has access to libraries substantial enough to meet everyone’s needs. Hopefully, those more adept in reading ancient languages and having a much wider range of sources at their disposal will excuse this extension of courtesy in the spirit of advancing knowledge. An extended list of abbreviations and their definitions is also provided in our Bibliography and Abbreviations section. The reader should likewise be advised that throughout our text we have utilized all capital letters for certain passages to indicate that the emphasis is ours. This format alleviates the confusion caused when modern sources using italics for emphasis are quoted.

xvii

Introduction to the Three Volumes

ne of the most controversial issues in the history of Christianity has been the debate over the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh. The contention is not only with regard to which, if any, of these appointed times should be observed but when and how. It is to the resolution of this debate that our three volume study is dedicated. To begin this endeavor, we shall first lay out the issues to be addressed and present a general outline for our research. This effort will serve as a generalized road map highlighting the path upon which our study intends to travel. Then, in our first chapter, we shall provide some initial definitions and explanations for a few of the basic terms that will be used throughout. These definitions and explanations will assist the reader by providing him with the purpose for their use and by adding clarity to our analysis.

The Debate It is a historical fact that, while under the Torah (Law) of Moses, the Israelites were required to keep a number of festivals and sacred days dedicated to Yahweh. These special occasions included the holding of sacred convocations and the observances of certain days when one’s own work was to cease. The Torah of Moses also required the performance of a number of prescribed sacrifices, offerings, and an assortment of temple services. The debate among Christians arose from the fact that, according to the New Testament, those following the messiah are no longer under the Mosaic Torah but under grace.1 It is the precise meaning of the charge that we are no longer obligated to be under the Torah of Moses that has been at the heart of the dispute. Does this mean that any commandment, statute, or law designated in the Torah of Moses is now null and void? Are we now free to commit acts for which those under the Torah of Moses would have received the death penalty, severe punishment, or excommunication? Or does the expression “not under the Torah” simply mean that we are no longer under obligation to perform the fleshly works of the Torah? If that be the case, are we still subject to its various commandments and statutes which are not fleshly works? Would these remaining statutes even include, among other things, a requirement to observe the festivals and sacred days dedicated to Yahweh? Or does our answer still lie beyond any of these solutions? The subject is further complicated by another factor. Even if one were able to prove that those under grace are still required to observe the festivals and 1

Rom., 6:14, 15; Gal., 5:18; cf., Gal., 4:4f.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

sacred days dedicated to Yahweh, he is still faced with the difficult problem of determining which practices are correct. Indeed, the controversy is an ancient one and has continued to our present time. Disagreements over exactly when and how such days ought to be observed, for example, were already raging among various Jewish factions as early as the second century B.C.E.2 The importance of Yahweh’s festivals and sacred days for Christians cannot be overstated. The issues surrounding their observance proceed from the very heart and core of Christian doctrine and tend to strenuously test anyone’s ability to understand Scriptures. Indeed, the debate over these festivals and sacred days was a major source of conflict among the early Christians. For example, history informs us that—contrary to present-day popular belief—the first Christian assemblies actually observed the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh, including Passover, Pentecost, and the weekly Sabbath day. Nevertheless, by the first half of the second century C.E.,3 these practices became the source of many disputes and resulted in the first schism in orthodox Christianity. The debate among various early Christian assemblies over which days they should observe and over exactly how and when these festivals should be kept was ongoing for centuries. Indeed, many of the issues faced by Christians during the second and subsequent centuries remain with us to this day. One of the objects of this investigation, therefore, is to get to the bottom of what has caused so much disagreement and confusion.

Format for the Three Volumes This research has been organized into three volumes, each subdivided into parts representing a different field of inquiry:

VOLUME I After providing our introduction to the three volumes and some preliminary definitions, Volume I serves two basic functions: (1) to answer the question of whether or not the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are required for Christians under grace and (2) to examine the background and controversy surrounding the various practices of Passover (Phasekh) and Pentecost (Shabuath). Part I Required Under Grace? Part I of Volume I shall demonstrate whether or not there is any scriptural requirement for Christians under grace to observe the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh. To accomplish this task, we will explore the conditional 2 In our study the abbreviations C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. (Before Common Era), the scholarly, religiously neutral designations, will be utilized rather than the corresponding A.D. (anno Domini; Year of the Lord) and B.C. (Before Christ). 3 Ibid.

Introduction to the Three Volumes

covenants of inheritance granted by Yahu Yahweh4 to Abraham and his seed (the messiah).5 It is by this inheritance that the promise of eternal life is provided to all of those who qualify. This investigation will necessitate a close examination of the mechanism by which one receives eternal life. It shall also be shown how this inheritance of eternal life is connected with the Torah of Moses and with the giving of grace. Further, in order to deal with the issues involved with the conditions of this inheritance—whether under grace, which is the Torah of Trust (Faith),6 or under the Torah of Moses—our search demands that we understand what sin is and how sin prevents us from receiving the eternal inheritance. It is also important to fully realize the purpose of the Torah of Moses, why it came into existence, why it still exists, and why it will continue to exist until heaven and earth pass away, this despite the fact that Christians are not under all the conditions of that contract. The results of this investigation shall demonstrate that the obligation for keeping the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh is still with us. It emanates from those statutes contained in the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise (the Torah of Trust), not from the Torah of Moses. The evidence shall also prove that this requirement will continue until the end of our present world-age— that is, until our present heaven and earth pass away. Part II Phasekh and Shabuath: Background and Controversy Part II of the first volume provides the historical and cultural background for the two most controversial festivals of Yahweh—Passover and Pentecost. Various ancient constructs and systems for the observance of these festivals shall be examined, both Jewish and Christian. In this discussion, the historical development and origins of today’s popular Jewish and Christian interpretations shall be brought to light. The results will set the stage for our in-depth examination of the evidence from Scriptures to uncover the correct Passover and Pentecost system proclaimed by Yahweh. 4 That the name Yahu (MT “Yah”) is a praenomen is demonstrated by its use as “Yahu Yahweh” (MT “Yah Yahweh”) in the Heb. of Isa., 12:2, 26:4; and Ps., 130:3, cf., MCM, 1, p. 25, 4, pp. 28f. Evidence proves that the deity’s praenomen—not only as a theophoric element in personal names but more importantly when used as a direct reference to the deity—was from its very beginning rendered Yahu. Its earliest appearance in archaeological records as a direct reference to the deity, which dates from the mid-eighth century B.C.E., for example, finds that the Judahite spelling of the name was why (Y-ah-u) (KA, Inscr. C, 1; SEL, 1, pp. 125f), pronounced “Yah-u.” Meanwhile, under Aramaic influence, this name was spelled wy (Y-u) by those in the kingdom of Israel (Meg. I, pl. 115), pronounced “Yau.” The form Yahu continued among various Jewish and Christian groups as late as the sixth century C.E. The late text of the MT, meanwhile, suffered from a developing Jewish prejudice, which would not allow them to utter any more than two letters of the sacred name (e.g., Mid. Teh., Ps. 113:3). As a result, why was shortened to hy and subsequently pronounced “Yah.” For a list of references where the name Yahu (MT “Yah”) is used in our present text of Scriptures see YAC, p. 619, s.v. LORD, #7. Jah. For a full discussion of the evidence regarding the name Yahu, as well as how, due to religious superstition, it later came to be shortened to Yah when used in the MT and other texts, see TNY. 5 Gal., 3:15f. 6 Rom., 3:27.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

VOLUME II The second volume shall provide the final proof of which Passover and Pentecost system is sponsored by Scriptures. It will examine three issues: (1) the authority advanced by different early Christian assemblies to support their views on Passover; (2) an investigation into scripturally-based definitions that explain for us the original intent behind how and when to observe Passover and Pentecost; and (3) the Phasekh practice of Yahushua the messiah. Part I The Authority for the Christian Transformation Part I of Volume II shall examine the different authorities claimed by various early Christian assemblies to support their respective practices of Passover. Those who observed Passover only on the 14th day of the first month, for example, claimed the apostles John and Philip were their authoritative guides. The Roman Catholics, on the other hand, argued that Peter and Paul had taught them to keep Passover only on the first day of the week during the seven days of unleavened bread. The Christians at Rome also made the claim that Peter was their founding bishop. They considered Peter to be the chief apostle, noting that he possessed the keys to the kingdom of heaven and was vested with the power to bind and loosen things on earth and in heaven. This power to bind and loosen was then interpreted to mean that Peter had the right to change the traditions and practices of the Assembly. Because Peter was martyred in Rome, the Roman assembly also contended that Peter had thereby honored them with a leadership role among all Christian assemblies. Accordingly, Peter’s power to establish the traditions of the Assembly fell to the Roman line of bishops. These and other assertions shall be scrutinized for their validity. As part of this discussion, we shall also address the real motive used by many of the early Christian leaders as their authority for transforming the Christian festivals and sacred days. Years of persecution by Jewish leaders resulted in a deep-seated hatred of the Jews among many early Christian groups. In fact, Christians even detected the instigating hand of mean-spirited Jews behind the later persecutions sponsored by the Roman government and various pagan religious leaders. They argued that the motive of these plotting Jews was jealousy and a desire to destroy Christianity. The built-up resentment against the Jews became so overwhelming that many Christians began associating all Jewish practices as contemptible, even if those things were sanctioned by Scriptures. The primitive practices of the Christian Assembly with regard to the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh, meanwhile, were in many ways very similar to their Jewish counterparts. In response, the argument was advanced that these earlier Christian practices should be avoided on the grounds that they were considered acts of Judaizing. Christians, they proclaimed, should seek new, different, and unique Christian expressions of these traditions.

Introduction to the Three Volumes

Part II Scriptural Definitions Part II of this second volume will utilize scripturally-based definitions to demonstrate the correct system for observing Yahweh’s Passover and Pentecost. We shall explore scriptural definitions for such terms as arab and byn ha-arabim, which are required in order to understand when to begin the day of Passover. Other important phrases, such as “the day after the Sabbath,” which is used to calculate Pentecost, will also be examined. All of the relevant Exodus and post-Exodus passages from Scriptures concerning the Passover shall be explored to their fullest extent. These will, in turn, be compared against both the scripturally-based definitions and the interpretations offered by various Jewish and Christian perspectives. This process will weed out the misinterpretations and guide us toward the correct practices. Part III Messiah’s Phasekh For Christians, the Passover system used by the messiah remains a matter of substantial importance, for it is the ultimate proof of which system is the correct and original practice. Accordingly, Part III of Volume II shall investigate the New Testament account of the messiah’s most famous Passover meal, the Last Supper. The events leading up to and away from this famous meal will be scrutinized to see whether or not it reflects a Passover system not recognized by the official practice of the Jewish state. Such questions as, “Was the Last Supper a Passover meal?,” “On what day of the week and month did the messiah eat his Last Supper?,” and, “Exactly how many days did the messiah rest in the grave?” shall also be addressed.

VOLUME III Volume III shall investigate the remaining festival, sacred days, and calendar issues of Yahweh. The discussion will include an examination of the weekly Sabbath day and the festival and sacred days of the seventh scriptural month. It will also study the debate surrounding how, according to Yahweh’s calendar, one should determine both the day of a new moon and the first day of the new year (i.e., a scriptural month and year). To accomplish this task, this investigation will be divided into two major parts: Part I The Sabbath, Seventh Month, and Prophetic Meanings In these chapters, the requirement for Christians to observe the weekly Sabbath day and the sacred days of the seventh scriptural month are examined. This study will include the evidence that all of the first century C.E. Christian assemblies, including the Romans, observed the weekly Sabbath day and the sacred days of the seventh month. Only during the first half of the second century C.E. did the Roman and Alexandrian Christians begin to pull away from these important days. Nevertheless, most other Christian groups continued to practice the weekly Sabbath for a number of centuries. Many

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

also continued the observance of the festival and sacred days of the seventh month. Eventually, under Roman leadership, almost all of the assemblies abandoned this observance. In Part I we shall also investigate the prophetic meanings behind the celebration of all of the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh. These days were set aside in order that we might learn about Yahweh’s program for salvation. When appropriately practiced, they reflect our trust in Yahweh and his plan. It is precisely for these and other important reasons that Yahweh has required those in his Assembly to observe his festivals and sacred days. Part II The New Moon and the New Year In the second part of this volume, we shall examine the important issues involving when the assembly is to begin a scriptural month and year. As part of this in-depth study, the historical and political background behind the different Jewish, Samaritan, and Christian systems will be explored. The evidence will reveal that during the first century C.E. the Pharisees developed a complex set of interpretations for determining months and years. As Pharisaic power grew, the older more conservative Jewish systems were suppressed and, in time, forgotten. We shall discover that the early Christians did in fact keep alive correct forms of the more ancient biblical understandings. This investigation will conclude with scriptural definitions that shall demonstrate just how one is to determine a new moon, both as the first day of a month and as the first day of the year, as well as provide the guidelines for when intercalation is required.

Chapter I

Laying a Foundation

n important part of any investigation is the clarity of words required in order to communicate thoughts and ideas. Therefore, as part of the introduction to our three volumes, it is necessary to do two things. First, we must lay a foundation by providing some preliminary definitions for a few key terms. Second, we need to furnish our reasons for using certain other important names and words that will be utilized throughout our study. To demonstrate, there shall be an explanation for our choice in favor of the name and title “Yahushua the messiah” in place of “Jesus Christ,” as well as our reasons for using the title “Christian” as a cover-all for all of the early assemblies following Yahushua the messiah. An explanation shall also be offered for using the pronunciation “Phasekh” as a transliteration of the Hebrew word jsp (Ph-s-kh), commonly translated into English as “Passover.” Other initial terms defined will be moad, khag, and sabbathon. Knowing these definitions shall greatly enhance the reader’s ability to engage in the research.

Yahushua the Messiah Throughout our text, in place of the form “Jesus Christ,” we will respectfully use “Yahushua the messiah,” a more proper transliteration and translation of his original Hebrew name and title jyçm [çwhy (Yahushua meshiakh). The name [çwhy, also written [wçwhy (Yahushua),1 was the same name that was given to the famous Israelite general Yahushua (Joshua) the son of Nun,2 and to the high priest Yahushua, the son of Yahuzadak,3 both being scriptural foretypes of the messiah. Our preference comes from the fact that Yahushua better expresses the meaning of the original name. Yahushua means “Yahu saves.”4 It does not mean “Yahweh saves,” as so often incorrectly asserted. Yahu is the praenomen of Yahu Yahweh,5 the son of father Yahweh.6 It was Yahu who became Yahu-shua the messiah, “for he (Yahu) shall save his people from their sins.”7 SEC, Heb. #3091; CHAL, p. 130. E.g., Josh., 1:1, et al; cf., the Gk. of the LXX and Heb., 4:8, and the Lat. of the Vulg. Hag., 1:1, et al; cf., the LXX, and the Vulg. Yahu + SEC, Heb. #3467. See SNY, chap. ix; ZDMG, 59, pp. 341f, why + [wçy. Eusebius, D.E., 4:17:23, for example, defines the Hebrew name [çwhy to mean “ΔIaw; swthriva (Iao soteria; Yahu saves).” 5 See above Intro. to Three Vols., pp. 2f, n. 4. Also see TNY. 6 For the large body of evidence proving the existence of two Yahwehs, a father and a son, see TTY. Also see our discussions in App. A–C. 7 Matt., 1:21. All those calling upon the father’s sacred name, Yahweh, shall be saved (Joel, 2:32; cf., Acts, 2:14–21, 4:8–12; also see Ps., 54:1–3, 124:8; Prov., 18:10; Zech., 13:9). Yet one must 1 2 3 4

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The English name “Jesus” is ultimately derived from the Aramaic short form [wçy (Yeshua), meaning “he saves.”8 As Solomon Zeitlin states, “[wçy is not Hebrew. In Hebrew the name is written [çwhy.”9 The Aramaic came into the Greek as ΔIhsou`~ (Yesus), ΔIhsou`n (Yesun), etc.—suffixes like ~ (s) and n (n) being a common Greek addition to names. The Greek form ΔIhsou`~ (Yesus), in turn, came into Latin as Iesus,10 and then into English as Jesus. This shortened Aramaic form [wçy (Yeshua) was first utilized because of the hesitancy of the Jews to pronounce or use the full name why (Yahu). This reluctance stemmed from the fact that the name Yahu contained the same first three letters used to form the sacred name hwhy (Yahweh). The mere utterance of the name Yahweh by the common man was prohibited by Jewish religious taboo since the second century B.C.E.11 This taboo eventually spilled over to the name why (Yahu) and, by the end of the first century C.E., only the bi-literal form hy (Yah) was officially allowed.12 The name Jesus, accordingly, was created as a substitute for the more proper form Yahushua.13 This point is verified in numerous ways. In the Hebrew text of Haggai and Zechariah, for example, the name of the high priest Yahushua is rendered as [çwhy (Yahushua), the son of Yahuzadak;14 while in the book of Ezra, written in a period when Aramaic was more commonly spoken, this same high priest is called [wçy (Yeshua), the son of Yuzadak.15 In the Greek texts of the Septuagint (LXX) and Josephus, meanwhile, when discussing the high priest carrying this name, it was rendered ΔIhsou`~ (Yesus), ΔIhsou`n (Yesun), etc.16 Similar evidence is discovered in the Masoretic Text (MT) of the book of Joshua and in the Targum Jonathan, where the name of Yahushua the son of Nun is found written in Hebrew and Aramaic as [çwhy (Yahushua). Yet in the Greek of Acts, 7:45, and Hebrews, 4:8, and in the Septuagint and Josephus, it is rendered ΔIhsou`~ (Yesus), ΔIhsou`n (Yesun), etc.17 Meanwhile, the early fourth century C.E. Christian bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius, notes that Moses gave the name ΔIhsou`n (Yesun) to the man who would follow him in the rulership of the Israelites, i.e., [çwhy (Yahushua), the son of Nun.18 He did so because Yahushua the son of Nun “bore the image of our saviour” and in this way Moses marked him with “the greatest honor” by “peritevqeitai (peritetheitai; bestowing also be cognizant that it is Yahu, the angel who comes in the name of Yahweh, who has died in order to pass on and then receive unto himself the eternal inheritance in order that he might save us by grace. For the angel named Yahweh see App. A and the studies in TTY and TNY. For the issue of grace see below Chap. V. 8 SEC, Heb. #3442. 9 JQR, 60, p. 194. 10 HLD, p. 1013. 11 SNY, chap. xii. 12 Mid. Teh., Pss., 113 and 68; B. Erub., 18b; MNY, p. 51; and TTY. Also see above Intro. to Three Vols., pp. 2f, n. 4. 13 DB, p. 307; SEC, Gk. #2424; and see above n. 1. 14 Hag., 1:1, 12, 14, 2:2; Zech., 3:1–8. 15 Ezra, 3:2, 8–9, 5:2, etc. Notice as well the alteration of the name qdxwhy (Yahu-zadak) to qdxwy (Yu-zadak). 16 Jos., Antiq., 11:3:10–11:4:3. 17 Jos., Antiq., 5:1:12–29. 18 Cf., Num., 13:16; Deut., 34:9.

Laying a Foundation

upon)”19 him “the name of our saviour.”20 Irenaeus, likewise, equates Yahushua the son of Nun as a type of the messiah calling him ΔIhsou`n (Yesun).21 Therefore, the name Jesus is merely a gloss for the original Hebrew name Yahushua. The Greek term cristov~ (khristos), English “Christ,” meanwhile, is not a proper name but a title. It is a translation of the Hebrew title jyçm (meshiakh)— itself transliterated into Greek as messiva~ (messias), messivan (messian), etc. and into English as “messiah”—which means “anointed.”22 In the book of John, for instance, we read of the title “messivan (messian), which is being interpreted the cristov~ (khristos).”23 The word “messiah” is used to identify Yahushua (Yahu saves) as the one who has been “anointed” by Yahweh to be our king and high priest. As a result, the combined form ΔIhsou`~ cristov~ (Yesus khristos; Jesus Christ) is in reality a translation of the Hebrew jyçm [çwhy (Yahushua meshiakh). For reasons of insight and accuracy, we shall render this name and title into English as Yahushua the messiah.

The Term Christian We would next like to explain our use of the title Christian. Those in scholarly circles realize that the term Christian was not originally adhered to by the followers of Yahushua the messiah. More properly, those earliest members of the Assembly, who were largely made up of Jewish converts following Yahushua, should be called Yahwehists, after Yahweh,24 the name of their eloah (deity).25 The name Yahwehists is especially appropriate due to the emphasis placed upon the father’s sacred name by Yahushua and his disciples.26 Yet the use of 19 A form of peritivqhmi (peritithemi), “place or put around, put on . . . metaph., bestow, confer upon”; cf. periteivnw (periteino), to “stretch all round or over” (GEL, 1968, p. 1390). Lake, Euseb., i, p. 31, transl. peritevqeitai to mean “surrounds.” 20 Eusebius, H.E., 1:3:1–6. Also see Eusebius, D.E., 4:17; Barnabas, 12:8–10. 21 Irenaeus, frag. 19. Also see Tertullian, Marc., 17. 22 SEC, Gk. #3323; GEL, 1968, p. 2007; CHAL, pp. 218f; SEC, Heb. #4898. 23 John, 1:41, 4:25. 24 For a complete discussion see SNY, chap. xi through app. E; and cf., 2 Chron., 7:14, “my (Yahweh’s) people, upon whom my name is called”; Jer., 14:9, “Yet you, Yahweh, are in the midst of us, and we are called by your name”; Jer., 15:16, “for I am called by your name, Yahweh, eloahi of hosts”; Dan., 9:18f, “for your city and your people are called by your name” (cf., Isa., 60:14; Ezek., 48:35; Rev., 3:12). Also see James, 2:7; Acts, 15:14–17; Amos, 9:11f; Rev., 14:1. 25 In our study we shall translate the Greek generic term qeov~ (theos; deity) when used in the New Testament with more appropriate transliterations of the Hebrew generic terms hla (eloah, mighty being), or its plural and collective noun forms yhla (eloahi) or μyhla (eloahim). (A collective noun is a noun that denotes a collection of things regarded as a single unit.) These terms and the title la (el; mighty one) have been indiscriminately glossed into English by the single word God. Each term actually has its own unique meaning (see SNY, chap. i). For example, eloah is singular and eloahi is plural. Nevertheless, when eloahi is used in reference to the two Yahwehs, it becomes a collective noun, the two eloah being dja (akhad; “united” into one unit) (HEL, p. 10; SEC, Heb. #258, 259), the same word used when a husband and wife are united in a marriage (Gen., 2:24; cf., Eph., 5:31f; 1 Cor., 6:15–17), i.e., “Yahweh eloahi is akhad (unified)” (Deut., 6:4; Zech., 14:9). As a body of beings ruled by father Yahweh the collective noun eloahim is used, i.e., ”Yahweh is the eloahi of the eloahim” (Deut., 10:17). To retain these more precise meanings and to avoid any confusion, we shall continue throughout our study with the proper transliterations. Also see below, Intro. to Part I, p. 30, n. 39; and App. A, p. 385, ns. 2 and 3. 26 For example, Matt., 6:9; John, 5:43, 10:25, 17:5f, 11f, 25f; Eph., 3:14f; Matt., 28:19f; Acts, 4:8– 12; Heb., 2:12; Rom., 10:12f (cf., Joel, 2:28–32; Ps., 148:13).

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

the sacred name by anyone except the high priest and a chosen few was forbidden by Jewish oral law under penalty of death.27 When spoken among the disciples of the messiah, it could only be uttered in private for fear of persecution by the Jewish religious leaders. Under these circumstances, it is clear that, despite whatever name they may have utilized in private, any public use of the sacred name Yahweh during the earliest years of the Assembly would have been unthinkable. In this sense, the earliest members actually differed from those who later called themselves Christians. Beginning in the early second century C.E., various Christian assemblies adopted the Jewish position on the sacred name, declaring it ineffable.28 Having abandoned the use of the sacred name, these later Christians began to substitute the titles “kuvrio~ (kurios; sovereign)” (“domini [master]” in Latin; “Lord” in English) and “Christ,” as well as the Greek form of Yahushua, i.e., ΔIhsou`~ (Yesus), ΔIhsou`n (Yesun), etc. (“Jesus” in English), for the sacred name.29 Under prohibition against speaking the sacred name, the Assembly at first publicly referred to the followers of the messiah as Nazwraivwn (Nazoraeon; Nazoraenes, Nazarenes), “because of the city of Nazareth,” where the messiah had lived.30 This usage was based upon the prophecy that, “he (the messiah) shall be called a Nazwrai`o~ (Nazoraios; Nazoraene, Nazarene).”31 The apostle Peter (Keph), on the day of Pentecost which followed the death and resurrection of the messiah, pronounced that it was “Yahushua the Nazoraene” whom Yahweh had raised up.32 The apostle Paul was even called a ringleader of “the heresy of the Nazoraenes.”33 Epiphanius adds that, “for a brief period,” these Nazoraenes were also “called ΔIessai`oi (Iessaioi; Jessaeans) before they were called Christians,” because of “Jesse, I suppose, since David was descended from Jesse, and Mary from David’s line.”34 It is more probable, though, that Epiphanius misunderstood the Jewish term of derision for Christians, for they called [çwhy (Yahushua) by the name wçy (Yesu),35 a meaningless word, and the followers may well for a time have been called ywçy (Yesui), which is spelled and sounds very much like yçy (Yesse; Jesse) and yyçy (Yessei; Jesseaeans). SNY, chap. xii. For example, Justin Martyr (c. 160 C.E.) speaks of “ineffable” deity with the “unutterable” name (Justin Mart., Trypho, 126, 127, 1 Apol., 61, 63, 2 Apol., 6, 10, 13). Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:5:1, calls Yahweh “the unnameable father,” also see 2:16:2. By the time of Jerome (384 C.E.) the pronunciation of the sacred name hwhy was forgotten by all but a few scholars. When found still written in Hebrew letters in biblical text, it was mistakenly read by laymen to be the Greek name PIPI (Pi-Pi) (Jerome, Epist., 25). In this same passage, Jerome declares the sacred name Yahweh to be “ineffable.” 29 See for example, Eusebius, D.E., 2:3 §80, 3:7 §136, 4:18 §294c, and in Eusebius, H.E., 1:3:12, where Eusebius refers to the name “Christ” as “his truly reverend and sacred name.” Also see Origen, Celsus, 1:6, 25, 67. The NSBD notes that in these early Christian circles “something of the awe attaching to Yahweh among the Jews was transferred to the name ‘Christ’ or the compound ‘Jesus Christ,’ which even in the Apostolic Age had come to be regarded as a proper name instead of a definitive expression (Jesus the Christ)” (p. 606). G. H. Parke-Taylor observes, “Christian mysticism has been more concerned with the name of Jesus than with the name YHWH” (YDNB, p. 105). 30 Epiphanius, Pan., 29:6:5. 31 Matt., 2:23. 32 Acts, 2:22–24. 33 Acts, 24:5. 34 Epiphanius, Pan., 29:1:2, 29:4:9, 29:5:4. 35 TDNT, 3, p. 286. 27 28

Laying a Foundation

Because Nazareth was located in Galilee, and most of the disciples were from that region, the early Assembly members were also identified as Galileans. Peter, for example, was accused by the Jews of being a Galilean because of his form of Aramaic speech and because he was seen with the messiah.36 The messiah was himself described as a Galilean.37 Accordingly, Emperor Julian the Apostate referred to all Christians as “Galileans.”38 Most of the members of the early Nazoraenes were Jews who had converted to Christianity. An important faction of these, because of a large Pharisaical element,39 continued to adhere to the customs of the Torah of Moses as well as to their belief in Yahushua as the messiah. Because of their stand on the Torah of Moses, non-Judaean members classed this sect as neither Christian nor Jewish, while the Nazoraenes were claiming to be both.40 Since this sect retained the name Nazoraenes, the non-Judaean elements in the Assembly sought to separate themselves by another identity. To fill this void they gravitated to the title “Christian,” a term first applied to them by unbelievers who were critical of the Assembly. To demonstrate, the book of Acts informs us that, during the ministry of the apostle Saul (Paul), while many of the disciples of Yahushua were gathered at Antioch, Syria (in 42 C.E.), they “were first called Cristianouv~ (Khristianous; Christians)” by the Greek-speaking inhabitants of that city.41 This term, as already noted, is derived from the Greek word cristov~ (khristos; English “Christ”), which is a translation of the Hebrew title jyçm (meshiakh; English “messiah”), both words meaning “anointed.”42 In effect, by calling them “Christians,” the pagan Syrians were identifying them as the “followers of the messiah.” Eusebius notes that in the time of Emperor Claudius (41–54 C.E.), “the title of Christian had not yet become well-known everywhere.”43 The pagan Roman author Tacitus (writing between 115–120 C.E.), meanwhile, informs us that in the days of Nero (54–68 C.E.) the Roman people gave this name to those following the messiah. He writes: Therefore, to scotch the rumor (that Nero had ordered the fire), Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christianos; Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus.44 According to the Romans, it was the Roman crowd (as had the Syrian population before them), and not the followers of Yahushua, who styled them Christians, naming them after the title of their founder. About this same time, 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Mark, 14:70; Luke, 22:59. Luke, 23:6. See for example, Julian, Ag. Gal., §39A–358E, and Epist. 36, §422–424. Cf., Acts, 15:1–6. Epiphanius, Pan., 29; John Dam., 29; Jerome, Lives, 2, 3, Epist., 20:2. Acts, 11:26. Also see Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:12:14; Epiphanius, Pan., 29:1:3, 29:4:10. SEC, Heb. #4899, Gk. #5546–5548; GEL, 1968, p. 2007. Also see above p. 9, and n. 2. Eusebius, H.E., 2:17:1, 4. Tacitus, Ann., 15:44. For Nero’s part in this story also see Suetonius, Nero, 38; Dio, 63:16–18.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

in the days of the Jewish King Agrippa, when Festus became the Roman procurator of Judaea (59 C.E.),45 Agrippa charged Paul, in bantering vein, “You persuade me a little to become a Christian.”46 A Jewish man named Trypho, in the mid-second century C.E., tells the Roman Christian Justin Martyr, “You have all acquired the name of Christians from him (Yahushua).”47 As with many such incidents in history, a title given by outsiders soon came to be adopted by those so labeled. We find, for instance, the title Christian used for the first time by a disciple of the messiah in the first epistle of Peter, when he writes, “Yet if any (suffer) as Christians,48 let him not be ashamed.”49 By the beginning of the second century C.E. the term was in widespread use by many of the assemblies themselves. The reworked letters of Ignatius (second century C.E.) and the works of Origen (c.225 C.E.) both express the desire to be called a Christian.50 We recognize that those more advanced in their studies about the early use of the sacred name might well take issue with using the title Christian for the first few generations of followers, arguing that the term Christian originated among pagans as a term of derision against the early assemblies.51 One might also argue that the Christian assemblies of a much later date were very dissimilar in doctrine when compared with their earlier counterparts. Nevertheless, this term has been in widespread use as a gloss for all of these groups from very early times. Under its umbrella came the Nazoraenes, Ebionites, and various Christian gnostic assemblies, even though all of these were branded as heretics by Catholic orthodoxy. What holds all of these groups together under a single, common appellation, and for which we will utilize the single term “Christian” as a cover-all, is their professed belief in the messiah of the New Testament. Therefore, this term should not be considered offensive. It is used throughout our study not to identify those who were correct but to designate anyone part of a general movement built upon Yahushua as the messiah and a belief in the New Testament—from the early Yahwehists to the later Roman Catholics.

The Term jsp (Phasekh)

One of the most important scriptural festivals is Passover. The Hebrew word for Passover is jsp (Ph-s-kh). In our present work we shall transliterate jsp 45 IDB, 1, pp. 604f; NBD, p. 421; cf., HJP, 1, pp. 467f. Also see FSDY, 2, for the evidence that Festus became procurator in the summer of 59 C.E. 46 Acts, 26:28. 47 Justin Mart., Trypho, 64:1. That Trypho was Jewish see Justin Mart., Trypho, 1:3. 48 Peter did not speak Greek but used Mark as his translator or interpreter (Ariston, quoted by Eusebius, H.E., 3:39:15; Jerome, Lives, 1, 8). Therefore, if Peter’s original letter was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew, as often supposed, the Hebrew word would have been yjyçm (meshiakhi), meaning “messiahians” or “followers of the messiah,” much like yqwdx (tsadoqi) means “Sadduceans” and yrxwn (natsori) means “Nazoraenes.” 49 1 Pet., 4:16. 50 Ignatius, Rom., 3:2; Origen, Hom. Luke, 16. 51 JTS, (NS) 9, pp. 26–37, where Harold Mattingly equates the first use of the title Christiani (Christians) as a way of ridiculing the followers of the messiah as the crowds used the title “Augustiani” to ridicule ludicrous bands of opportunists who followed Nero’s chariot, proclaiming themselves the soldiers of his triumph. Workman writes that during this period, “The use of the word ‘Christian’ is itself a sneer” (PIEC, p. 34, n. 1, cf., p. 58, n. 1, “a bitter nickname”). Solomon Zeitlin similarly writes, “It seems that the term ‘Christian’ was coined by the pagans in Antioch as a nickname and a reproach for those who believed in and followed Jesus, called Christ” (SEHJ, 3, p. xiv).

Laying a Foundation

as Phasekh. For many this usage may seem unusual. For that reason we would briefly like to explain our preference. In modern literature the term jsp (Ph-s-kh) has been rendered as Pesah, Paskha, Pesah, Pesach, Pasch, and so forth. The name of this festival is also variously expressed in the Romance languages (e.g., Italian Pasqua, French Paques). These find their origin in the ancient Latin Pascha and Greek pavsca (Paskha). The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, notes: The name of the festival in other languages (as Fr. paques; Ital. pasqua; Span. pascua; Dan. paaske; Dutch paasch; Welsh pasg) is derived from the Lat. pascha and the Gr. pavsca. These in turn come from the Chaldee or Aramaean form aj;s]pæ paschaΔ, of the Hebrew name of the Passover festival jsæp, pesach, from jsæp; “he passed over,” in memory of the great deliverance, when the destroying angel “passed over the houses, of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians” (Exod. xii. 27).52 Though the late Jewish form Pesah is now popularly used, evidence from the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin sources indicate that the original Hebrew pronunciation of this name was very close to . To demonstrate, we find that, in the Hebrew-Aramaic language spoken in Palestine during the first century C.E., the consonant p was uniformly pronounced as an aspirate “ph,” even at the beginning of a syllable.53 The Hebrew letter j, meanwhile, is pronounced as, “A voiceless laryngeal fricative like h but more constricted.”54 Therefore, j carries the sound of h or nearly kh, as the Greek transliterations (j = k and c) demonstrate.55 Aramaic, meanwhile, was a sister language to Hebrew. The ancient Aramaic form ajsp (Ph-s-kh-a), being very near in sound to the Hebrew, was pronounced .56 Yet, unlike numerous instances found in the Aramaic dialect, early Hebrew words and names did not end with the letter a (a), further indicating that the original Hebrew was pronounced . Next, this Hebrew-Aramaic name was translated into the Greek language as pavsca (Paskha), favsca (Phaskha), fasevk (Phasek), fasevc (Phasekh), and the like.57 Gregory of Nazianzus (fourth century C.E.) helps clarify which form was nearer to the original Hebrew when he tells us, “This pavsca (Paskha) of which I speak, the great and sacred (festival), is in Hebrew(-Aramaic) favska (Phaska).”58 He adds that the Greeks had Hellenized the original Hebrew-Aramaic word favska (Phaska) “by changing the fi` (phi = f) to pi` (pi = p) and ka;ppa EB, 1910, viii, p. 828, s.v. EASTER. EWJ, p. 15, n. 1. IHG, p. 5. SEC, Gk., p. 5, “German ch = c,” nearly kh. For different examples of Greek transliterations see below n. 5. 56 EWJ, p. 15, n. 1, makes the correct Aramaic pronunciation to be Phasha. 57 The Greek form pavsca (Paskha) is from the Aramaic and means, “the Hebrew Passover (from pasach to pass over), the paschal supper” (GEL, p. 612; SEC, Gk. #3957). For examples of the Greek forms see Jos., Antiq., 2:14:6, 3:10:5; 5:1:4, 9:13:3, 14:2:1, 2, 17:9:3; Wars, 2:1:3, 6:9:3; Philo, Spec., 27, §145; LXX 2 Chron., 30:1–5. 52 53 54 55

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

(kappa = k) to ci` (khi = c)” and thereby had “named the day pavsca (Paskha).”59 Gregory then states: Custom took up the word (pavsca; Paskha) and confirmed it, since the (non-Hebrew speaking) people approved of its being a more pious sounding way of speaking.60 The proclivity of the Greeks to alter words and names to their own pleasure is well-documented. For example, while speaking of the names of ancient nations, the Jewish priest Josephus informs us of how these names came to be transformed. It is the Greeks who are responsible for this change of nomenclature; for when in after ages they rose to power, they appropriated even the glories of the past, embellishing the nations with names which they could understand . . .61 As a result, Josephus, writing in Greek to the Greeks, informs his readers, “With a view to euphony and to my readers’ pleasure these names have been Hellenized.”62 With regard to the Hebrew name jsp (Ph-s-kh), Origen (early third century C.E.) claims that among the Hebrews of his day it was pronounced with four sounds, “the three letters f (ph) a (a) ~ (s) and a rough breathing sound (at the end), which is much stronger with them (the Hebrews) than it is with us (those speaking Greek),” being pronounced “fase;k (phasek).”63 He then adds: Because it is not possible in the Greek language to pronounce this word the way the Hebrews do, since Greeks are unable to pronounce fa~ (phas) with any of the stronger breathing in force used among the Hebrews, the word was Hellenized: in the prophets it is called fase;k (phasek), and when Hellenized more completely, the word becomes pavsca (Paskha).64 Eusebius, accordingly, refers to this Hebrew celebration as the “festival of fase;c (Phasekh).”65 Also reflecting this pronunciation, the Septuagint several times utilizes the form fase;k (phasek),66 while the first century C.E. Jewish priest Josephus is found on occasion using the Hellenized form of the Aramaic favsca (Phaskha).67 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

Gregory Naz., Orat., 45:10. Ibid. Ibid. Jos., Antiq., 1:5:1. Jos., Antiq., 1:6:1. Origen, Pas., 1. Ibid. Eusebius, Pas., 1. E.g., LXX 2 Chron., 30:1, 2, 5, 15, 17, 35:1, 9, 16, 18; LXX Jer., 38:8 (MT 31:8). Jos., Antiq., 5:1:4, 9:13:3, 14:2:1, 2.

Laying a Foundation

The old Latin writers, such as Jerome and Bede, meanwhile, tell us that their form of the word, Pascha, was “called phase in Hebrew.”68 We find Phase also used in the Latin Vulgate at such places as 2 Chronicles, 35:11, and Deuteronomy, 16:2. This form is indeclinable. It further demonstrates the initial ph sound in the Hebrew and also reflects the inability of those speaking Latin to simulate the rough breathing Hebrew sound at the end. Based upon the above data, for consistency and in order that we might remain as close to the original pronunciation as possible, we have utilized throughout our study, whenever appropriate, the transliteration Phasekh (Pha-sehor Pha-sekh) to translate all of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and other forms of the original Hebrew term jsp. Quotations from modern works and scholars shall remain unaffected.

Yahweh’s yd[wm (Moadi)

Each of the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are defined in Scriptures as a d[wm (moad), in the plural yd[wm (moadi) and twd[wm (moaduth) or the collective noun form μd[wm (moadim).69 A moad is an appointed time for an assembly, whether for a festival or another sacred day.70 The translation “seasons,” found in many English versions, is inappropriate and misleading. It does not refer to the four seasons of the year (i.e., spring, summer, fall, and winter) but rather to the sacred moadi, exact points in time when people are to assemble for Yahweh’s commanded observances. In Leviticus we read: These are the yd[wm (moadi; appointed times) of Yahweh, sacred yarqm (miqrai; gatherings for reading) 71 which you shall proclaim them in their μd[wm (moadim; group of appointed times).72 68 Jerome speaks of the “Pascha which is called phase in Hebrew” (Jerome, Com. Matt., 4, 26:2). Also see Jerome, Com. Isa., 10:31:5. Bede similarly states the festival “is properly called pascha or phase” (Bede, Hist., 5:21). Also see Ps.-Augustine, Yves, 1:30. Jerome, Heb. Nam., Lag. 64, . 21, and Lag. 70, . 20f, defines Fase (Phase) as transitus sive transgressio and Pascha as transscendens uel transgressio (CChr.SL, 72, pp. 140, 148). 69 Lev., 23:1–44; Num., 9:2–13, esp. v. 2; Deut., 16:5f. 70 The Hebrew word d[wm (moad), plural yd[wm (moadi), collective noun μyd[wm (moadim): “prop. an appointment, i.e. a fixed time or season; spec. a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand) . . . an assembly” (SEC, Heb. #4150–4151; HEL, p. 141). LXX translates moadi as “kairoi`~ (kairois),” i.e., “the right point of time, the proper time” (GEL, p. 392) and as eJortaiv (heortai), i.e., “festivals” (GEL, p. 277). Also see below n. 79. 71 The Hebrew word arqm (miqra), plural yarqm (miqrai), is from arq (qara), “to call out to (i.e. prop. address by name, but used in a wide variety of applications) . . . to encounter . . . call, cry, read” (SEC, Heb. #7121–7123), “cried, called, shouted . . . called to or for . . . call upon in prayer . . . celebrate . . . call together, assemble, invite . . . read from a book, read aloud . . . read, recited, proclaimed” (HEL, p. 234). arqm (miqra) is “something called out, i.e. a public meeting” (SEC, Heb. #4744), “act of assembly . . . convocation . . . reading, reciting” (HEL, p. 234). To demonstrate, in Neh., 8:1–7, Ezra read the book of the torath to the people in a public reading. In Neh., 8:8, we read, “And they arq (qara; read) in the book of the torath (laws) of the eloahim clearly; and they gave the sense and made to discern in that arqm (miqra; public reading).” The LXX renders this passage by saying, “And they read in the book of the law of the deity, and Ezra taught, and instructed them distinctly in the knowledge of the sovereign, and the people understood in the reading.” Another way of translating a “sacred arqm (miqra)” is to call it a “sacred convocation.” 72 Lev., 23:4.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Leviticus places as a first item of Yahweh’s moadi the weekly Sabbath day.73 In a second group the following list of moadi is given: • 23:5–8. Phasekh and the Khag of Unleavened Bread. Phasekh falls on the 14th day of the first moon at byn ha-arabim (twilight). For seven days you must eat unleavened bread. The first and last of these seven days are sacred yarqm (miqrai; gatherings for reading, convocations) and are days wherein no personal work is to be done. • 23:9–14. Day of the omer wave offering.74 No new grain of the year is to be eaten until this offering is made. • 23:15–22. Festival of Weeks (Shabuath; Pentecost). It is celebrated on the 50th day after the Sabbath day which falls during the days of Phasekh and the Khag of Unleavened Bread. It is the time of a sacred arqm (miqra; gathering for reading, convocations) and a day wherein no personal work is to be done. • 23:23–25. Day of Trumpets. It occurs on the first day of the seventh moon. It is the time of a sacred arqm (miqra; gathering for reading, convocation) and a day wherein no personal work is to be done. • 23:26–32. Day of Atonement. It occurs on the 10th day of the seventh moon. It is a day of fasting. It is also the time of a sacred arqm (miqra; gathering for reading, convocation) and is designated as a Sabbath, a day wherein no personal work is to be done. • 23:33–43. Festival of Tabernacles. It lasts from the 15th day to the 22nd day of the seventh moon. The first and eighth day of this festival are sacred yarqm (miqrai; gatherings for reading, convocations) and days wherein no personal work is to be done. • 23:44. “And Moses announced the moadi of Yahweh to the sons of Israel.” It is important to notice that these sacred days are defined as the “moadi of Yahweh,” not the “moadi of the Jews.”

A gj (Khag)

Three periods of yd[wm (moadi) are each classified as a gj (khag) of Yahweh: the seven-day Khag of Unleavened Bread,75 also defined as the seven-day Khag of Phasekh,76 the one-day Khag of Weeks,77 and the seven-day Khag of Tabernacles.78 The Greek LXX translates the term khag as eJorthv (heorte). Both terms make reference to the idea of a “celebration” and “a festival,”79 and they enLev., 23:2f. The omer wave offering is also referred to as “the sheaf of the wave offering,” “the sheaf of offering,” “the wave sheaf offering,” and so forth. 75 Exod., 23:14f, 34:18; Deut., 16:16. 76 Exod., 12:11–14, 34:25; Ezek., 45:21. 77 Exod., 23:14, 16, 34:22; Deut., 16:16; 2 Chron., 8:13; Lev., 23:1–4, 9–21. 78 Exod., 23:14, 16; Lev., 23:34, 39f; Deut., 16:13, 16. 79 gj (khag), plural ygj (khagi), “a festival, or a victim therefore:—(solemn) feast (day), sacrifice, solemnity” (SEC, Heb. #2282), “a festival . . . a festival sacrifice, a victim” (GHCL, p. 260) and its variant ggj (khagag), “prop. to move in a circle, i.e. (spec.) to march in a sacred procession, to observe a festival; by imp. to be giddy:—celebrate, dance, (keep, hold) a (solemn) feast (holiday), reel to and 73 74

Laying a Foundation

compass the “festival sacrifice.”80 Yet the Hebrew term khag means much more than just a festival celebration or its sacrifice. A khag is also a recurrent pilgrimage,81 and a requirement to gather at a fixed location or shrine.82 Further, scriptural ygj (khagi; festivals) are always connected with Yahweh, either explicitly or implicitly.83 The idea of gathering at a fixed shrine or location to observe the khagi is manifested in different ways. For sacrifices, offerings, prayers, or other religious duties, whether in connection with khagi, the other moadi, or the eating of meals dedicated to Yahweh, one is required under the Torah to go to a place where Yahweh has placed his name.84 The only exception to this rule is if the place where Yahweh’s name is located is too far away. In that event, one is to carry out his obligations within his own gates.85 In Hebrew thought, a ”name is the person; the name is the person revealed; and the name is the person actively present.”86 In a vague way, “the Deity and his name were considered as inseparable,”87 and Yahweh’s name “represented His nature or character and His relation to His people. It thus came to partake of His essence, His glory and power.”88 In effect, where Yahweh’s name is, there also is Yahweh. To go to that location was to present one’s self before Yahweh. Therefore, during the three khagi it was required that all male followers present themselves before Yahweh,89 or in effect, come to a place where Yahweh’s name had been placed. The manifestation of a shrine or location where Yahweh’s name is placed is expressed in two ways. One is a physical location, such as the altar and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh.90 When the physical Temple of Yahweh was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem, which contained the royal altar and the ark of the covenant, Yahweh’s name was said to dwell on the Temple and on the city of Jerusalem.91 For this reason, the Israelites living at a great distance would only make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem during the three khag periods, while those living in and around Jerusalem would go regularly for other moadi as well.92 fro” (SEC, Heb. #2287; GHCL, p. 260). Khag and khagag are translated into Greek as eJorthv (heorte), meaning, “a festival:—feast, holyday” (SEC, Gk. #1859), “a feast or festival, holiday . . . generally, holiday-making, amusement, pastime” (GEL, p. 277). J. B. Segal connects the word khag not only with “a processional circuit by celebrants” but also with “the revolution or circuit of the tropic year” (THP, pp. 128f, n. 3). 80 Exod., 23:18, 34:25; Mal., 2:3; Ps., 118:27. 81 BCal, p. 3, “festival-gathering, feast, pilgrim-feast”; NBDB, p. 290b, s.v. hag, “festivalgathering, feast, pilgrim-feast . . . feast, esp. one observed by a pilgrimage.” Its meaning is similar to the Arabic word hajj (THP, p. 130). 82 Exod., 32:5; Ps., 42:5; Isa., 30:29; Ezek., 45:17, 46:11. 83 Exod., 5:1, 10:9, 32:5f; Ps., 81:3–4; Isa., 30:29; Ezek., 46:11f; Hos., 9:5; Amos, 5:21. 84 Exod., 20:24; Deut., 12:5f, 11f, 14:23f, 16:2, 6, 11f, 26:2. 85 Deut., 12:21. 86 NBD, p. 862. 87 NSBD, p. 606. 88 Freedman, Kidd., p. 362, n. 8. 89 Deut., 16:16; Exod., 23:14–17, 34:23. 90 E.g., the altar of Yahweh (Lev., 6:14; Deut., 12:27; 2 Chron., 8:12, 29:19); the ark of the covenant (2 Sam., 6:2). 91 E.g., 1 Kings, 8:16–20, 29, 43f, 48, 11:36; 2 Kings, 21:4, 7; 1 Chron., 22:8–10, 19, 29:16; 2 Chron., 6:5–9, 33f, 38, 12:13, 20:8f, 33:4, 7; Jer., 7:10–14, 30, 25:29, 32:34. Jerusalem (Zion) is called the city of Yahweh (Isa., 60:14; Ezek., 48:35; Dan., 9:18f). 92 2 Chron., 2:1–4.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The second expression of a place where one could find Yahweh’s name, and accordingly where Yahweh could be found, is at a gathering of Yahweh’s people. Yahweh’s name is placed on his people,93 and they walk in his name.94 Therefore, Yahweh states, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there I am in the midst of them.”95 This concept is expressed in the parable rendering the higher meaning for the physical Temple of Yahweh, a building which anciently was located in Jerusalem. The followers of Yahweh are his true Temple,96 each a living stone in the building,97 the messiah being the foundation or cornerstone.98 Because his name is on his Temple (his people), i.e., those who trust and follow him, Yahweh and his jwr (ruach; unseen force, spirit)99 dwell in them.100 When those following Yahweh are gathered together in his name, they form the building on which is placed Yahweh’s name. In effect, in ancient times, when the followers of Yahweh gathered at the physical Temple of Yahweh, it was they who actually formed, as a body of people, the true Temple of Yahweh. For this reason, without a physical Temple, khagi could also be celebrated in the home with a gathering of Yahwehists.101

A ˆwtbç (Sabbathon)

The Hebrew word ˆwtbç (sabbathon) is found in Scriptures only in the Pentateuch (five books of Moses) and is used only in reference to certain specified moadi and years dedicated to Yahweh.102 The term is derived from tbç (sabbath), i.e., to “cease” from some action or work,103 and means, “a time of rest,”104 “a sabbatism or special holiday.”105 It is translated in the LXX by the 2 Chron., 7:14; Dan., 9:19; Jer., 14:9, 15:16; Eph., 3:13–15. Mic., 4:5; Zech., 10:12. Matt., 18:20. Heb., 3:1–6; 1 Cor., 3:9f, 16f, 6:19f; 2 Cor., 6:14–16; 1 Tim., 3:15. Eph., 2:18–22; 1 Pet., 2:4f; Rev., 3:12. Eph., 2:18–22; 1 Pet., 2:6; Ps., 118:22; Isa., 18:16; Zech., 10:4. For clarity and consistency, we shall translate the Greek terms pneuma (pneuma), pneumato~ (pneumatos), etc. by the transliteration of the Hebrew form jwr (ruach). The Hebrew term jwr (ruach), plural form tjwr (ruachuth), properly means “to blow, i.e. breathe . . . wind,” (SEC, Heb. #7306-7308); “air, breeze, cool breeze” (HEL, p. 242). The Greek translation of this Hebrew word is pneuma (pneuma), pneumato~ (pneumatos), etc., “a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze” (SEC, Gk. #4151); “a blowing . . . a wind, blast . . . that is breathed forth, odour, scent” (SEC, Gk. #4151; GEL, p. 649). The ruach of Yahweh is compared to wind (John, 3:8), i.e., an unseen force. In English the terms “ruach” and “pneuma” are variously translated as spirit, ghost, wind, breath, and mind, and often carry with it the idea of a supernatural being. Though eloahim (including those fallen angels called demons) are spirit beings, the two ideas are not interchangeable, for a ruach can also be the wind or the power in a machine (cf., Jer., 49:32, 36; Ezek., 1:20, 21). The term only means an “unseen force,” whether that force is supernatural, a mental attitude, or merely the wind. Therefore, to maintain a more proper rendering of the idea behind the Hebrew and Greek, and for the sake of consistency, we shall translate both the Hebrew and the Greek words by ruach, a transliteration of the Hebrew. For a more in-depth discussion of the ruach see TNM. 100 2 Cor., 6:16–18; 1 Cor., 3:16. 101 For example, the Khag of the Phasekh (cf., Exod., 34:25) at the time of the Exodus was celebrated in the homes of the Israelites (Exod., 12:1–32). 102 The word sabbathon is only found at Exod., 16:23, 31:15, 35:2; Lev., 16:31, 23:3, 24, 32, 39 (twice), 25:4, 5. 103 The Hebrew word tbç (sabbath) means, “ceased . . . intermission . . . cessation” (HEL, p. 260); “to repose . . . rest, interruption, cessation . . . intermission” (SEC, Heb. #7673–7676); to “cease, stop, be at a standstill (intrans.) . . . stop working, take a holiday” (CHAL, p. 360). Therefore, the primary meaning of “sabbath” is to “cease” or “rest” from some action or work. 104 HEL, p. 260. 105 SEC, Heb. #7677; CHAL, p. 360, “sabbath feast . . . sabbat sabbathon most solemn sabbath.” 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Laying a Foundation

Greek word ajnavpausi~ (anapausis), which also means to “rest.”106 A sabbathon is further defined in Scriptures as “a sacred Sabbath for Yahweh.”107 This understanding explains why every seventh year on the Israelite calendar is referred to as “a year of sabbathon” and as a “ˆwtbç tbç (Sabbath sabbathon) for the land, a Sabbath for Yahweh,” for in those years the fields remain unworked and the entire year is dedicated to Yahweh.108 As with the Sabbath day,109 those moadi designated as a sabbathon are stated to be a time for a “sacred arqm (miqra; gathering for reading),” i.e., “sacred convocation,”110 and a day upon which no laborious work should be done. The term is specifically used to distinguish between a holiday not commanded by Yahweh (wherein one might cease from his labors in order to take a vacation or have some relaxation) and the commanded moadi and special years (wherein Yahweh requires his people to cease from their personal work or agricultural pursuits to do Yahweh’s work).111 A sabbathon differs from a khag in that it does not require a pilgrimage to a designated sight. Nevertheless, a khag day can also be a sabbathon. A sabbathon, in short, is a special Sabbath commanded by Yahweh. A primary example of a sabbathon is the weekly Sabbath day. The weekly Sabbath day is on a number of occasions described as “a sacred ˆwtbç tbç (Sabbath sabbathon).”112 In Exodus, 35:2, for example, we read of “the seventh day, it shall be sacred for you, a Sabbath sabbathon.” Yet the term sabbathon is by no means restricted to the weekly Sabbath day. It is also applied to some of the other moadi of Yahweh. Four of these moadi are separately and specifically mentioned in the Torah as a sabbathon: • The first day of the seventh moon, the Day of the Blowing of the Trumpets, is a sabbathon.113 • The tenth day of the seventh moon, the Day of Atonement, is specified as a Sabbath sabbathon.114 In the LXX this is the only day which, like the weekly Sabbath day, is specifically called a Savbbata (Sabbata; Sabbath) sabbavtwn (sabbathon). Sabbathon is everywhere else in the LXX called a time of ajnavpausi~ (anapausis; rest). • The first day of the Khag of Tabernacles and the eighth day are each called a sabbathon.115 By definition the title sabbathon should also be extended to three other moadi, each classified as a time of a “sacred convocation” and a day when no laborious work shall be done: 106 GEL, p. 59, repose, rest . . . relaxation, recreation . . . rest from a thing”; SEC, Gk. #372, “intermission; by imp. recreation:—rest.” 107 Exod., 16:23. 108 Lev., 25:2–7, esp. v. 4f. For the Sabbath and Jubilee year cycle see SJC. 109 E.g., Exod., 20:8–11, 31:12–17, 35:2f; Lev., 23:3; Deut., 5:12–15. 110 See above n. 71. 111 See FSDY, 3, for the definition of what kind of work which is allowed on a Sabbath day. 112 Exod., 16:23, 13:15, 35:2; Lev., 23:3. 113 Lev., 23:24f. 114 Lev., 23:26–32. 115 Lev., 23:33–39, esp. v. 35.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh • The first and seventh days of the Khag of Unleavened Bread.116 • The 50th day of the Pentecost season, being the Khag of Weeks.117

Because of the scriptural definition of a sabbathon, the Jewish sect of the Pharisees later referred to the first day of their Khag of Unleavened Bread as a Sabbath day,118 and the book of John calls this Pharisaic observance a “great” or “high” Sabbath day.119 The existence of these seven other moadi high Sabbath days explains why Yahweh in other places of the Old Testament speaks in the plural of ytwtbç (sabbathuthi; my Sabbaths), i.e., the weekly Sabbath day and certain other moadi.120

Different Observances Our next effort is to distinguish the various types of observances: new moons, Sabbath days, khagi, and other moadi. For example, a clear distinction must be made between Yahweh’s moadi (Sabbath and other sacred days) and the days of his new moons (first day of each month). The days of Yahweh’s new moons are never in Scriptures called a moad, khag, Sabbath, sabbathon, or sacred day, although the first day of the seventh moon is the moad sabbathon entitled the Day of Blowing the Trumpets. We are also instructed to “rwmç (shamur; attend to)121 the Abib moon,”122 the first moon of the year.123 Nevertheless, this particular instruction was issued to make sure that the first moon of the year is determined correctly, since Phasekh and the other moadi of the year are dependent upon it.124 The day of the new moon is also considered a day of worship.125 Yet, much like the day of the omer wave offering and some of the khag days, it is not defined as a Sabbath or high Sabbath.126 New moons are conspicuously absent from the list of the moadi of Yahweh, as itemized in Leviticus, 23. Ezra, likewise, separates the continual burnt offerings made on the new moons from those made on “Yahweh’s moadi.”127 At the same time, Isaiah makes the Sabbath day, the day of the new moon, and the moadi all separate types of days.128 Next, Leviticus separates the moad of the weekly Sabbath from the moadi forming the khagi and other sacred days by making them two different Lev., 23:7f. Lev., 23:15f, 21. Men., 10:3, cf., 10:1; B. Men., 65b; Lek. Tob, Lev., 128f; KBFY, p. 277. John, 19:31. Also spelled yttbç (sabbathuthi), e.g., Exod., 31:13; Lev., 19:3, 30; Ezek., 20:12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 24, 22:8, 26, 38. 121 SEC, Heb. #8104, “prop. to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; gen. to protect, attend to, etc.”; CHAL, pp. 377f, “watch, guard . . . be careful about, protect . . . observe, watch . . . keep watch, stand guard.” 122 Deut., 16:1. 123 Exod., 12:2, cf., Exod., 13:4, 23:15, 34:18; Deut., 16:1. 124 Ps., 104:19, states that Yahweh “made the moon for moadim.” 125 Ezek., 46:1–3; cf., Isa., 1:14f; 2 Kings, 4:23; Amos, 8:4f. 126 For example, the first and eighth days of the Khag of Tabernacles were called a sabbathon but the six days lying between, unless one of them happens to fall on a weekly Sabbath day, were not counted as a Sabbath sabbathon (Lev., 23:33–43). Nevertheless, these non-sabbathon days still remained khag days. 127 Ezra, 3:5. 128 Isa., 1:13f. 116 117 118 119 120

Laying a Foundation

categories.129 Lamentations similarly lists both the “moad and Sabbath” as different items.130 Nehemiah speaks of the agreement of the Judaean people not to buy or sell “on the Sabbath day and on the sacred day.”131 Yet Sabbath days are also sacred days and moadi. Therefore, all these other sacred days fall within the second class of moadi. The Sabbath day and the other moadi are also on several occasions distinguished from the day of the new moon.132 The weekly Sabbath day, meanwhile, is not a khag, though a khag can fall on a weekly Sabbath day. At times, khagi are listed separately from weekly Sabbath days, new moons, and the remaining moadi (sacred days). For example, Hosea speaks of Israel’s “khag, her new moon, and her Sabbath, and all her moad.”133 Ezekiel writes of the offerings made “on the khagi, and on the new moons, and on the Sabbaths, in all the moadi of the house of Israel.”134 Similarly, in the New Testament the separation is made between “festival, or new moon, or Sabbath.”135

Jew, Jews, and Jewish The terms “Jew,” “Jews,” and “Jewish” are among the most misunderstood, confusing, and controversial in popular usage today. At times these words are anachronistically utilized to refer to all of the ancient Israelites, i.e., the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob. At other times they hold only religious significance and serve as a large canopy for the various sects of Judaism. Due to this unusual mixture of ethnic and religious connotations, some take offense when the merits of Judaism are challenged and the words Jew and Jews, and sometimes even Jewish, are used. A criticism or negative comment against the Jews (religiously speaking) is unfortunately perceived as an attack against the Jewish people as an ethnic group. This becomes especially confusing in the New Testament when men like the messiah and his apostles, who were ethnically Judaeans, speak negatively against the “Pharisees, and all of the Jews.”136 We shall therefore take a moment to explain our solution. Simply put, the term “Jew” is an abbreviated form of the Hebrew term dwhy (Yahud)—plural ydwhy (Yahudi), yadwhy (Yahudai), and so forth—meaning an inhabitant of adwhy (Yahuda; Judaea).137 These terms are in Greek respectively rendered ΔIoudai`on (Yudaion; Jew); ΔIoudai`oi~ (Yudaiois; Jews); and ΔIoudaia (Yudaia; Judaea).138 Some of the Israelites were called Jews because they were associated with the people who lived in Judaea. The name Judaea was itself derived from hdwhy (Yahudah; Judah), the Israelite kingdom named 129 Lev., 23:2f, is labeled as a group of moadi for which only the Sabbath day is named. Lev., 23:4, labels another group of moadi, which is followed by the list of khag days and other sacred days (Lev., 23:5–43). Lev., 23:44, then provides a summary statement that, “Moses announced the moadi of Yahweh to the sons of Israel.” 130 Lam., 2:6. 131 Neh., 10:31. 132 1 Chron., 23:31; 2 Chron., 2:4, 31:3; Neh., 10:33. 133 Hos., 2:11. The terms khag, new moon, Sabbath, and moad are all used here as collective nouns (a noun that denotes a collection of things regarded as a single unit). 134 Ezek., 45:17, cf., 46:11f. Also see 2 Chron., 8:13; Isa., 1:13f. 135 Col., 2:16. 136 Mark, 7:3; e.g., John, 5:1–18, 7:1, 9:22; Acts, 9:23, 13:50f, 18:12–14, 20:3, and so forth. 137 SEC, Heb. #3061, 3062, 3064, 3065; HEL, p. 104 138 SEC, Gk. #2453, 2449; e.g., Acts, 18:2, 13:45, 1:8.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

after one of the thirteen tribes of Israel. Anciently the Israelites occupied two kingdoms in the Promised Land, Israel—the land of the ten northern tribes— and Judah, which was occupied by three of the southern Israelite tribes: Judah, Benjamin, and the priestly tribe of Levi.139 Only after the Babylonian exile ended (538 B.C.E.) and a remnant of the three tribes returned was the country of Judah called Judaea and its people referred to as Jews.140 Josephus informs us: So the ΔIoudai`oi (Yudaioi; Jews) prepared for the work (of rebuilding the Temple of Yahweh): that is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylonia, which is taken from the tribe of Judah, which first came to these places, and thence both they and the country gained that appellation.141 The ethnic term “Jews” subsequently became attached to all those participating in the different factions of Judaism. Having transcended its ethnic use, the label soon came to include the numerous converts to the various Jewish sects, including but not limited to those from the Persian empire, the Idumaeans of the Negeb, and later the Khazars of southern Russia.142 Since ancient writers commonly used the terms Jew, Jews, and Jewish in both an ethnic and religious sense, we must clarify our own usage. We shall utilize the terms Jew and Jews to refer only to the followers of the various religious sects of Judaism, not as a reference to ethnicity. As H. L. Ellison poignantly notes, “Judaism is the religion of the Jews in contrast to that of the Old Testament . . . Judaism should be regarded as beginning with the Babylonian Exile.”143 In this sense, we will apply these terms in the same way that we apply the title Christian, as a broad umbrella meant to cover various belief systems. The common bond connecting the various Jewish sects, and therefore our use of the terms Jew and Jews, is their belief that they are under the Torah of Moses and that Yahushua is not the messiah. On the other hand, when referring to the ethnicity of the Israelites, we shall employ such labels as Judahite, Judaean, Israelite, Hebrew, and, when the context allows, Jewish.

Conclusion These preliminary definitions and explanations shall provide an important basis upon which to begin our investigation. As this study proceeds, a large number of other definitions shall be added. With the understanding that this technique of defining terms is an integral part of the investigative process, our attention will now turn to the question of whether or not Christians—who are not under the Torah of Moses but are under grace—are required to observe Yahweh’s festivals and sacred days. 139 Josh., 18:5; 1 Chron., 5:1f; Ezek., 37:15–22; Gen., 48:1–20; cf., Josh., 13:1–21:45; 2 Sam., 19:43, 24:9; 2 Kings, 16:6f; Isa., 8:14. 140 Ezra, 1:5; 2:1–65; Jos., Antiq., 10:1:1, 11:1:3. 141 Jos., Antiq., 11:5:7. 142 Matt., 23:15; Acts, 2:5; Dio, 37:17; Esther, 8:17; Jos., Antiq., 13:9:1; EJ, 10, pp. 944–953. 143 NBD, p. 670.

PART ONE Required Under Grace?

Introduction to Part I

n the minds of most Jews, Christians, and Moslems, the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh came into existence with the Torah (Law of Moses) and pertain to the Jews. As a consequence, many, including most Christians and Moslems, believe that these festivals and sacred days are simply not relevant for anyone unless they belong to the Jewish faith. In the view of the majority of Christians, because they are now under grace, it has been assumed that these festivals and sacred days were annulled at the death of the messiah. The belief that the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are no longer required has been carried along by a long-standing tradition established by many of the Christian churches. But is this interpretation valid? Was this the view of the apostles and the earliest assemblies following the messiah? Before any serious student of Scriptures, especially those professing a belief in Yahushua as the messiah, so quickly dismisses these important days, it behooves him to follow the scriptural instruction to “prove all things.”1 It is incumbent upon that person to first thoroughly address the question, “Are those under grace required to observe the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh?” To set the stage for our investigation and to honestly answer this question two issues must be addressed. First, we must uncover the scriptural authority for keeping the moadi of Yahweh. Understanding this authority will empower us to prove whether or not any requirement is still in force. Second, we must look at the New Testament passages that are used by various Christian groups as the basis for their authority to dismiss the observance of the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh.

A twqj (Khoquth)

The moadi (festivals and sacred days) of Yahweh derive their legal power by means of a twqj (khoquth), tqj (khoquth), etc., the feminine form of qj (khoq), plural μyqj (khoqim): a statute or legal enactment dealing with an appointment of time, space, quantity, labor, or usage.2 To demonstrate this connection, the prophet Ezekiel—while speaking of the millennium age to come, a time when the messiah shall be ruling from Jerusalem—writes that the Levitical Tsadoq (Zadok) priests of that time will be attending to the khoquth-based moadi of Yahweh: 2 Thess., 5:21. The term qj (khoq), fem. tqj, twqj (khoquth), collective noun μyqj (khoqim), etc., means “an enactment; hence an appointment (of time, space, quantity, labor or usage)” (SEC, Heb. #2706, 2708); “statute, law . . . custom, privilege” (HEL, p. 93). 1 2

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh And they shall teach my people (the difference) between the sacred and the common, between the unclean and the clean, and will make these things known. They shall stand to judge; in my judgments they shall judge. And they shall observe my laws and my khoquth in all of my moad; and my Sabbaths they shall make sacred.3

The moadi found in the Torah of Moses also derive their legal force from their tqj (khoquth). This detail is demonstrated by specific comments to that effect. For example, the covenant made at Mount Sinai has a list of μyfpçm (mashaphatim; judgments) attached to the Ten Commandments.4 Judgments are themselves a type of khoquth which render judicial decisions to enforce an established khoquth.5 This same list is twice referred to as the “μyqj (khoqim; statutes) and judgments” of Yahweh.6 Within this list of μyqj (khoqim) are the weekly Sabbath day, the Sabbath year, and the three khag periods: i.e., the seven day Khag of Unleavened Bread, the Khag of Harvest (Pentecost), and the Khag of Ingathering (Tabernacles).7 These are not the only examples. In Exodus, 13:5–10, for instance, the Israelites were instructed to observe the seven-day Khag of Unleavened Bread, keeping “the hqj (khoqah; statute), this at its moad, from days to days.”8 In Leviticus, 23:37–41, they were ordered to celebrate the seven-day Khag of Tabernacles because it was “a μl[ tqj (khoquth olam),”9 i.e., a world-age lasting statute.10 The Khag of Weeks is also specifically referred to in the Torah as a “khoquth olam (world-age lasting statute).”11 Not only are those moadi designated as khagi and the weekly Sabbath days specifically said to have derived Ezek., 44:23f. The Ten Commandments are listed in Exod., 20:1–17, followed by the statutes and judgments in Exod., 21:1–23:32, esp. 21:1. 5 The Hebrew word μyfpçm (mashaphatim), singular fpçm (mashaphat), refers to “a verdict (favorable or unfavorable) pronounced judicially, espec. a sentence or formal decree (human or [partic.] divine law, individual or collect.), includ. the act, the place, the suit, the crime, and the penalty; abstr. justice, includ. a partic. right, or privilege (statutory or customary), or even a style” (SEC, Heb. #4941); “deciding, decision, sentence” (HEL, p. 275). It is a form of the Hebrew word μyfpç (shaphatim), singular fpç (shaphat), which means a “sentence, i.e. infliction:—judgment . . . to judge, i.e. pronounce sentence (for or against); by impl. to vindicate or punish” (SEC, Heb. #8199– 8202; HEL, p. 275). In Num., 27:11, 35:29, Judgments are defined as “khoquth Judgments.” 6 Deut., 4:12–14; Mal., 4:4. 7 Exod., 23:10–12, 14–18, in context with Exod., 21:1–23:32, esp. 21:1 (cf., Deut., 4:12–14; Mal., 4:4). 8 Exod., 13:10. 9 Lev., 23:41. 10 Most English translations render the Hebrew term μl[ or μlw[ (olam) as “forever,” “everlasting,” or “eternity.” It is true that μlw[ (olam) means, “concealed, i.e. to the vanishing point” and “time out of mind,” or “eternity” (SEC, Heb. #5769). Yet it also carries with it the idea of a “world” or “age” (IHG, p. 84, “age, eon, eternity”; Danby, Mishnah, p. 10, n. 8, “both ‘world’ and ‘eternity’”). In the Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew, for example, olam is translated by the Greek terms aijwvn (aion) and aijwvnio~ (aionios) (CS, 1, pp. 39–42), meaning, “an age; by extens. perpetuity (also past); by impl. the world . . . perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):— eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began),” and “a period of existence . . . a definite space of time, an era, epoch, age, period . . . lasting for an age” (SEC, Gk. #165, 166; GEL, p. 25). 11 Lev., 23:21. Jer., 5:24, also indicates that this period is by statute when Jeremiah tells us that Yahweh reserves for us “the weeks of the twqj (khoquth; statutes) of the harvest.” 3 4

Introduction to Part I

their power from their respective khoquth but this situation is also true of other moadi. The omer wave offering, for instance, gains its legal force by means of a “khoquth olam”12 and the Day of Atonement is twice said to be based upon a “khoquth olam.”13

The Condemned Sacred Days One approach used to dismiss the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh is to point to Yahweh’s Old Testament condemnation of Israel’s moadi and khagi. In Isaiah, for example, Yahweh is quoted as condemning Israel, saying: I cannot endure the new moon and Sabbath, the calling of a convocation. I cannot endure the evil trx[ (Atsarth; Closing Assembly).14 My life hates your new moons and your moadi. They are a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.15 Hosea reports Yahweh’s words against his people Israel, writing: I will also cause all her (Israel’s) joy to cease, her khag, her new moon, and her Sabbath and every one of her moad.16 In Amos we similarly read: I hate, I reject your khagi and I will not delight in your Closing Assemblies.17 These statements are interpreted to mean that, since the Israelites were practicing the festivals and sacred days found in the Torah of Moses, Yahweh was condemning these celebrations as being no longer worthy or required. This argument is a total misrepresentation of these statements. In the Torah of Moses, for example, Yahweh instructs the Israelites to observe all of the khagi and sacred days of Yahweh, calling them “my moad” and “the moadi of Yahweh.”18 The Sabbaths are equally called “my Sabbaths” and “the Sabbaths of Yahweh.”19 Therefore, a discrepancy is immediately noticed when the above words from Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos are compared with Yahweh’s earlier instructions. Yahweh did not condemn his own festivals and sacred days but those festivals originating from, and practiced by, the Israelites. Yahweh hates “your” and “her (Israel’s)” khagi and moadi not “my (Yahweh’s)” khagi and moadi. A closer look at the context of the passages in question reveals that in each case the discussion was in reference to the pagan and evil practices that the Israelites had attached to their observances. For example, in Isaiah, Yahweh 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Lev., 23:14. Lev., 16:29–31, 23:31. See below Chap. X, pp. 162f, n. 63. Isa., 1:13f. Hos., 2:11. Amos, 5:21. E.g., Lev., 23:2, 37, 44. Exod., 20:10, 31:13; Lev., 19:3, 30, 23:3, 38, 26:2; cf., Ezek., 20:12–38, 44:24.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

claims he can no longer “endure the new moon and Sabbath, the calling of a convocation” or “the evil Closing Assembly,” and adds that he hates the new moons and moadi observed at Jerusalem. Why is the Closing Assembly evil and why can he no longer endure their sacred days? Yahweh explains: How has the faithful city become a harlot? She was (previously) full of justice; righteousness lodged in it—but now murderers. Your silver has become dross, your wine is diluted with water. Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves, every one loves a bribe and is pursuing rewards. They do not judge (= deliver) the orphan, nor does the cause of the widow come to them.20 Yahweh’s message lies in his remedy: Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean. Put away the evil of your doings from my sight; STOP DOING EVIL. Learn to do good, seek justice, reprove the oppressors; judge (= deliver) the orphan; defend the widow.21 In Hosea, when Yahweh says that he will stop the joy in Israel and cause to cease her khag, her new moon, and her Sabbath and every one of her moad, it is said in context with the statement made immediately before it: I will uncover her (Israel’s) shamefulness to the eyes of her lovers, and a man shall not deliver her out of my hand.22 What shamefulness? Yahweh explains, “I will visit on her the days of Baalim (pagan deities) on which (days) she brings incense to them . . . and goes after her lovers BUT FORGETS ME, says Yahweh.”23 Therefore, the khag, moad, and Sabbath days practiced by Israel are those dedicated to pagan deities. They no longer have anything to do with Yahweh. Indeed, they have forgotten Yahweh.24 Similarly, in Amos we find Yahweh’s statement, “I hate, I reject your khagi and I will not delight in your Closing Assemblies,” which is explained by the rhetorical question from Yahweh: Have you offered sacrifices and offerings to me 40 years in the wilderness, House of Israel? Rather you carried the booth of your Moleck and the images of your Kiun,25 the star of your eloahi which you made for yourselves!26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Isa., 1:21f. Isa., 1:16f. Hos., 2:10. Hos., 2:13. Cf., Jer., 23:25–32. Aristides, Apol., 9, identifies Kiun with the Greek deity Kronos (i.e., the Roman deity Saturn). Amos, 5:25f.

Introduction to Part I

Religious adultery, rebelliousness, idolatry, murder, thievery, and evil are the doings that caused Yahweh to hate the khagi and moadi practiced by the Israelites. They had “perverted the words of the living eloahim.”27 The king of Israel, Jeroboam, even created a new festival in the eighth month without any authority from Yahweh.28 He also placed golden calf-idols in Dan and Bethel.29 The Israelites were sacrificing children in fires and worshiping pagan deities like the sun, Baal, Moleck, Astarte, and Kemosh, and would prophesy by Baal.30 The Israelite women were “weeping for Tammuz” and making “cakes to the queen of heaven (= Astarte).”31 In effect, the khagi and moadi that the Israelites celebrated were their own sacred days which, in reality, were dedicated to pagan deities, not to Yahweh. It was the evil nature of the people and their paganizing of Yahweh’s festivals and sacred days that became a burden to Yahweh, causing him to become angry. Yahweh’s own festivals and sacred days, on the other hand, were dedicated “to Yahweh”32 and were intended to reflect Yahweh’s divine nature. They were to be celebrated by a people who were acting righteously, in sacredness, and who were doing good deeds. His people were to “call the Sabbath luxurious”33 and were to “delight” in his “khoquth.”34 They were to keep his commandments with the attitude that they are “not burdensome.”35 The Israelites had polluted Yahweh’s sacred days by adding pagan customs, acting evilly, and forsaking Yahweh. Accordingly, it is a non sequitur to say that Yahweh had dismissed the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh as hateful and to claim that they were no longer required. Rather, he was only rejecting the festivals and sacred days of the Israelites as evil. Yahweh desired that the Israelites keep his festivals and sacred days, but this meant that these days must be accomplished by a righteous and obedient people. Therefore, there is no weight in the argument that because Yahweh had condemned the festivals and sacred days practiced by the Israelites that he has allowed us to set aside his commanded festivals and sacred days.

The Dovgmasin (Dogmasin) Against Us Most present-day Christians base their conclusion that the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are no longer required on some of the statements made by the apostle Saul (Paul). Saul understood, for example, that we are no longer obligated to keep the dovgmasin (dogmasin; public decrees)36 of Moses. In his epistle to the Colossians Saul writes: Jer., 23:36. 1 Kings, 12:32f. 1 Kings, 12:28–30. E.g., 1 Kings, 11:33; 2 Kings, 21:3–9, 23:5, 10–15; 2 Chron., 28:1–4; Jer., 7:30f, 23:13, 32:32–35; Ezek., 20:30–32. 31 Ezek., 8:14; Jer., 7:18. 32 E.g., Lev., 23:1–44, esp. 23:3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 16, 18, 25, 27, 36, 38, 41. 33 Isa., 58:13. 34 Ps., 119:16. 35 1 John, 5:3. 36 The Greek term dovgmasin (dogmasin) is the plural form of dovgma (dogma) and means a “public decree, ordinance” (GEL, 1968, p. 441). 27 28 29 30

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh And you, being dead in offenses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he (Yahweh) quickened together with him (Yahushua), having forgiven us all the offenses; having blotted out the handwriting of dovgmasin (dogmasin; public decrees) against us, which were adverse to us, also he has taken it out of the midst, having nailed it to the (torture-) stake;37 having stripped the principalities and the authorities, he made a public showing, leading them in triumph in it.38

In his letter to the Ephesians, Saul expresses this same thought by noting that, before the death of the messiah, the nations (who are uncircumcised in the foreskin of their flesh) were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” (who are circumcised in the foreskin of their flesh). The nations did not keep the works of the Torah, such as the observance of fleshly circumcision. Therefore, they were “strangers from the Covenants of Promise, not having hope, and in the world a[qeoi (atheoi; without deity [eloah = father Yahweh]).39 But now, with the death of the messiah, peace between the two groups has been made: 37 The Greek term staurw/` (stauro), translated in the KJV as “cross,” is more correctly translated as “upright pale or stake . . . pale for impaling a corpse” (GEL, 1968, p. 1635). It was connected with a cross by later Christians after they adopted the cross as a symbol for Christ, the Greek letter C being the first letter in the title cristov~ (christos = Christ). The stake used to torture Yahushua to death was often referred to as a tree (Acts, 5:30, 10:39, 13:29; Gal., 3:13; 1 Pet., 2:24), but it is nowhere in Scriptures defined as a cross. Accordingly, throughout our text we shall translate staurw/` (stauro) as stake or (torture-)stake when it refers to the instrument used to kill the messiah. As a side issue, whether or not the implement used to murder the messiah was a cross in the shape of a T or † or X, or whether it was merely an upright pole, should not itself be relevant. Yet having said this, one must be cognizant of the problem that has arisen over the centuries with the belief that the stauro was a cross. Beyond the fact that the cross is a well-known pagan image of the sun and of sun worship (SLAA, pp. 300–307), the second commandment forbids the use of any carved object, whatever its shape, as a devotional image which one bows before or serves (Exod., 20:4–6). Yet many Christians ignore this rule and kneel before the image of a cross. This image is often used as an amulet, an object of good luck which is worn, kissed, rubbed, and held during prayer. The remedy for this error is the removal of all devotional images. A relevant example is provided by Scriptures. While in the wilderness the Israelites were plagued with poisonous vipers. As an act of prophecy, Moses built a copper serpent and placed it atop a pole. He then lifted the pole upright. All who looked upon the copper serpent were saved from death (Num., 21:6–9). According to Yahushua (John, 3:14f; cf., Wisd., 16:5–7), the copper serpent lifted up in the wilderness by Moses represented the messiah being lifted up (i.e., the pole was a symbol of the type of death the messiah would suffer). Yet the pole and the copper serpent were merely prophetic symbols and were not to be served or bowed down to. In contradiction to this principle, in the eighth century B.C.E. the Israelites began to offer sacrifices to this image. As a result, King Hezekiah, a man favored by Yahweh, destroyed the image as an object of idolatry. All Christians worshiping an image of the messiah on a cross or treating the cross as a devotional should take heed of the meaning of Hezekiah’s actions. 38 Col., 2:13–15. 39 Eph., 2:11f. When used in the New Testament, we shall translate the Greek generic term qeov~ (theos) (qeoi [theoi], etc.), either as “deity” or with more appropriate transliterations of the Hebrew generic terms hla (eloah; mighty being), or by its collective noun forms yhla (eloahi) or μyhla (eloahim). Our translation will depend upon the context and the known Hebrew found behind the Greek texts. Also see above Chap. I, p. 9, n. 25, and App. A, p. 385, ns. 2 and 3.

Introduction to Part I

For he is our peace, who made both one, and the middle wall of the fence broke down, and having annulled in his flesh, the enmity, the Torah of commandments in dovgmasin (dogmasin; public decrees), that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace; and might reconcile both in one body to eloah through the (torture-)stake, having slain the enmity by it.40 The term dovgmasin (dogmasin; public decrees) is interpreted by many Christians to mean the entirety of the Torah or Law of Moses, whether given at Mount Sinai or added later, especially all of its commandments, laws, and statutes. In turn, it is concluded that the Torah was annulled at the time that the messiah was nailed to the stake. Since after the death of Yahushua we are no longer under the Torah (Law) but under grace, and since there is no requirement for the dogmasin, such as fleshly circumcision, it is further reasoned that there is no need to keep the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh as commanded by Scriptures. There is yet another statement given by Paul (Saul) to the Colossians which is often repeated as a basis for dismissing the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh. After telling his readers that the handwriting in dogmasin had been nailed to the torture-stake, Saul writes: Therefore, let no one judge you in food or in drink or in the sharing in of a festival, or new moon, or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of the messiah.41 This statement is interpreted to mean that a Christian is not to be judged for his failure to observe the festivals and Sabbaths or held accountable for the reckoning of new moons for the moadi.

Obvious Flaws As our investigation shall show, there are a great number of flaws in these arguments used by many Christians to do away with the festivals and sacred days. These errors stem largely from a misunderstanding of the issues that Saul (Paul) was trying to address. As the apostle Keph (Peter) writes, Saul’s epistles speak of “some things hard to be understood, which the untaught and unestablished wrest, as also as with the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”42 It is this complexity of the subject matter that serves as the source for much of the confusion. At the same time, some flaws are so obvious that they compel us, just on the face of it, to take a deeper look into the entire subject. To demonstrate, the legal power of a moad is its khoquth (statute). According to present-day popular Christian tradition, the statutes which give 40 41 42

Eph., 2:13–16. Col., 2:16f. 2 Pet., 3:15f.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

rise to the requirements for observing the festivals and sacred days are all derived from the Torah of Moses. This concept has been built upon the mistaken assumption that the word dovgmasin (dogmasin; public decrees) refers to the entirety of the Torah as a body of work. Indeed, many have incorrectly translated the term dogmasin in Colossians, 2:14, to read “Law.” The actual Greek term used to translate the word hrt (Torah) is novmo~ (nomos; law).43 The statutes originating and enforcing the observance of the festivals and sacred days, as a result, are believed, by popular opinion, to have been nailed to the torture-stake at the messiah’s death. Even on the surface, this conclusion fails to consider the existence of any khoquth previous to the events at Mount Sinai and the Torah of Moses. It is true that the handwritten dogmasin mentioned by Saul do include those statutes and laws that were written down at Mount Sinai and those later attached to that agreement. Yet these were augmentations of the conditions of the original “Covenants of Promise” that Yahweh made with Abraham. As we shall reveal in our study, the handwritten dogmasin are only those elements of the Torah of Moses which are elsewhere identified as works and customs of the Torah (Law). By definition they cannot include any of the verbal statutes and laws which predated the handwritten Torah of Moses. Abraham, for example, obeyed Yahweh’s unwritten “commandments, twqj (khoquth; statutes), and laws” centuries before Moses ever came to Mount Sinai.44 Therefore, if there existed statutes prior to the Mosaic Torah obligating us to observe the festivals and sacred days, the setting aside of the Torah of Moses would have no effect upon the earlier requirement to keep them. What then of the statement in Colossians that we are not to be judged in food or in drink, or “in the sharing of a festival, or new moon, or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come”? The use of this verse to support the idea of not keeping the festivals and Sabbaths or in not observing the new moons to date the moadi of Yahweh is another obvious flaw. It is typical of how far many will stretch a verse to make it say whatever they wish. What the verse in Colossians actually states has exactly the opposite meaning. Saul reports that a Christian is not to be judged because of their “mevrei (merei; sharing in of),”45 i.e., their keeping of, “a festival, new moon, or Sabbaths,” because these are a shadow of things to come. The negative form “not sharing” is required if the popular interpretation were to carry any weight. Therefore, the person that is not to be judged is the Christian who “is sharing (participating)” in these days. Further, since these comments are addressed to the Colossians, a non-Israelite people, the reference is to nonIsraelite Christians who are keeping the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh. It has nothing to do with those failing to observe them. CS, 2, pp. 946–949. Gen., 26:5. GEL, pp. 1104f, “share, portion . . . the part one takes in a thing”; SEC, Gk. #3313, “to get as a section or allotment . . . a division or share”; ILT, Lex., p. 63, “a part . . . a share . . . fellowship . . . a business or calling . . . a part.” 43 44 45

Introduction to Part I

The Task of Part I The task of Part I of our first volume requires that we determine whether or not the statutes for observing Yahweh’s festivals and sacred days are still applicable. If these statutes are no longer required, then the whole issue of when and how to keep the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh is moot. On the other hand, if these statutes are still strongly in force under grace, it behooves us to know exactly how and when they are to be observed. Part I of our investigation will demonstrate that in Scriptures the works or customs of the Torah of Moses were not supplemental conditions required for receiving the inheritance found in the Covenants of Promise (the Torah of Trust) given to Abraham. Rather, they were merely augmentations which specified practices already permitted under the Covenants of Promise, a subtle but important difference. It will also be shown that no one, except for Yahushua the messiah, qualified (was justified) under the Torah of Moses. Our hope lies with the messiah, obtaining grace, and with the eternal inheritance found in the Covenants of Promise Yahu Yahweh made with Abraham. An eternal inheritance was granted to Abraham and his seed by Yahu Yahweh, one of the unified eloahi of Abraham.46 Because Yahu was the testator of the will, he was himself required to die in order to pass on the contents of that will.47 It was this same Yahu Yahweh who became Yahushua (“Yahu saves”) the messiah, the fleshly descendant (seed) of Abraham. Therefore, it was Yahu Yahweh who, as the seed of Abraham, qualified to receive the very inheritance he had previously left to Abraham and his seed.48 By the death and resurrection of the messiah, the augmentations that were attached centuries later to the covenant will given to Abraham, as found in the Torah of Moses, were able to be by-passed. These augmentations are circumvented because Yahushua has qualified to receive the eternal inheritance and can share this inheritance with whomever he chooses, thereby allowing the eternal inheritance to be given to those who are not under the Torah of Moses. Herein lies the mechanism of forgiveness and grace. Nevetheless, this act of 46 The archangel Yahu Yahweh, one of the two Yahweh eloahi (see above Chap. I, n. 25; App. A, p. 385, ns. 2 & 3), not father Yahweh himself, is the being who left Abraham the inheritance in the Covenants of Promise (see Chap. II, App. A & B; also see SNY and TTY). Father Yahweh has never been seen nor has his voice actually been heard by any earthly man, except by Yahushua before he became a fleshly man (John, 1:18, 5:37, 6:45). He dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim., 6:13–16). The Yahweh who personally knew Abraham, on the other hand, physically passed through the pieces of meat divided by Abraham in order to make a covenant with him (Gen., 15:6–17), spoke face to face as a friend to Abraham and Moses (Gen., 19:27; Exod., 33:11; Deut., 34:10), and was seen, heard, and even ate a meal with the Israelites (Exod., 24:9–11; Num., 14:14; Deut., 4:36, 5:4f). He is also called “the angel (messenger) of the covenant” (Mal., 3:1), being the angel described both as an eloahi and eloahim, and the angel named Yahweh whom Moses found in the burning bush (Acts, 7:29–34; Exod., 3:2, 4, 6, 11–16). Moses even saw the divine glory of this angel named Yahweh (Exod., 33:12–23). One Yahweh was on earth and the other in heaven when Sodom was destroyed (Gen., 19:24f), and one Yahweh often speaks of the other as a separate person (e.g., Zech., 2:10–11, 10:12; Isa., 48:16, where Yahweh is speaking, cf., vs. 1–17; and Isa., 44:6 with 48:12). 47 That Yahu Yahweh was required to die in order to pass on the inheritance in the Covenants of Promise see below Chap. V, pp. 75–80, and see App. A–C. 48 That the eloah named Yahu Yahweh became a fleshly descendant of Abraham in order to receive the very inheritance he had left to Abraham and his seed in the Covenants of Promise see App. C.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

grace is itself conditioned upon the recipient repenting and, once having come to the truth, no longer being willing to sin. The ability to avoid willful sin comes by means of trust in Yahweh and his messiah, for which reason the Covenants of Promise are also called the Torah of Trust.

The Order The order of our investigation will proceed by addressing different issues that will define the role of the festivals and sacred days in the covenants given to Abraham and in the Torah of Moses. These issues will include a discussion of the eternal inheritance given by Yahu Yahweh, its conditions, the purpose of the Torah of Moses, what grace actually is, how we obtain the knowledge of sin, and where one can find the conditions for justification under grace in the Torah of Moses. Finally, evidence will be brought forward proving that part of the conditions for receiving the eternal inheritance from Yahu Yahweh include the observance of the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh and that these conditions will continue in force until heaven and earth pass away at the coming of father Yahweh.

Chapter II

The Inheritance

eing under grace does not eliminate the requirement to observe the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh. The failure to understand this concept stems from a lack of knowledge of the legal mechanism by which Scriptures dictate that we shall receive eternal life. We begin to unravel this complex problem when we realize that this legal process involves an inheritance. The heart of the matter is that Yahu Yahweh,1 who became Yahushua the messiah, as one of the eloahi named Yahweh,2 made a conditional will, confirmed by an oath, containing the promise of an inheritance granting eternal life and a share in the kingdom of Yahweh. Because Yahweh eloahi authored this will, the death of one of the eloahi is mandated; otherwise, the promise of an inheritance is without any substantive value.3 By becoming the fleshly seed of Abraham, Yahu Yahweh also became a designated heir in his own will. All those coming under grace and having trust (faith)4 in the messiah are likewise heirs to this eternal inheritance if, as with Abraham and Yahushua, they abide by its conditions.5 Proof that we are subject to the conditions of the inheritance begins with the evidence that we are heirs under grace.

Heirs Those being saved under grace are heirs of the promises given in a conditional will. We first recognize the existence of this will by the innumerable references to the fact that we shall be heirs of a promised inheritance of eternal life and of For the proof of the name Yahu see TNY. For the collective noun use of the term eloahi when applied to Yahweh see above Chap. I, p. 9, n. 25; Intro to Part I, p. 33, n. 46; App. A, ns. 2 & 3. 3 See App. A–C, and see below Chap. III, pp. 75ff. 4 Throughout our text the Hebrew and Greek words traditionally translated as “faith” by many English editions of the Scriptures shall more accurately be rendered as “trust,” denoting something based upon truth and a firm foundation. The Hebrew word ˆwma (amun), for example, is from ˆma (aman), and means “established, i.e. (fig.) trusty; also (abstr.) trustworthiness:—faith (-ful), truth” (SEC, Heb. #529); fem. hnwma (amunah), “lit. firmness; fig. security; mor. fidelity” (SEC, Heb. #530). ˆma (aman) is “a prim. root; prop. to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; fig. to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; mor. to be true or certain” (SEC, Heb. #539), “was true, faithful . . . was sure . . . was enduring” (HEL, p. 19). In the Greek LXX and New Testament (see CS, 2, pp. 1137–1139), ˆma (aman), hnma (amunah), etc. are translated as pivsti~ (pistis), meaning, “persuasion, i.e. credence; mor. conviction” (SEC, Gk. #4102); and as pistov~ (pistos), “obj. trustworthy; subj. trustful” (SEC, Gk. #4103). Both the Hebrew and Greek words denote trust on the basis of a firm foundation. For that reason, the Scriptures demand that we prove all things (1 Thess., 5:21) and establish every matter upon at least two or three witnesses (2 Cor., 13:1). The English concept of “faith,” on the other hand, allows for blind faith and simple belief without proof. 5 For a complete study of the conditional and unconditional covenants and promises found in the Scriptures see our series on the Afterlife in TCP. 1 2

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

the kingdom of Yahweh. To demonstrate, the apostle Saul notes that, “having been justified by his grace, heirs we should become according to the hope of eternal life.”6 He writes that, once we become the children of Yahweh, we also become his heirs: The ruach (unseen force, spirit)7 itself bears witness with our ruach, that we are children of eloahi. And if children, also heirs: heirs indeed of eloahi, and jointheirs with the messiah; if indeed we suffer together, that also we may be glorified together.8 But if you are the messiah’s, then you are Abraham’s spevrma (sperma; collective seed),9 and heirs according to the promise.10 So no longer are you a bondman, but a son; and if a son, also heir of eloahi through the messiah.11 Saul adds that after beginning to trust in the messiah, “in whom also we obtain an inheritance,” those trusting “are sealed with the ruach of the sacred promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance, to the redemption of the acquired possession, to the praise of his glory.”12 Saul also speaks of “the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.”13 He notes that it was “revealed to his sacred apostles and prophets in the ruach” that “the nations are to be joint-heirs and a joint-body and joint-partakers of his promise in the messiah through the good news.”14 The other disciples of Yahushua likewise proclaimed this message. In the book of James, for example, we read, “Hear, my beloved brethren: did not eloah choose the poor of this world, rich in trust, and heirs of the kingdom, which he promised to those that love him?”15 The apostle Keph (Peter) reminds us that husbands should recognize that their wives are also “joint-heirs of the grace of life, so as in your prayers not to be cut off.”16 The book of Matthew reports that, at the end of Judgment, Yahweh shall separate the wicked (goats) from the justified (sheep). Then the king (Yahu Yahweh) shall say to those (sheep) on his right hand, Come, the blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.17 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Titus, 3:4–7. See above Chap. I, p. 18, n. 99. Rom., 8:16f. See below ns. 30 & 31. Gal., 3:29; cf., LXX at Gen., 15:5, 17:9f, 22:17. Gal., 4:7. Eph., 1:11–14. Eph., 1:18. Eph., 3:5f. James, 2:5. 1 Pet., 3:7. Matt., 25:31–34.

The Inheritance

We are to be seeking and working for this “inheritance of eternal life” and the inheritance of “the kingdom,” which has been planned for since the beginning of the world. Our pursuit is not passive; it is active.18 Saul writes, “But we desire each of you the same diligence to show to the full assurance of the hope unto the end; that you be not sluggish, but imitators of those who through trust and long patience will inherit the promises.”19 In another place he states, “For whatsoever you may do, work heartily, as to the sovereign and not to men; knowing that from the sovereign you will receive the recompense of the inheritance, for the sovereign messiah you serve.”20 The messiah is also an heir of this promised inheritance, for we are to be “joint-heirs with the messiah.”21 Indeed, messiah was “appointed heir of all things.”22 He especially receives as his portion the inheritance of the city of Jerusalem.23 That the messiah is an heir is further expressed by the references to him in parables as the heir that the wicked servants murdered.24

Granted to Abraham and the Messiah The obvious question arises, “Where is this will granted by Yahu Yahweh that promises an inheritance of eternal life?” Scriptures prove that the will containing the promised inheritance which provides eternal life—not only to Abraham and the nations but to and by means of the messiah—was granted to Abraham by Yahu Yahweh in the Covenants of Promise. Galatians clearly makes this point: Brethren, according to a man I am speaking, o{mw~ (omos; as with)25 a man, no one sets aside or ejpdatavssetai (epidiatassetai; supplements) a confirmed covenant. But to Abraham were spoken the promises, and to his spevrmati (spermati; single seed). He does not say, And to spevrmasin (spermasin; plural seeds), as of many; but as of one (seed), and to your spevrmativ (spermati; single seed), which is the messiah.26 A covenant, called a tyrb (berith) in Hebrew, is an agreement. It can be a marriage agreement, business agreement, a covenant will, a formal alliance, vow, or any other type of legal contract. The Hebrew term berith is connected with the idea of cutting meat and eating food. It finds its origin from the custom of the ancients to seal an agreement by “cutting or dividing animals Matt., 7:7–11, 13:44–46; Luke, 11:9–13, 6:46–49; Phil., 2:12; Jer., 29:13; Ps., 105:3f. Heb., 6:11f. Col., 3:23f. Rom., 8:16f. Heb., 1:2. Zech., 2:12. E.g., Matt., 21:33–44; Mark, 12:1–12; Luke, 20:9–19. The Greek term o{mw~ (omos) means, “equally, likewise, alike . . . like as, equally with . . . together with” (GEL, p. 558). 26 Gal., 3:15f. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

in two and passing between the parts in ratifying a covenant,” subsequently dining upon the cooked meat.27 Further, in ancient Hebrew culture a meal would bind one to an oath, vow, or contract and could ratify a covenant.28 Thus, even to our present day, we have the custom of the wedding feast after the rites of a marriage. In the above statement from Galatians, Saul notes that Yahweh’s covenant is like that of any man’s ratified agreement. Once it has been confirmed no one, not even Yahweh, can ejpidiatavssetai (epidiatassetai; “make additions to a will,” supplements).29 The statement from Galatians also proves that this particular covenant gave certain promises to Abraham and his spevrmativ (spermati; single seed),30 in Hebrew written [rz (zerah; seed).31 Saul’s statement is verified several times by the book of Genesis.32 Further confirming the words of Saul, the LXX importantly translates the word [rz (zerah) in each relevant instance as spevrmativ (spermati; single seed).33 This single seed, in turn, is identified by Saul as the messiah. Saul then adds that the “inheritance” was by “promise,” and that Yahweh ”granted it (the inheritance) to Abraham through promise.”34 The Hebrew word for promise is rbd (debar), which means to give one’s word.35 27 DB, p. 127, and see Gen., 15, and Jer., 34:18, 19. The Hebrew term for covenant is tyrb (berith), from hrb (barah), “to select . . . to feed . . . to render clear,” in the sense of “cutting . . . a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh):—confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate], covenant, league” (SEC, Heb. #1285, cf., #1262), “any agreement” (HEL, p. 43). In the New Testament the corresponding word is diaqhvkh (diatheke), which means, a “disposition of property by will, testament” (GEL, 1968, p. 394); “a disposition, i.e. (spec.) a contract (espec. a devisory will):—covenant, testament” (SEC, Gk. #1242). 28 E.g., Gen., 14:18–24, 26:30, 31:51–54; Josh., 9:14; Obad., 7. 29 GEL, 1968, p. 630; SEC, Gk. #1928, “to appoint besides, i.e. supplement (as a codicil)”; GEL, p. 290, “to add an order.” 30 SEC, Gk. #4690, “something sown, i.e. seed (includ. the ‘male sperm’).” See n. 31. 31 The Hebrew term [rz (zerah), “seed, fig. fruit” (SEC, Heb. #2233), can mean either a singular seed, plural seeds, or a collective noun as with a group of seed. In Hebrew it is understood by its context. The LXX and NT Greek versions use separate words to denote the form: e.g., spevrmativ (spermati; singular seed); spevrmasin (spermasin; plural seed); spevrma, spevrmatov~ (sperma, spermatos; plural seed as a collective noun) (SEC, Gk. #4690). Yahweh does not directly tell how or when the single seed (the messiah) would receive the inheritance of the promised land. Yet the timing is indicated in Gal., 3:15–19, which notes that the sperma (the elect) must come first, and Heb., 2:5–18, points to the fact that the elect must enter into the Sabbath day millennium rest, which begins when the messiah returns. 32 Gen., 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 18f, 22:15–18, 24:6f, 26:1–5, 28:1–4. 33 See the LXX at each passage cited above in n. 32. 34 Gal., 3:18. 35 The Hebrew word used for a promise is rbd (debar), which means, “to arrange; but used fig. (of words) to speak . . . a word; by impl. a matter (as spoken of) or thing; adv. a cause” (SEC, Heb. #1696–1697). It is often translated as “promise” and means to give one’s word as an oath. Unlike the Hebrew word rma (amar), which refers to the act of “speaking” (SEC, Heb. #559–562), debar reflects the speakers innermost thoughts, thus the matter spoken of from the mind. The Ten Commandments, for example, are called the ten debar (Deut., 4:13, 10:4f), being reflective of the divine nature of father Yahweh (cf., 1 John, 4:7f, 16 with 4:20–5:6). The Greek words used are ejpaggeliva (epaggelia) and ejpaggevllw (epaggello), which mean, “an announcement (for information, assent or pledge; espec. a divine assurance of good):—message, promise . . . to announce upon (reflex.), i.e. (by impl.) to engage to do something, to assert something respecting oneself;—profess, (make) promise” (SEC, Gk. #1860–1861). Debar is also a term used in reference to the messiah and is often translated logo~ (logos) in the Greek, e.g., see 1 Kings, 16:1; 1 Chron., 15:15, 22:8; 2 Chron., 11:2, 18:18; Ps., 33:4, 6, etc. and cf., LXX, and see John, 1:1. The word or promise of Yahweh the father, being his innermost thought, is personified and manifested in his son, Yahushua the messiah.

The Inheritance

Therefore, Yahweh, who cannot lie,36 gave his word (promise) to leave an inheritance, swearing an unchangeable oath by himself (i.e., by his own sacred name) to fulfill his promise.37

The Legal Mechanism Though we are saved by grace, we are still faced with the important question, “If the inheritance was left to Abraham and his seed (the messiah), by what legal mechanism can men and women from every nation share in that inheritance as joint-heirs?” The legal mechanism built into Yahweh’s plan is adoption through the messiah. To begin with, the rights of adoption were granted to the Israelites, the descendants of Abraham, coming through Abraham’s son and legal heir Isaak, who in turn was the father of Jacob (Israel), the father of the Israelite tribes. Saul (Paul) informs us that his fleshly kinsmen were “the Israelites, to whom (pertain) the adoption and the glory, and the covenants and the giving of the Torah, and the service and the promises; to whom (pertain) the fathers; and out of whom is the messiah according to flesh, who is over all, blessed by Yahweh to eternity.”38 This right to adopt, as predetermined since the beginning of the world, then passed to the Israelite named Yahushua the messiah, given to him by means of his qualifying for the inheritance. Saul tells us: Accordingly, he (father Yahweh) has chosen us in him (Yahushua the messiah) before the foundation of the world, for us to be sacred and blameless before him (father Yahweh) in love; having proorivsa~ (proorisas; predetermined)39 us for adoption through Yahushua the messiah to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he made us objects of grace in the beloved (messiah).40 Titus, 1:2; Heb., 6:18. Heb., 6:13–19; Gen., 22:16–18; Luke, 1:67–74. Cf. Ps., 89:34–37. Rom., 9:3–5. The Greek term proorivsa~ (proorisas), a form of proorivzw (proorizo) means, “determine beforehand . . . predetermine” (GEL, 1968, p. 1493); “to limit in advance, i.e. (fig.) predetermine” (SEC, Gk. #4309). It does not mean predestined, as some translate this word, in the sense that we are personally fated or destined for some particular end. In that case the Greek word moi`ra (moira), i.e., lot, fate, destiny (GEL, 1968, p. 1140f) would have been used. The difference between predetermination and predestination (destiny), for example, is that someone can predetermine the length and breadth of a race course, where the starting and finishing lines are to be placed, the time allotted for the race, and the qualifications for the runners who intend on racing. Someone can even predetermine what the prize will be for those who win the race. Nevertheless, that same someone does not designate the winner of the race until the race is over. Predestination, on the other hand, in the sense of the English word fate and fatalism, entails that the winner of the race has already won before the race has even gotten underway. Indeed, in that case the runners do not even need to run, the winner is already known. Yet, Yahweh does not predestine each individual as to who will receive the inheritance and as to who will be fated for eternal death. He has merely laid out the racecourse and the prize. As Saul states, “Do you not know that those who run in a racecourse all run? Therefore, run, that you may obtain (the inheritance of eternal life)” (1 Cor., 9:24). And again he writes, “with endurance we should run the race lying before us, looking to Yahushua, the leader and completer of our trust” (Heb., 12:1). 40 Eph., 1:5. 36 37 38 39

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Saul further writes that all things are to be headed up in the messiah, “who is the earnest of our inheritance.”41 He adds: (Yahweh) headed up all things in the messiah, both the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth; in him (the messiah), in whom also we obtained an inheritance, being predetermined according to the purpose of him (father Yahweh) who works all things according to the counsel of his will, for us to be to the praise of his glory, who have foretrusted in the messiah.42 Those following Yahweh are looking forward to their adoption as sons and daughters. For we know that all the creation groans together and travails together until now. And not only (they), but even ourselves, having the first-fruit of the ruach, also we ourselves groan inside ourselves, awaiting adoption—the redemption of our body (from sin).43 In order to bring about our adoption and position as heirs, Yahu Yahweh was sent to earth as a man. Saul writes: But when came the fullness of the time, Yahweh sent forth his son, coming out of a woman, coming under the Torah, that he might ransom those under the Torah, that we might receive the adoption. But because you are sons, Yahweh sent forth the ruach of his son into your innermost-selves, crying “Abba (Father)!” So, no longer are you a bondman but a son; and if a son, also heir of Yahweh through the messiah.44 In another place, Saul once more connects this adoption with our status as heirs. He states: So then, brethren, debtors we are, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; for if according to the flesh you live, you are about to die; but if by the ruach the deeds of the body you put to death, you will live: for as many as by the ruach of Yahweh are led, these are the sons of Yahweh. For you do not receive a ruach of bondage again unto fear, but you do receive a ruach of adoption, whereby we cry, “Abba (Father)!” The ruach itself bears witness with our ruach, that we are 41 42 43 44

Eph., 1:14. Eph., 1:10–12. Rom., 8:22f. Gal., 4:4–7.

The Inheritance

children of Yahweh. And if children, also heirs: heirs indeed of Yahweh, and joint-heirs of the messiah; if indeed we suffer together, that also we may be glorified together.45

What Is the Inheritance? What is the inheritance promised to Abraham? These promises are specified in the book of Genesis.46 They include the promise to make Abraham a great nation, to make kings of his descendants (thus establishing the great nation as a kingdom), to give a blessing (which is eternal life),47 and to give a great name (i.e., the sacred name Yahweh).48 Abraham is also to be a blessing to the nations, the father of many nations (from which the inheritance extends to all nations),49 and to become exceedingly fruitful. We are further told that Yahweh gave Abraham the promise of eternal life and an inheritance of land.50 We must take special note of the promises from Yahweh regarding the eternal inheritance of “≈ra (erets; land)”51 and the eternal covenant. To begin with, Yahweh brought Abraham out of Ur of the Kasadim (Kaldees, Chaldaeans) in order that Abraham might çry (yaresh; possess as an inheritance)52 the land of Kanaan.53 The boundaries of this inheritance not only encompass the land of Kanaan but are defined as extending from “the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates.”54 After Abraham arrived, Yahweh not only promised that he would give him this land but added, “Unto your [rz (zerah; seed) I will give this land (i.e., the land of Kanaan, the Promised Land).”55 The LXX importantly translates the word [rz (zerah; seed) in these verses as spevrmativ (spermati; single seed). As already shown, Saul informs us that the single seed who is designated as heir along with Abraham in the Covenants of Promise is the messiah. Further, the inheritance of land given to Abraham and the messiah is to be an eternal inheritance. In Genesis, 13:15, for example, Yahweh tells Abraham, “For all the land which you see, to you I will give it, and to your seed (= the messiah), μl[ d[ (ad olam; a perpetual world-age).” The idea of the possession of the Promised Land for an eternal μl[ (olam; world-age) is further confirmed Rom., 8:12–17. Gen., 12:1–3, 7, 13:14–17, 15:1–12, 17–21, 17:1–14, 18:16–19, 21:9–13. See Ps., 133:1–3; Deut., 30:19. Heb., 1:4; Isa., 43:7; Eph., 3:13–15. Cf. Rev., 14:1, 22:4; and see SNY, chap. xvi. Rom., 4:16–19. E.g., Heb., 9:15, 11:9; Ps., 105:42; Acts, 2:33, 26:6; Rom., 4:16; Gal., 3:29; Titus, 1:1–2; James, 1:12, 2:5. 51 CHAL, p. 28, “ground . . . piece of land . . . totality of land, earth”; SEC, Heb. #776, “prop. mean. to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land)”; HEL, p. 26, “earth . . . the ground . . . region, province.” 52 çry (yaresh), “a prim. root; to occupy (by driving out previous tenants, and possessing in their place); by impl. to seize, to rob, to inherit” (SEC, Heb. #3423). Yaresh, therefore, means to occupy something as an inheritance by seizing it from someone else. The messiah and the elect shall receive the Promised Land by driving out the wicked. 53 Gen., 15:7; Acts, 7:1–5. 54 Gen., 12:7, 13:14f, 15:17–21, 17:8. The LXX also uses spermati (single seed) at this point. 55 Gen., 12:7. 45 46 47 48 49 50

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

by other passages that also use the word d[ (ad; perpetually)56 to describe the possession of this inherited land.57 Therefore, the covenant is to establish an olam that will last perpetually—a world-age which begins after our present temporal olam ends. The main point to be deduced is that, if we are joint-heirs with the messiah, we too shall possess the Promised Land eternally. Next, in a Psalm of David we read that Yahweh will give the land of Kanaan (the Promised Land) to the Israelites for the following reason: He shall remember to μl[ (olam; the world-age)58 his covenant, the rbd (debar; promise) commanded to a thousand generations, which he cut with Abraham, and his oath to Isaak; and he confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an olam (world-age) covenant, saying, To you I will give the ≈ra (erets; land) of Kanaan as the portion of μktljn (nachalathkim; your inheritance).59 These important promises of an inheritance of the ≈ra (erets; land) explain the scriptural statements that, “the meek shall inherit the erets.”60 This erets is inherited as an eternal possession.61 The covenant itself is referred to as the “eternal covenant,”62 “a promise of life.”63 The results are “eternal salvation.”64 The fact that the covenants made with Abram (Abraham)65 include the granting of the “inheritance” of land prove that those promises are part of a covenant will. Indeed, it is from this land of promise located between the Nile and the Euphrates that the messiah will rule the coming new world. New Jerusalem, the throne city, will be located upon that land. With the promise of land is implied the promise of a city wherein the saved might live while residing on that land. The promise of a new environment to accommodate this new world is implied as well. Therefore, the promises to Abraham include the residence of New Jerusalem and a çdj 56 The Hebrew term d[ (ad), means, “continuing future, always” (CHAL, p. 264); “prop. a (peremptory) terminus, i.e. (by impl.) duration, in the sense of advance or perpetuity . . . eternity, ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, = world without end” (SEC, Heb. #5703); “perpetuity, eternity . . . antiquity” (HEL, p. 187). 57 E.g., Pss., 37:27–29, 21:4–7, 61:8; Dan., 12:3; Mic., 4:5; etc. 58 See above Intro. to Part I, p. 26, n. 10. 59 Ps., 105:6–11; 1 Chron., 16:15–19. μktljn (nachalathkim, i.e., your inheritance) is the plur. of ljn (nachal), “a prim. root; to inherit (as a [fig.] mode of descent), or (gen.) to occupy; causat. to bequeath, or (gen.) distribute, instate” (SEC, Heb. #5157); hljn (nachalah), “prop. something inherited” (SEC, Heb. #5159). 60 Matt., 5:5; Ps., 37:9, 11, 22; Isa., 60:21. Isa., 57:13, notes, “But he who takes refuge in me, he shall ljn (nachal; inherit) the land, and he shall çry (yaresh; possess as an inheritance) my sacred mountain.” Isa., 65:9, states, “And I will bring forth out of Jacob a seed (LXX, sperma, group), and out of Judah one (the messiah) to possess as an inheritance my mountain. And my chosen shall possess it as an inheritance, and my servants shall live there.” 61 Gen., 17:8; Ps., 105:8–11; 1 Chron., 16:15–20. 62 Isa., 24:4f. 63 2 Tim., 1:1. 64 Heb., 5:7–10. 65 Gen., 17:5; 1 Chron., 1:27.

The Inheritance

(khadash; new or renewed)66 heavens and new (renewed) earth.67 The book of Hebrews, for example, informs us: By trust he (Abraham) sojourned in the land of the promise, as a strange country, having dwelt in tents with Isaak and Jacob, joint-heirs of the same promise; for he was waiting for the city having foundations, of which the artificer and constructor is eloah.68 “The name of the city of my eloah” is “New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my eloah,”69 “the sacred city, New Jerusalem,”70 ”heavenly Jerusalem,”71 and the “free” city which comes by means of the covenant of inheritance.72 It is also called “the city of Yahweh” and “Yahweh is there.”73 Further, New Jerusalem arrives with “the new heavens and the new earth,” which “are according to his promise” and in which “righteousness dwells.”74 Yet the inheritance does not stop here. There is also the promise of kings coming out of Abraham; and from this flows the statement that we are to inherit the kingdom of Yahweh, i.e., the government (indicating authoritative positions within that government).75 Even more, “He that overcomes shall inherit all things.”76 Saul supports this statement by saying that by promise, and not by the Torah, was Abraham and his single seed (the messiah) given the right as heirs to “the kovsmou (kosmou; universe).”77 The claim that Abraham was given the universe (the earth and all the constellations of the heavens) presents an important question. By merely inheriting the right to an eternal possession of the land located between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers, how does Abraham and his seed achieve the magnitude of power and possession that is indicated by being heirs to the universe? It comes by virtue of ownership rights. Father Yahweh’s throne will rest in New Jerusalem, which in the future will set within the Promised Land. If one has joint and eternal ownership of the Promised Land with Yahweh, he is also a joint and eternal owner in the throne and the palace-city residing there. As a result, he has an eternal right to inhabit that land and to enter its royal city. In turn, this means that he cannot be denied the right to see the face of father Yahweh.78 It also means that he will share in the power of that throne (each 66 çdj (khadash), means “to be new; caus. to rebuild;—renew, repair . . . new:—fresh, new thing” (SEC, Heb. #2318, 2319); “renew, restore . . . new, recent, fresh” (HEL, p. 80). 67 Isa., 65:17, 66:22 (SEC, Heb. #2319); Rev., 21:1 (SEC, Gk. #2537). 68 Heb., 11:9f. 69 Rev., 3:12. 70 Rev., 21:2, 10f. 71 Heb., 12:22. 72 Gal., 4:21–31. 73 Isa., 60:14; Ezek., 48:34; cf., Rev., 3:12f. 74 2 Pet., 3:13; cf., Rev., 21:2, 10f. 75 Gen., 17:6; cf. Rev., 1:6, 5:10. As heirs to the kingdom see Matt., 25:33f; 1 Cor., 6:9f, 15:50; Gal., 5:21; Eph., 5:5. 76 Rev., 21:7. 77 Rom., 4:13. The Greek word kovsmou (kosmou) means, “world-order, universe” (GEL, 1968, p. 985); “the material universe . . . the inhabitants of the world . . . a vast collection, of anything” (ILT, Lex., p. 57). 78 E.g. Rev., 22:2–4; Heb., 12:14; Ps., 11:7; 1 John, 3:2; Matt., 5:8.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

in his own rank), resulting in a political position in the kingdom of Yahweh. Since the throne of Yahweh governs the universe, he also inherits the universe.

The Resurrection and Eternal Life Another important question to consider, since men and women die, “How can anyone eternally own, as a joint-heir, the Promised Land?” Indeed, the dead own nothing;79 and, it is apportioned for men once to die,80 for the wage of sin is death and all men have sinned.81 This fact is true even for the heirs of Yahweh’s will. Did not Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob, to whom the promises were assured, all die?82 And if you are an heir, but you are dead, as the heirs Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob are to this day,83 how can you inherit anything in the world of the living?84 It is therefore manifest that in order to inherit eternal life, one must be resurrected from the dead, for Yahweh is an eloahi of the living, not of the dead.85 The necessity of a resurrection of the dead in order to fulfill the Covenants of Promise is the source for the resurrection doctrine taught throughout Scriptures.86 In fact, as the apostle Saul so poignantly concludes, if there is no resurrection from the dead then our trust in a resurrected messiah is in vain and we are without hope.87 This necessity of a resurrection was clearly alluded to by Yahushua in one of his debates with the Jewish Sadducees, who did not believe in a bodily resurrection. Yahushua, quoting Exodus, 3:6 and 16, addressed this issue by stating: But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read in the book of Moses, while at the bush, how eloahi spoke to him, saying, “I am the eloahi of Abraham, the eloahi of Isaak, and the eloahi of Jacob?” He is not the eloahi of the dead, but the eloahi of the living.88 In short, for these patriarchs to still be living in the eyes of Yahweh, who declares the end from the beginning,89 Yahweh must resurrect them from the dead so that they might inherit. A second question is also manifest. “Does not eternal ownership require that you live eternally?” Herein lies the promise of eternal life as spoken of throughout Scriptures. Once Yahweh has given you a share of the Promised Eccles., 9:5f. Heb., 9:27; cf., 1 Cor., 15:21f; Ps., 22:28f. Except for Yahushua, all humans have sinned, and all who have sinned shall die (Rom., 3:23, 5:12–14, 6:23; 2 Chron., 6:36; Eccles., 9:2–5; Ezek., 18:4, 20). 82 Gen., 25:8, 35:29, 49:33. Heb., 11:8–12, v. 13, “In trust these all died not having received the promises.” 83 That Isaak and Jacob were joint-heirs with Abraham see Heb., 11:8f. 84 Eccles., 9:5f. 85 Matt., 22:23–33; Mark, 12:18–27; Luke, 20:27–38. 86 E.g., in the OT see Job, 14:7–15; 1 Sam., 2:6; Pss., 16:10, 30:3, 49:12–15; Isa., 26:19; Hos., 13:14; Dan., 12:2, 13; and in the NT see John, 11:23f; Acts, 17:18, 24:21; 1 Cor., 15:21, 42; Heb., 11:17–19, 35; Rev., 20:4–6. 87 1 Cor., 15:12–21. 88 Matt., 22:31f; Mark, 12:26f; Luke, 20:38. 89 Isa., 46:9f. 79 80 81

The Inheritance

Land for eternity, he must also give you eternal life, otherwise his promise of eternal ownership cannot be fulfilled. In this regard, also included in this will to Abraham and his seed is the promise of making an eternal covenant with the seed (LXX sperma, i.e., plural seed) of Abraham90— elsewhere referred to as the elect of Israel.91 This eternal covenant, which has not yet been established,92 is the New Covenant,93 the Old Covenant being the Torah previously established at Mount Sinai.94 Both covenants are marriage covenants.95 This New Covenant is the tool by which we shall receive the blessing,96 which is defined as eternal life.97 Remember, one cannot fully abide by an eternal covenant unless he lives eternally. Once more we have the basis for the promise of a resurrection and eternal life.

Conclusion The evidence proves that Yahweh has left to us, through a covenant will given to Abraham and passing through the Israelites, and ultimately coming to us through the messiah, an inheritance of land and an eternal covenant that pertains to eternal life. Our next question that must be answered is, “Are there conditions for receiving this eternal inheritance?” Gen., 17:7. Isa., 45:4, 65:9. Heb., 8:13; Ezek., 37:15–28; Jer., 31:31–40. This evidence proves that the New Covenant will not be established until Yahweh returns the house of Israel and the house of Judah to the Promised Land permanently, at which time the true shepherd, the messiah, will reign. 93 Jer., 31:31–34; Heb., 8:3–13; Isa., 61:1–11, which note that the New Covenant is an everlasting covenant; and Ezek., 37:15–27, which states that this everlasting covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 94 Heb., 8:3–13. 95 Jer., 31:31f; Isa., 54:5. 96 Gen., 12:1–3. 97 Ps., 133:1–3; Deut., 30:19. 90 91 92

Chapter III

The Conditional Inheritance

ur next effort is to discover whether or not the Covenants of Promise form a will which grants a conditional inheritance. Upon examination of the evidence, we shall find that there are, indeed, a number of conditions that we must observe before we can receive any of the promises. For example, not one of the promises made by Yahweh in the will given to Abraham and his seed (the messiah) has yet been granted, not even to the messiah himself. To this end, there is a set date designated within the will that must be reached before anyone can receive any part of the eternal inheritance. Further, there are a number of behavioral conditions required. Besides the requirement to obey the voice of Yahweh and keep his charge, there are several commandments, statutes, and laws that must be observed in order to qualify as an heir.

Promised Inheritance Not Yet Received As of this date, none of the eternal promises of the inheritance have been received, for the appointed time to begin distributing the inheritance has not yet arrived. For example, Scriptures show that not one foot’s tread of the inheritance promised has been given to Abraham, one of the primary recipients.1 After providing a long list of those who trusted in Yahweh,2 the book of Hebrews reports: In trust these all died, not having received the promises, but from afar having seen them, and having been persuaded, and having embraced them, and having confessed that strangers and sojourners they are on the earth. For they who say such things, make manifest that their own country they are seeking.3 This promise is said to involve the dwelling within the city of New Jerusalem.4 The passage adds more names to the list and then concludes: And all these, having given witness by means of trust, did not receive the promise, Yahweh having foreseen something better for us, that not apart from us they should be made perfect.5 1 2 3 4 5

Acts, 7:2–5. Heb., 11:1–12. Heb., 11:13f. Heb., 11:16 Heb., 11:39f.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

This circumstance is even true for the greatest heir, the messiah, who has already qualified to receive the eternal inheritance. Father Yahweh has put in subjection to Yahushua “the world which is to come,” setting him over the works of Yahweh’s hands, and putting “all things in subjection under his feet,” leaving “nothing that is not put under him.”6 Despite this, the book of Hebrews reminds us, “But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.”7 Indeed, if Yahushua had received the inheritance he would now possess the Promised Land. Therefore, no one has yet received, via the eternal inheritance, the full use of the Promised Land;8 and when everyone saved receives the promise of being made perfect, it will be at one and the same time.9 These first century C.E. proclamations that no one, including Abraham, has as of yet received any of the promises is demonstrated by the statement in Galatians that a heir, while an infant, must wait until “the time appointed of the father,” though he be heir of all, before he receives his inheritance.10 The time at which the elect of Israel inherit is defined in Hebrews. This explanation states that, because the Israelites failed under the first marriage covenant (the Torah), they could not enter into the messiah’s rest.11 To define this rest, the six days of creation are referred to. For this reason Yahweh rested upon the seventh day,12 a day which Yahweh made sacred.13 The seventh day is a parabolic type of the coming Sabbath millennium.14 The book of Hebrews states that there is yet a sabbatism of rest or Sabbath day for the elect of Israel to enter that comes by means of the promises given in the Abrahamic Covenants (i.e., under the New Covenant).15 This Sabbath day is referred to as the approximate 1,000-year reign of the messiah, which occurs just prior to the approximate 1,000-year Judgment Day.16 Yahushua both reHeb., 2:5–8. Heb., 2:8. Yahushua is subject to the Yahu Covenant (App. B), from which he has received his resurrection and quickening. He has not yet received the inheritance from the Abrahamic Covenants. 8 To our present day even the messiah has not received any of the promises contained in the Abrahamic Covenants. This detail even includes his own resurrection and quickening after death. The messiah was not resurrected and quickened into eternal life by means of the Abrahamic Covenants but by father Yahweh according to a covenant made between them before the foundation of the world (see App. B). 9 The act of perfection, by means of which all the saved will behold the face of father Yahweh, must not be confused with the act of quickening into eternal life, one quickening taking place shortly after the messiah returns and the second much later, at the end of our present worldage (1 Cor., 15:20–26). The process of perfection takes place by means of the baptism of fire (Zeph., 1:14–18; cf., Matt., 3:11f; Luke, 3:16f; 1 Cor., 15:51–57; 2 Pet., 3:3–13; Rev., 20:6, 14f, 21:7f). 10 Gal., 4:1f. For example, the father of a five-year-old boy might die, leaving a fortune to his young son. Yet the will may stipulate that the child may not use any of the money until he reaches the age of 21. In like fashion, Scriptures has set a date for the heirs of Yahu Yahweh to receive their eternal inheritance. 11 Heb., 3:4–4:11; cf., Deut., 12:9; Ps., 95:9–11. 12 Heb., 4:4f. 13 Gen., 2:1–3. 14 Col., 2:16f; cf., Heb., 4:4f. 15 Heb., 4:9–11, 8:3–13; cf., Jer., 31:31–34; Ezek., 37:15–28. 16 Rev., 20:4–15; cf., 2 Pet., 3:7–10; Ps., 84:10, 90:4. The ante-Nicaean fathers recognized a 1,000-year Sabbath day of the messiah which preceded the Judgment Day (Justin Mart., Trypho, 80:4–81:3, citing Isa., 65:17–25; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 5:28:3; Hippolytus, Dan., 2:4; Barnabas, 15:4), as did both the early Hasidic Jews (Jub., 4:30) and later the Talmudic writers (e.g., Bresh. Rab., on Gen., 3:8). Meanwhile, 2 Pet., 3:7–13, makes it clear that the day of Yahweh, i.e., the Judgment Day, is 6 7

The Conditional Inheritance

ceives his inheritance and can share it when the Sabbath millennium arrives. For example, Yahushua has “inherited a name” that is more excellent than any held by the angels, i.e., the great name Yahweh.17 Yet he does not have the right to share that name until he returns and lays hold of Mount Zion and the eternal inheritance. Only at that time do we find the resurrected 144,000 elect of Israel with the father’s name written on their foreheads (i.e., as part of their mind and nature).18 We are likewise informed that, “to the nations the blessing of Abraham might come in the messiah, Yahushua, the promise of a ruach (spirit, unseen force) we might receive through trust.”19 The messiah was “quickened by the ruach,”20 and will himself “quicken also your mortal bodies on account of his ruach that dwells in you.”21 In short, a quickening ruach is promised to us because Yahweh uses the sacred ruach to bring us to eternal life. Therefore, since ruach is required in order to resurrect and give us eternal life, it is understood that this higher form of the sacred ruach, the quickening ruach, is promised as part of the inheritance.22

Was the Land Already Received? Some argue that the inheritance of land has already been received for use by the Israelites, thus fulfilling Yahweh’s pledge to Abraham. The advocates of this view point to such verses as Joshua, 1:6, where Yahweh informs Yahushua the son of Nun that he would “cause this people to inherit the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.” Yahushua, as a result, divided the land of Kanaan by lot and gave it to the various tribes of Israel as an inheritance.23 This view fails on several counts. To begin with, those adhering to this interpretation have confused two different types of inheritance. One is eternal, which is the inheritance promised in the Covenants of Promise. The other is temporal. The temporary inheritance derives its legal force from the fact that the descendants of Abraham inherited the right to inherit. As with any will, the heirs may have the right to remain on the land they are designated to inherit. Upon the death of each descendant, this temporary inheritance passes to each succeeding generation. Therefore, if the Israelites obeyed the rules laid out for them by Yahweh in his marriage covenant with them, they could live on the land, as Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob did, which was at some future date to be received as an eternal inheritance. This right they inherited from Abraham. Those of the house of Israel were so derelict in the observance of their marriage agreement with Yahweh that they were divorced and cast out of the Promised Land by him.24 Their right to live on the land they were to inherit was another approximate 1,000-year period. Toward the end of that day, Yahweh will destroy the wicked with fire and melt the elements of the earth. 17 Heb., 1:4. 18 Rev., 14:1. 19 Gal., 3:14. 20 1 Pet., 3:18. In Yahushua’s case, the quickening ruach came from father Yahweh by means of the Yahu Covenant (see App. B). The rest of mankind receive their quickening ruach from the messiah by means of the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants. 21 Rom., 8:11. 22 Titus, 3:3–7; cf., Gal., 3:13f. 23 Josh., 11:23, 13:1–24:32. 24 Jer., 3:8; 2 Kings, 17:5–24.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

thereby terminated. It is manifest, accordingly, due to the surety of death and the condition that they were not to be disobedient, that the particular inheritance of land granted to the Israelites under Yahushua the son of Nun was temporary. It follows that this temporary inheritance cannot be one and the same with the promise of an eternal inheritance. Further, as we have shown above, not one piece of the Promised Land has, as of yet, been received for use as an eternal inheritance by anyone. Yet in the future, as Yahweh informs Isaiah, after the destruction of all the wicked, the eternal inheritance shall be fully established: Your sun shall not set any more; and your moon shall not withdraw; for Yahweh will become your olam (i.e., the coming perpetual world-age) light,25 and the days of your mourning shall end.26 And all of your people shall be justified; they shall possess the land for olam (i.e., the coming perpetual world-age), a branch of my planting, a work of my hands.27

Behavioral Conditions The eternal inheritance from the Covenants of Promise is conditional upon one’s behavior. That Abraham met the conditions of the will and shall one day inherit is verified in Genesis, 26:1–5. The event mentioned takes place at some point after the death of Abraham.28 On this occasion, Yahweh was advising Isaak, the son of Abraham, not to journey to Egypt. Instead, Yahweh ordered him to “stay in this land (the Promised Land) and I shall be with you and bless you.”29 Yahweh then gives five reasons:30 • “Because I WILL give all these lands to you (Isaak) and to your seed (LXX spermati, i.e., the messiah).”31 • “And I WILL establish my oath which I swore to your father Abraham.” • “And I WILL increase your seed (LXX sperma, i.e., a group of descendants) as the stars of the heavens.”32 • “And I WILL give your seed (LXX spermati, i.e., the messiah) all these lands.”33 25 Gen., 25:5–11, speaks of the death of Abraham, while Gen., 26:1–5, shows that the conversation with Isaak was a later event. 26 Cf. Rev., 21:23f. 27 Cf. Rev., 21:4. 28 Isa., 60:20f. 29 Gen., 26:3. 30 Gen., 26:3f. 31 Gal., 3:16. 32 Cf., Gen., 15:5f, 22:16f. Also cf., Gen., 13:15. 33 Gal., 3:16; Gen., 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8.

The Conditional Inheritance

• “And all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves in your seed (LXX spermati, i.e., the messiah).”34 We are also told that Yahweh gave his oath that the above is true.35 When we analyze this passage closely, we find that Yahweh was making a promise to Isaak to fulfill all the conditions of the Covenants of Promise that he swore to Abraham. Importantly, Yahweh does not say that he might grant this inheritance, or that he will give it to Abraham only because Abraham trusted, or just because he was friendly with Abraham. Rather, he directly states that these promises would be granted: . . . because Abraham obeyed my voice and he attended to my charge, my commandments, my twqj (khoquth; statutes), and my trwt (torath; laws).36 This information proves that the Covenants of Promise given to Abraham were conditioned upon Abraham’s behavior and his obeying the voice of Yahweh, attending to his charge, his commandments, his khoquth (statutes), and torath (laws). Abraham obeyed because he trusted Yahweh, and Yahweh “reckoned it to him for justification (righteousness).”37 Since the messiah was also an heir with Abraham in the Covenants of Promise, and “scripture cannot be broken,”38 it is also manifest that he was obligated to the same conditions.39

Conditional Under Grace It is widely pronounced among many Christian groups that, despite the requirements for Abraham and the messiah, the only requirement for eternal life under grace for everyone else is to confess your sins, repent, be baptized, and to trust in and “know Jesus.” Therefore, they hold that there are no other requirements beyond these by which one must be saved. Under this interpretation, all the commandments, khoquth and torath found in the Scriptures are “works of the Law” and have been annulled. To say otherwise is to be branded a heretic. This view is manifestly an error. That there are behavioral conditions attached to the Covenants of Promise under grace is first indicated when Saul quotes Yahweh: Wherefore come out from the midst of them (the wicked) and be separated, says Yahweh, and the Gen., 22:18; cf., Gal., 3:8, 16; Acts, 3:25f; Gen., 12:3, 18:18. Ps., 105:7–11; 1 Chron., 16:14–18. Gen., 26:5. Gen., 15:6. The Hebrew word hqdx (tsadoqah), a form of the term qdx (tsadoq), is translated as “righteous” in English. More to the point, both the Hebrew and its Greek counterpart (LXX, dikaiosuvnen [dikaiosunen]) mean to “be in the right, be right, have a just case . . . blameless behavior . . . justice” and to be “justified” (HEL, p. 218; SEC, Heb. #6663–6666, Gk. #1343; GEL, 1968, p. 429). Also see below Chap. VII, p. 105, n. 40. 38 Cf., John, 10:35. 39 Gal., 3:15f. 34 35 36 37

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh unclean do not touch, and I will receive you; and I will be to you for a father, and you shall be to me for sons and daughers, says Yahweh el shaddai.40

It is true that certain works of the Torah (Law), those which are “adverse” to us, have been annulled.41 But the commandments, statutes, and laws of Yahweh kept by Abraham, and revealed in the Torah, were not works of the Torah, and therefore cannot be “adverse” to us. This point is manifest by Saul’s words that Abraham was not justified by the works of the Torah but by trust.42 Indeed, there could be no required works of the Torah of Moses until that covenant was written. Yet when Saul speaks of the “trust” of Abraham, he does not mean trust without behavioral conditions. Jacob (James) explains this concept of trust while living under grace by noting that trust apart from good works is “dead.”43 For example, Jacob points out that Abraham was justified not only by his trust but by his good works, defining trust as being obedient to Yahweh.44 It was due to trust that Abraham did good works, for his trust enabled him to obey Yahweh’s voice and keep his charge, commandments, khoquth, and torath.45 Jacob gives us another example of a good work—the need to clothe or feed your naked or hungry brothers and sisters.46 Pure and undefiled religion before Yahweh, he states, is to visit orphans and widows in their tribulation and to keep oneself “unspotted from the world.”47 Such actions reflect the great commandment to love your neighbor.48 Indeed, Jacob adds the very point that if you keep the royal Torah—giving as his example that great commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”—“You do well.”49 Jacob further advises us to implant the word of Yahweh within us and be “doers of the word” not just hearers.50 He warns us, for instance, not to blaspheme the sacred name or to be covetous (lustful), a behavior which gives birth to sin.51 Blasphemy of the sacred name and covetousness break the third and tenth commandments.52 All of these definitions prove that trust is much more than simple belief. Trust is obedience to Yahweh and being a doer of his word. These are behavioral requirements for receiving the eternal inheritance. What of the doctrine that all you need in order to be saved is to “know Jesus”? The apostle John, writing long after the death of Yahushua the messiah, clarifies this solution when he writes: 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

2 Cor., 6:17f. Col., 2:13–15; and see our discussion below in Chap. IV, pp. 64ff. Rom., 3:27–4:2. James, 2:17, 26. James, 2:21–26. Gen., 26:1–5; cf., Gen., 15:5–7; Rom., 4:1–25; Gal., 3:6–9; Heb., 11:8, 17; James, 2:21–23. James, 2:14–16. James, 1:27. Lev., 19:18; Matt., 22:34–40; Mark, 12:28–34; Rom., 13:8–10. James, 2:8. James, 1:21–25. James, 2:7, 1:14. Exod., 20:7, 17.

The Conditional Inheritance

And by this we know that we have known him, if his commandments we keep. He that says, I have known him, and his commandments is not keeping, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him.53 To know Yahushua, therefore, is to keep the commandments, not merely say that we know him. What about loving the messiah? Yahushua argues, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”54 It was in reference to the issue of keeping the commandments that a young, rich man ran up to the messiah and asked the primary question, “Good teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” The young man’s question, by the way, is framed within the context that Yahushua had been teaching about the inheritance of eternal life. Yahushua responded to the young man’s question by telling him that, first, he must keep the commandments and, second, he must sell all of his worldly goods, follow the messiah, and take up the messiah’s torture-stake (i.e., his work, suffering, and death).55 In reference to the Torah, which contains the commandments, Yahushua adds the following comment: Think not that I came to abolish the Torah or the prophets: I came not to abolish, but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, Until shall pass away the heavens and the earth, in no wise shall one iota or one tittle (letter mark or horn of a letter)56 pass away from the Torah until all come to pass. Whoever then shall break one of the least of the commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least (of things) in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever shall practice and shall teach them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of heavens.57 That we are required under grace to keep the commandments and certain other khoquth (statutes) and torath (laws) so that we might receive the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed is also proclaimed by Saul, the apostle to the nations. Saul asks, “Know you not that the unjust ones shall not inherit the kingdom of eloahi?”58 In one place he gives a long list of works of the flesh, including “adultery, porneiva (porneia; sexual misconduct), lewdness, 1 John, 2:3f John, 14:15. Matt., 19:16–22; Mark, 10:17–23; Luke, 18:18–23. The Greek word ijw`ta (iota; jot) refers to the small Hebrew letter y (yod) (SEC, Gk. #2503); and the word keraiva (keraia; tittle) refers to the “horn-like” or “apex of a Heb. letter (fig. the least particle)” (SEC, Gk. #2762). The ST Heb. version of Matt., 5:17f, has “al tja hdwqnw tja twaw (and not one mark or spot),” referring to the letter marks and small pen strokes. Also see the DuTillet version, “one yod or one hook.” 57 Matt., 5:17–19. This passage does not say that the person not keeping the least of the commandments shall be in the kingdom, but rather he shall be considered the least of things by those within the kingdom (e.g., a piece of worthless dirt, garbage, etc.). Cf., Matt., 19:16–22; Mark, 10:17–23; John, 15:10; 1 Cor., 7:19; 1 John, 2:3–7, 3:21–24, 5:1–3; Rev., 21:8. 58 1 Cor., 6:9. 53 54 55 56

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strifes, jealousies, indignations, contentions, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revels, and things like these.” After listing these crimes and sins, Saul reports, “as to which I tell you beforehand, even as also I said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of eloahi.”59 Similarly, Saul writes in another place, “For this you know that any committing porneia, or lewd person, or covetous one, who is an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of the messiah and of the eloah (father Yahweh).”60 The book of Revelation gives the same conclusion. He that overcomes shall inherit all things, and I (Yahweh) will be to him an eloah, and he shall be to me a son: but to the cowardly, and untrusting, and abominable, and murderers, and those committing porneia (sexual misconduct), and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.61 It should not go unnoticed that these requirements are based upon the observance of the Ten Commandments and some of the statutes.62 Since works of the flesh come from the flesh, ”flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of eloah, nor corruption inherit incorruptibility.”63 The conditions of the inheritance also included sins of the ruach. Saul writes, “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, we should cleanse ourselves from every defilement of the flesh and ruach, perfecting sacredness in respect of Yahweh.”64 Notice that both the flesh and the ruach must be cleansed as a condition for receiving the promises. Another condition, based upon the third commandment, concerns the use of the sacred name. Yahushua (Yahu Yahweh), who inherited the great name Yahweh,65 tells us, “And everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for the sake of my name, a hundredfold shall receive, and shall inherit eternal life.”66 This statement is in accord with the scriptural promise that, “all who will call upon the name Yahweh shall be saved.”67 Gal., 5:20f. Eph., 5:5. Rev., 21:7f. For example, these requirements fulfill the commandments against adultery, idolatry, murder, covetousness, and giving false witness, and they support the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (Exod., 20:4, 13, 14, 16, 17; Lev., 19:18; Rom., 13:1–10). That the porneia statutes are still in effect see Acts, 15:19f, 28f, 21:25, and see our Chap., IV, pp. 66–69, p. 67, n. 84. 63 1 Cor., 15:50. 64 2 Cor., 7:1. 65 Cf., the mentioning of an inherited name of Gen., 12:2, with the comments found in Matt., 28:19; Heb., 1:1–4; Rev., 3:12, 14:1, 22:3f. And also cf., Phil., 2:5–10; Rom., 14:10f; with the Hebrew of Isa., 45:15–25, esp. v. 23f. The messiah has inherited the great name but he does not yet have the right to share it with anyone. That can only occur when the time set in the will has been reached. 66 Matt., 19:29. Cf., the third commandment, “You shall not carry the name Yahweh, your eloahi, to uselessness; for Yahweh shall not leave him unpunished who carries his name to uselessness” (Exod., 20:7; Deut., 5:11). 67 Joel, 2:28–32; Acts, 2:14–21, 4:8–12. Also see SNY, chap. xvii. 59 60 61 62

The Conditional Inheritance

Conclusion

The mentioning of Yahweh’s twqj (khoquth; statutes) as a conditional part of the Covenants of Promise is of utmost importance with regard to our study. The festivals and sacred days of Yahweh hold their legal force by the statutes of Yahweh. The issue now becomes, “Are the ygj (khagi; festivals), weekly Sabbath days, and other sacred days among those statutes of Yahweh which form the conditions of the Covenants of Promise, or are they works of the Torah adverse to us which have now been annulled?” If all the festivals and sacred days are works of the Torah adverse to us, then they should be ignored. On the other hand, if they are a condition of the Covenants of Promise for receiving the inheritance, it behooves us to have full knowledge of just why, how, and when to correctly celebrate these events. Further, if it is a condition while under grace to celebrate all the scriptural festivals and sacred days, then we should also be able to find evidence from the apostles commanding their continued observance. To begin to accomplish this task, our attention must now turn to the Torah of Moses in order that we might understand just how the Old Covenant of the Torah differs from the Covenants of Promise.

CHART A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COVENANTS Beginning: 2054 B.C.E.

ABRAHAMIC COVENANTS • Verbal Agreement •

Conditions Trust in Yahweh Obey the voice of Yahweh Keep Yahweh‘s charge Keep Yahweh‘s Commandments, Statutes, and Laws

Failure to Keep Conditions Out of the Covenant = Death Beginning: 1439 B.C.E.

OLD COVENANT (with attached covenants = Torah of Moses) • Written Agreement •

Conditions Obey the voice of the angel Yahweh Keep Yahweh‘s Commandments, Statutes, and Laws

Augmentations Obligated to do the Works of the Torah (i.e., dogmasin both for and against us)

Failure to Keep Conditions Subject to specific Judgments and Curses Out of the Covenant = Death Annulled: 30 C.E. Beginning: 30 C.E.

WITH THE DEATH OF MESSIAH Dogmasin against us are nailed to the torture-stake The four dogmasin that are for us, as found in the Torah of Moses, continue along with the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenants. Continues to Present Time 56

Chapter IV

The Torah

T twqj

he festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are counted among Yahweh’s statutes and are found listed as such in the Torah.1 Can we prove that these (khoquth; statutes) are part of the conditions of the Covenants of Promise made with Abraham? And further, are they still required today in order to receive the eternal inheritance under grace? Proof that the statutes observed by Abraham included the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh, and that they are required to be observed by those following Yahweh until the end of our present world-age, begins to be unveiled in the issues that connect the Torah (Law) of Moses with the Covenants of Promise. In this chapter we shall demonstrate that the Torah (Old Covenant) given at Mount Sinai was a marriage covenant between Yahweh and the nation of Israel. It was brought about due to Israelite transgressions against the Covenants of Promise. The Torah of Moses, therefore, was used to teach the Israelites what sin (transgression) was, thereby revealing in written form the conditions of the earlier verbal Covenants of Promise. This Torah merely put into writing those original conditions and augmented them with judgments. Nevertheless, the Israelites continued to break their marriage vows. As a result, under the condition to obey Yahweh’s voice,2 the Old Covenant was further augmented with what became known as the “works of the Law.”

An Augmentation The Torah (Law), or Old Covenant,3 came into existence several centuries after the Covenants of Promise were given to Abraham. This Torah covenant was in fact an augmentation of these Covenants of Promise.4 William Smith reminds us that it is “all-important, for the proper understanding of the law, to remember its entire dependence on the Abrahamic covenant.”5 In form, the Old Covenant was a marriage covenant between Yahu Yahweh and the nation of Israel.6 It was intended to bind the Israelites to the conditions of the Abrahamic See above Intro. to Part I, pp. 26f. That obeying the voice of Yahweh eloahi was a condition of the Abrahamic Covenants see Gen., 26:5. This condition is also reflected in the --Mount Sinai covenant at Exod., 23:20–22. 3 In Heb., 8:8–13, and Jer., 31:31–34, it is called the Old Covenant, while in Gal., 3:15–20, it is called the Torah (Law). As we shall prove, the Old Covenant given at Mount Sinai is merely the first of various stages of the augmentations of the entire Torah. 4 For the covenant given at Mount Sinai see Exod., 20:1–23:32. 5 DB, p. 344, in which Smith cites Gal., 3:17–24. Also see below n. 7. 6 Jer., 31:31f; Isa., 54:5. 1 2

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Covenants (also referred to in the singular as the Abrahamic Covenant)7 by a written contract: If you do this, then I will do this. The Torah is called the “Old Covenant” to distinguish it from the “New Covenant” of marriage that Yahweh is yet to make with the elect of Israel.8 The Old is temporary, the New will be eternal. At the same time, the expression “Old Covenant” must not be confused with earlier covenants, such as the Covenants of Promise made with Abraham which provide for the eternal inheritance and eternal marriage The Torah was established in 1439 B.C.E. at Mount Sinai,9 only a few weeks after the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, in the third month of that year.10 The precepts of this marital agreement declared in writing that if the Israelites obeyed Yahweh’s voice and kept his commandments, statutes, and judgments Yahweh would give them the right to dwell on the ≈ra (erets; land)—from the Suph Sea (Gulf of Aqaba) unto the Palestim Sea (Mediterranean), and from the wilderness (of Sinai) unto the River (Euphrates), i.e., the royal portion of the Greater Promised Land.11 They could also leave that right to sojourn on the land as an inheritance (albeit temporarily) to their offspring. This temporary right of inheritance arises from the fact that Yahweh allowed Abraham the right to sojourn on the land until his death, leaving the right to be passed on to his descendants. At Mount Sinai, all the people of Israel agreed, and the marriage covenant was ratified.12 According to Scriptures, although the Torah gives a temporary right of dwelling and inheritance as a reward for keeping the marriage covenant, it does not annul the promises of the eternal inheritance given to Abraham in the Covenants of Promise. Saul reports, “For if those of the Torah are the heirs, trust has been made empty, and the promise is of no effect.”13 Put another way, if the inheritance only went to those who came under the Torah covenant and its works, then what worth are the Covenants of Promise given much earlier 7 The various covenants between Yahweh and Abraham are often spoken of in the singular, i.e., as the Abrahamic Covenant, because they stand as one covenant. The classing together of several covenants into a single covenant was common practice and finds counterparts elsewhere in Scriptures. For example, the Old Covenant consists not only of the original covenant made by Yahweh with the Israelites at Mount Sinai but includes the additional covenants produced during the next 40 years, down to the covenant discussed in Deut., 29:1. Similarly, the Torah (Law) of Moses includes a large number of torath (laws) which help make up the the book of the Old Covenant. 8 The book of Hebrews states that the messiah is the “mediator” or “go-between” of the New Covenant, and that by his death took place the redemption for those transgressions under the first covenant (the Old Covenant), so that “they which are called might receive the eternal inheritance” (Heb., 9:15). Nowhere in Scriptures does it say that we are presently under the New Covenant. It does say that the Old Covenant “grows old and aged” and is “near disappearing” (Heb., 8:13). The apostles are also called “servants of a new covenant” (2 Cor., 3:6). Yet the New Covenant itself cannot be made as a marriage agreement until the messiah returns, resurrects the elect, places the laws within their innermost selves, and regathers the house of Israel and the house of Judah into one nation. It is at that time that Yahweh will make a New Covenant of marriage with the elect of Israel (Heb., 8:3–13; cf., Jer., 31:31–34). The rest of mankind remaining to be saved shall enter into this eternal New Covenant marriage at the end of the Judgment Day (e.g., Rev., 21:1–3, 9–27, 22:17). 9 For the year of the Exodus see IC. 10 Exod., 19:1f. The Exodus took place in the first month (Exod., 12:1–20, 13:4, 23:14f, 34:18; Deut., 16:1). 11 Exod., 23:20–23, 30f; cf., Gen., 15:18–21; Deut., 1:7f, 11:24; Josh., 1:4. Cf., NJB, p. 111, n. 23 m. 12 Exod., 24:1–8. 13 Rom., 4:14.

The Torah

to Abraham and his seed (the messiah)? Was not the eternal inheritance of this Covenant Will guaranteed to Abraham because he trusted Yahweh, obeyed Yahweh’s voice, and kept Yahweh’s charge, commandments, khoquth, and torath? Did not Yahweh give an oath to fulfill his covenant with Abraham swearing to do so by his sacred name? In his epistle to the Galatians, Saul begins to clarify this issue when he writes: This now I say, a covenant confirmed beforehand by the deity unto the messiah, the Torah having taken place 430 years after, does not annul so as to make of no effect the promise; because if the inheritance is out of the Torah, it is no longer out of promise. But to Abraham, through promise, the deity granted it.14 This statement confirms that an eternal inheritance is not accomplished solely from the Torah given at Mount Sinai, even though the Torah allows for the temporary inheritance if all of its precepts are kept. Rather, the Covenants of Promise were granted to Abraham and, as with any man’s covenant agreement, it cannot be changed.15 Neither can any scripture be broken,16 nor would Yahweh change it, for Yahweh does not change.17 These promises were later confirmed with Jacob a full 430 years before the marriage covenant of the Torah was made at Mount Sinai.18 Furthermore, since the eternal inheritance was promised in the covenants given to Abraham and did not originate in the Torah (Old Covenant), the temporary inheritance found in the Torah must itself somehow be derived from the Covenants of Promise. The next question naturally arises, “If the eternal inheritance was already promised in the Covenants of Promise, why bring about another covenant granting the same land to be inherited?” Saul explains: Why then the Torah? It was prosetevqh (prosetethe; an augmentation)19 for the sake of transgressions until should have come the spevrma (sperma; collective seed, the elect)20 to whom the promise has been made, having been ordained through angels in a mediator’s hand. But the mediator is not (the mediator), of one (side), but the deity is one (side). Is the Torah then against the promises of the deity? May it not be. For if a Torah was given which was able to quicken, indeed by a Torah would have been justification; but Gal., 3:17f. Cf., Gal., 3:15f. Cf., John, 10:35. Mal., 3:6; Heb., 13:8. The Covenants of Promise were not confirmed with Abraham, as many have so often incorrectly assumed. Scriptures specifically report that they were confirmed years later with Jacob (Ps., 105:8–10; 1 Chron., 16:14–18). 19 Prosetevqh (prosetethe) means, “to place additionally, i.e. lay beside, annex, repeat” (SEC, Gk. #4369); “to add . . . i.e. to make oath and then add the statement . . . to make additions, to augment . . . esp. of adding articles to documents” (GEL, p. 698). 20 The spevrma (sperma; group of seed) are identified in Gen., 17:9f, 24:60 (cf., the LXX for the Greek term). These are the collective plural seed, united as one group, which form the elect (cf., Gal., 3:29; Rom., 4:16–18, 9:7–8). Also see above Chap. II, p. 38, n. 31. 14 15 16 17 18

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh the Scriptures shut all things under sin, so that the promise out of trust might be given to those that trust Yahushua the messiah.”21

There is a basic difference between an ejpidiatavssetai (epidiatassetai; supplement),22 which is forbidden in this covenant contract,23 and a prosetevqh (prosetethe; augmentation), which has been provided by the Torah. A supplement can contain additions which contradict the original agreement, while an augmentation merely expands or restricts the requirements already allowed for by the original covenant agreements. For example, if a condition of the Abrahamic Covenant is that one must obey Yahweh, Yahweh can later augment that covenant by having his heirs build a Tabernacle and associate with that artifact a priesthood and certain religious services of cleanliness, as long as these works do not contradict the conditions of the original covenant. On the other hand, if a condition of the covenant is that you shall not steal, Yahweh cannot later command that you must steal. Augmentations allow for the establishment of specified customs in dress, foods, and cleansing rites—all found as fleshly works of the Torah— which were meant to keep one ritualistically clean. The Judahite expression “hrwth yçam (mashi ha-Torah; works of the Torah)” was used by the apostle Saul in the first century C.E. to define these augmentations.24 They refer specifically to the purity laws found in the written Torah of Moses. This detail is confirmed by the fact that this label was given to the contents of a Hebrew manuscript (MMT) written by a contemporary Jewish community located at Qumran.25 Among the subjects listed under this heading were rulings concerning the cleansing of lepers, the barring of the blind and deaf from the Temple, the restriction of intermarriage with the Ammonites and Moabites, the prohibition of intermarriage between the priests and commoners, the prohibition against plowing with unlike animals, the use of hides and bones of unclean animals, as well as the rules for purification, offerings, sacrifices, and other such things.26 As Martin Abegg comments, the aim of this work “was clearly to call attention to matters that trespass the boundaries between the pure and impure.”27 We will confirm this definition as we proceed. Therefore, the Old Covenant came about because the Israelites had transgressed the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenants, to which they were subject. The Torah of Moses, as a result, under a temporary marriage agreement, Gal., 3:19–22. See above Chap. II, p. 38, n. 29. Gal., 3:15f. The Hebrew expression “hrwth yçam (mashi ha-Torah; works of the Torah)” is equivalent to the Greek expression e[rgwn novmou (ergon nomou; works of the Law) as used to describe the augmentations by Saul (e.g., at Rom., 3:20, 28; Gal., 2:16, 3:2, 5, 10), see CS, 1, pp. 541–544, s.v. e[rgon. Also see BAR, 20.6, pp. 52–55. 25 BAR, 20.6, p. 61, MMT, ∞. 27. 26 BAR, 20.6, pp. 56–61. 27 BAR, 20.6, p. 53. Nevertheless, Martin Abegg’s conclusion that Saul was only addressing the members of the early Christian Assembly who had belonged to the Essene sect is clearly inaccurate. Saul’s reference was to the entire body of purity laws found in the Torah of Moses and as practiced by mainstream Judaism, which included the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others. The fact that the Essenes provide us the only remaining record of the phrase “works of the law” does not mean that first century C.E. Judaism as a whole did not know or understand the meaning of this phrase. 21 22 23 24

The Torah

(temporary because upon death the covenant no longer has force), augmented the requirements of those earlier covenants. What then were these augmentations and how are they different from the original conditions? And did these augmentations bring into existence the festival celebrations and sacred days or merely dress them with customs? To answer these questions we must examine more precisely what makes up the Torah and why it was considered the proper response to Israelite transgression.

The Torah: A Series of Covenants The covenant of the Torah was much more than the agreement made at Mount Sinai. Rather, it became a series of handwritten augmentations created because the Israelites were unable to keep their covenant with Yahweh. These augmentations encompassed everything from building a Tabernacle and restricting the priesthood to the family of Levi to establishing further covenants, khoquth, and torath, including regulations for cleanliness, food offerings, required sacrifices, and burnt offerings. These augmentations developed as follows: To begin with, the Covenants of Promise granted to Abraham, supported by an oath to Isaak, and confirmed to Jacob as a statute, were in the form of a verbal contract. Nothing was placed in writing. It was backed only by the word of Yahweh. Centuries later, Yahweh reports that he revealed himself to the Israelites while they were in Egypt, requesting them not to defile themselves with the idols of Egypt, i.e., they should obey Yahweh and not commit idolatry (e.g., follow other eloahim). In turn, he would bring them into the royal portion of the Promised Land.28 It is manifest that obedience to Yahweh includes obeying his commandments, statutes, and laws which he had earlier attached as conditions to the Covenants of Promise and to which Abraham was subject. Contrary to the conditions of the Covenants of Promise, the Israelites rebelled by disobeying. Yet Yahweh did not destroy them while they were in Egypt. He was unwilling to destroy them for the reason of his name’s sake, so that his μç (shem; name, honor)29 would not be profaned among the nations.30 Put another way, he continued with them because his sacred name was attached to the Covenants of Promise, sworn to by an oath.31 If he failed to accomplish these covenants by giving the Israelites the land as an inheritance then the other nations would speak ill of the worth of Yahweh’s word as sworn to Abraham.32 Yahweh’s shem (name, honor) was at stake. When Yahweh brought the Israelites out of Egypt and into the wilderness, he gave them knowledge of his statutes and judgments, “which if the adam (mankind) does them he will live in them; and also my Sabbaths to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am Yahweh, who sets them apart.”33 Such statements are important, for we know that Yahweh’s statutes, laws, and commandments were revealed even before the Israelites arrived at 28 29 30 31 32 33

Ezek., 20:5–7. YDNB, p. 2; SNY, chap. iii; SEC, Heb. #8034; YAC, pp. 683, 685; HEL, p. 270. Ezek., 20:8f. Gen., 22:15–18, 26:3; Exod., 6:8; Heb., 6:11–19; cf., SNY, chap. iii. Ezek., 36:16–23; Deut., 9:25–29. Ezek., 20:10–12.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Mount Sinai.34 Furthermore, the statement that the Israelites were given knowledge of Yahweh’s “twtbç (sabbathuth; Sabbaths),” in the plural, demonstrates that the high Sabbaths as well as the weekly Sabbaths were meant.35 Of interest for our study is the fact that, among these statutes, laws, and commandments known prior to the Israelites arriving at Mount Sinai, there were those dealing with the Sabbath day and the Festival of Unleavened Bread and Phasekh of which specific mention is made.36 After the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai, the marriage contract of the Old Covenant was made due to continued Israelite transgression. Two important things occurred. First, the covenant was placed into writing, clearly spelling out what was required. Second, appendaged to the conditions of the Ten Commandments were the statutes augmented with the μyfpçm (mashaphatim; judgments)37—judgments being statutes that render criminal decisions if a required commandment or statute is broken.38 Previously, only the requirements of the Covenants of Promise were expressed (though punishment, such as death, is clearly allowed for).39 With the advent of the Mount Sinai covenant, specific types of punishment for breaking these requirements were declared in written form. The Torah’s authority to continue with further augmentations is also found among the Old Covenant statutes. The Sinai covenant commanded that the Israelites must “guard from the face” of the angel who carries the name of Yahweh,40 In this regard, there are two angels, both angels of the presence of father Yahweh, who hold this honor.41 One is the angel of the covenant who swore an oath by his sacred name to give Abraham the promises.42 The agreement also commanded the Israelites to “listen to his voice; do not be rebellious against him, for he will not forgive your transgression, for my name is on him.”43 Of course, being careful does not mean that one is to listen to the voice of the angel Yahweh if he adds to the conditions of the covenant instructions outside what is allowed for in the original Covenants of Promise. Such supplements, as we have already proven, are forbidden.44 Yet if the Israelites transgressed its conditions, the angel Yahweh was allowed to augment the marriage covenant. These augmentations were subjoined as part of the Sinai covenant, and are in part known as the “works of the Torah (Law).”45 For instance, the original Exod., 13:4–10, 15:26, 16:28, 18:20. When Yahweh referred only to the weekly Sabbath, it was normally spoken of in the singular (e.g., Exod., 20:8–14, 31:14–16; Lev., 23:3; Deut., 5:12–15; etc.). Yet when all the various Sabbath days (weekly or other sabbathon) are being included, they are referred to in the plural (e.g., Lev., 23:37–39, 26:2; Isa., 1:13, 56:4; Lam., 1:7, 2:6; Ezek., 20:12–24, 22:8, 26, 23:38, 44:24, 45:17, 46:3; Hos., 2:11; etc.). Also, when a number of weekly or seventh-year Sabbaths were counted as a group to give a total figure, they were spoken of in the plural (e.g., Lev., 23:15, 25:8). 36 Exod., 12:1–51, 13:4–10, 16:4, 22–30. 37 Exod., 20:1–24:8; cf., Deut., 4:12–14; Mal., 4:4. 38 A fpçm (mashaphat), plural μyfpçm (mashaphatim), is “prop. a verdict (favorable or unfavorable) pronounced judicially, espec. a sentence or formal decree” (SEC, Heb. #4941). 39 For example, if one breaks the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenants, he does not receive the eternal inheritance. Without the eternal inheritance giving life, one is left with eternal death. 40 Exod., 23:20f. 41 See TTY; That the angel Yahweh is identified with Yahu Yahweh, see App. A, esp. p. 397, p. 102. 42 Mal., 3:1; cf., Gen., 22:15–18. 43 Exod., 23:21. 44 Gal., 3:15. 45 E.g., see additions in Exod., 34:23–26; Lev., 23:1–44; Num., 28:1–29:40; Deut., 16:1–17. That these regulations are among the statutes and judgments see Deut., 7:11, 26:16–17. 34 35

The Torah

statutes found in the covenant at Mount Sinai command that the Israelites were to keep the Festival of Tabernacles.46 The works of the Torah later augmented this statute with the custom that the Israelites should also sleep in tabernacles (tents, booths) during the Festival of Tabernacles.47 After the incident of the Israelites building the golden calf—thereby committing idolatry and breaking their marriage agreement with Yahweh48—the angel Yahweh kept augmenting the conditions of the covenant with commandments, statutes, and laws specifying in greater detail what was required. From this process, the works of the Torah (e.g., sacrifices, cleansing rites, washings, etc.) also came into existence. For example, after the sin of the golden calf, Yahweh made another covenant with the Israelites,49 and then later added the Levitical regulations.50 The key point is that the majority of these statutes and laws forming the works of the Torah had no severe adverse penalty. To demonstrate, if unclean meat was eaten, the most that would happen is that the guilty person would be declared unclean and unable to attend sacred ceremonies, enter the tabernacle, or remain in the Israelite camp. Breaking one of the commandments, statutes, or laws that were also attached to the Abrahamic Covenants, on the other hand, met with serious consequences.51 Nevertheless, the Israelites continued to rebel, once more breaking the statutes and laws and profaning the Sabbaths.52 Indeed, Yahweh counted “ten” rebellions from the time he began to bring them out of Egypt until they arrived for the first time at Qadesh Barnea, including their rebellion at Mount Sinai.53 For his name sake, Yahweh did not destroy Israel, but neither did he bring that generation (those who had left Egypt at the age of 20 years and upward) except for Yahushua the son of Nun and Caleb into the Promised Land.54 After the death of almost all of that generation who had left Egypt, Yahweh told the children of the next generation to walk in his statutes and judgments and keep his Sabbaths.55 Once more they rebelled, this time in the incident at Shittim with Baal-peor.56 As a result, at the end of a 40-year sojourn in the wilderness, Yahweh “gave them statutes not good and judgments by Exod., 23:16. Lev., 23:39–43. Exod., 32:1–30; cf., Ezek., 23:37. Exod., 34:1–28. 50 These regulations are found in the book of Leviticus. This book belongs to the period just before the first month of the second year of the Exodus era (Exod., 40:1; cf., Num., 1:1). 51 Breaking any one of the original commandments or statutes could result in execution, justifiable death, or severe curses. Cf., Exod., 20:1–17, and Deut., 5:1–21, which list the Ten Commandments, with the judgments rendered in Scriptures for breaking them: (1) Exod., 22:18, 20. (2) Lev., 26:30; Rev., 21:8, 22:15; 1 Cor., 10:14–22. (3) Lev., 24:15f. (4) Exod., 35:2; Num., 15:32– 36. (5) Exod., 21:15., 17. (6) Exod., 21:12–14; Lev., 24:17. (7) Lev., 20:10–16; Exod., 22:19. (8) Exod., 21:16, 22:2. (9) Deut., 19:16–21; Prov., 21:28; Mal., 3:5. (10) Col., 3:5; cf., Ezek., 23:37. Also see the curses pronounced in Lev., 26:1f, 14–46 (esp. v. 46, which notes that the statutes referred to were only those made at Mount Sinai); Deut., 27:1–26, 28:15–68. Similarly, the nonobservance of a sacred khag and its Sabbath resulted in exile from the nation or a severe curse (e.g., Exod., 12:11–20; Zech., 14:16–19; Ezek., 20:12–17). 52 Ezek., 20:13; cf., Exod., 16:26–29, 32:1–30. 53 Num., 14:19–25. 54 Num., 14:20–24; Deut., 1:34–40, 2:13–17; Heb., 3:16–19. 55 Ezek., 20:14–24; e.g., Num., 15:32–36. 56 Num., 25:1–26:1. 46 47 48 49

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

which they could not live,”57 i.e., he made the Deuteronomic Covenant, an augmentation of the Torah which is recorded in the book of Deuteronomy.58 The Deuteronomic Covenant put in place curses which would come upon the Israelites if they once more failed to listen to the voice of Yahweh and observe his commanded statutes and judgments59—the ultimate curse being death.60 When Moses died, such augmentations ceased. The books of Moses were in turn followed by the books of the prophets (from Joshua to Malachi), providing the official history of Israel and prophecies of what will be. The Old Testament, as a result, is often referred to as “the Torah and the Prophets.”61 Because Israel continued to sin, Yahu Yahweh did not enter into his great Sabbath rest in Zion, leaving that entry for a future time.62

Dogmasin

Our next effort is to define the Greek term dovgma (dogma), plural dovgmasin (dogmasin), and judge its use by Saul when he writes that all of our offenses having been forgiven us by the messiah, “having blotted out the handwriting in the dovgmasin (dogmasin), which was adverse to us, also he has taken it out of the midst, having nailed it to the (torture-)stake.”63 Does this mean that all the commandments, khoquth, and torath named in the Torah are no longer applicable? A dovgma (dogma) is “a public decree” which is also an “ordinance.”64 The dogma (decree) from Caesar for a census registration and his decree that there should be no other king save Caesar are two examples given in Scriptures.65 By comparing the LXX with the MT, we also discover that the Hebrew/ Aramaic word underlying the Greek term dovgma (dogma) is td (duth), “a royal edict or statute.”66 These decrees establish national customs and rituals. To demonstrate, in Daniel we read the story of how some Babylonian officials created a duth. They spoke to King Nebuchadnezzar, saying: All the presidents of the kingdom took counsel together, the nobles and the satraps, the royal officials and the governors, to establish a royal μyq (qeyam; an edict [as arising in law])67 and to make a strong ban that whoever shall ask a petition of any eloah or male for 30 days, except from you king, he shall be thrown into a pit of lions. Now king, establish the ban and Ezek., 20:25. Cf., Deut., 4:1, 5:1, 12:1, 31:9–13. Deut., 11:26–32, 27:1–29:1; cf., Gal., 3:10–13. Deut., 30:19. Matt., 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40; Luke, 16:16; John, 1:45; Acts, 13:15; Rom., 3:21; Acts, 28:23, “the Torah of Moses and the prophets.” Luke, 24:44, further divides it as, “the Torah of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms.” The Torah is often considered as beginning at Mount Sinai when the Old Covenant was made (Rom., 5:12–14, 19f; Gal., 3:17–21). That the Torah also includes the book of Genesis see Gal., 4:21–31, cf., Gen., 16:15, 21:2, 9; the book of Leviticus see Gal., 5:14, cf., Lev., 19:18; and the book of Deuteronomy see Gal., 3:10, cf., Deut., 27:26. 62 Heb., 3:7–11; Deut., 12:9–11; Pss., 95:9–11, 132:13f. 63 Col., 2:13f. 64 GEL, p. 207; GEL, 1968, p. 441. 65 Luke, 2:1; Acts, 17:7. 66 SEC, Heb., #1881. HEL, p. 64, “edict, mandate, law.” 67 SEC, Heb. #7010. 57 58 59 60 61

The Torah

65 sign the document that it may not be changed as a duth (LXX dovgma; public decree) of the Medes and Persians, which does not pass away. So King Darius signed the document and the ban (LXX dovgma). And Daniel, when he knew that the document was signed (LXX “was commanded the dovgma”), he went to his house.68

These examples all reveal that a duth or dogma is the establishment of statute and custom by public decree, based upon present circumstances. They are often temporary, as reflected by the 30-day period in the above example. Saul further narrows his definition when he states that these annulled dogmasin were handwritten.69 The Covenants of Promise were a verbal agreement. There is no doubt that the dogmasin of which Saul speaks are only those decrees that were handwritten and placed in the book of Moses. Nevertheless, as we shall see, just because we are now under grace and not under the Mosaic Law does not mean that the commandments or the entirety of the laws, statutes (i.e., those kept by Abraham), and dogmasin statutes (i.e., those established under Moses) found in the Torah are annulled. The dogmasin about which Saul and the other apostles speak are further clarified when they note that a dogma, such as the statute to circumcise all males in the flesh of their foreskin, are “after the e[qei (ethei; custom) of Moses” and are found in the “Torah of Moses.”70 The first century C.E. Jewish priest Philo speaks of the “novmois kai e[qesin (nomois kai ethesin; laws and customs) which he (Moses) had ordained.”71 Customs are merely forms of actions practiced as a matter of course among the people. The customs established by the statutes and laws of Moses included such things as their type of dress, how to wear one’s beard, when things become clean or unclean, commanded sacrifices, and the like. The dogmasin nailed to the stake and annulled, as mentioned by Saul in his epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians,72 include the idea of customs wherein “you will not handle, you will not taste, you will not touch, which things are all unto corruption in the using.”73 That is, these things are works of the flesh. Also mentioned as one of the dogmasin was the custom of circumcising the foreskin of the flesh,74 which is also a work of the flesh found in the handwritten Torah. Under grace, the law of commandments in dogmasin, which include fleshly circumcision, have been annulled.75 Such things as fleshly circumcision are classified as “works of the Torah (Law),”76 for even Abraham, who was only under the Covenants of Promise, was declared justified while Dan., 6:7–10. Col., 2:14. Acts., 15:1–5; cf., vs 6–26. Philo, Hypo., 6:9. Eph., 2:11–17; Col., 2:13–15. Col., 2:20–23. In Colossians these dogmasin are “according to the injunctions and teachings of men” (Col., 2:22) and not Yahweh. Nevertheless, they demonstrate what dogmasin are. 74 Eph., 2:8–22. Also see App. D. 75 Cf., Deut., 26:16f, “This day Yahweh your eloahi commands you to do these statutes and the judgments.” Nevertheless, these commanded statutes and judgments, or dogmasin, are not the royal commandments, such as the Ten Commandments. 76 Rom., 3:20, 4:1–5, 11:1–6; Gal., 2:11–3:29. 68 69 70 71 72 73

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

still uncircumcised of the flesh.77 Such works do not overshadow the Covenants of Promise and their requirement to keep the commandments. As Saul writes, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of the deity is (everything).”78 A further example includes the ordinances of service in the Tabernacle. These offerings and works were an allegories, being only in meats and drinks and diverse washings, and ordinances of the flesh, which were to last only “until is imposed the time of setting things right.”79 Josephus, a Jewish priest of the first century C.E., reports that, “there happened to come around the festival called Phasekh, at which it is our e[qo~ (ethos; custom)80 to offer numerous sacrifices to the deity.”81 Therefore, the authority for “offering sacrifices,” such as the Phasekh sacrifice, comes as a legal custom. Importantly, the original Phasekh sacrifice performed in Egypt was only a one-time event. After the Israelites left Egypt (the Exodus), Yahweh did not require any further sacrifices or burnt offerings from them.82 This fact alone proves that the sacrifices and burnt offerings later added by means of the Torah were not a requirement under the Covenants of Promise given to Abraham, for which purpose the Israelites had been brought out of Egypt. Rather, it was due to the fact that the Israelites continued to sin that these sacrifices and burnt offerings were brought into force under the Torah of Moses. These statements are all vital clues. They tell us that those things nailed to the stake at the messiah’s death were brought into existence by decrees which established certain ordinances or statutes, called laws and customs. These decrees were handwritten by Moses on a scroll, forming the Torah of Moses. Because they are public decrees, they do not act as eternal laws or commandments. Rather, they are temporary and conditional. Neither do they represent the entire Torah. This point is established by Saul’s statement that these particular annulled dogmasin were “against us” and “adverse to us.”83 This statement is important because it carries with it the thought that there can also be dogmasin that are helpful to us. Indeed, Saul and the other apostles make the point that not all of the handwritten dogmasin in the Torah of Moses—which form the augmenting statutes, laws, and customs—were annulled. To the contrary, among the decreed statutes given by Moses, there yet stand four types of dogmasin that apply even to this day. Proof of these four dogmasin comes with the doctrinal statement given by the apostles at the Jerusalem Council held in 49 C.E. At this council the apostles addressed the questions of whether or not it was necessary for those converted from the nations to practice circumcision in the flesh of the foreskin “after the custom of Moses,” and if it was necessary to charge the non-Israelite nations to keep the Torah of Moses in order to “be saved.” Keph scolds those who would put such a burden on these disciples, stating, “Now therefore why do you tempt the deity to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”84 The conclusion of the apostles was declared by 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Rom., 4:9–16. 1 Cor., 7:19. Heb., 9:1–28, esp. v. 10. The Greek term e[qo~ (ethos) means, “custom, habit” (GEL, 1968, p. 480). Jos., Antiq., 14:2:2. Jer., 7:21–23. Col., 2:14. Acts, 15:1–10.

The Torah

Jacob (James), the brother of the messiah and the bishop of the Christians at Jerusalem. Representing the leadership of the Assembly, he writes: Wherefore I judge not to trouble those from the nations who turn to the deity; but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of the idols, and porneia (sexual misconduct), and what is strangled, and (drinking and eating of) blood.85 All four categories are mentioned in the Torah of Moses.86 Subsequently, a letter was then sent out from the leaders of the Assembly with the following conclusion: For it seemed good to the sacred ruach and to us, no further burden to lay upon you than these necessary things: to abstain from the things sacrificed to idols, and from (drinking and eatingof ) blood, and from (eating) what is strangled, and from porneia; from which keeping yourselves, you will do well.87 Acts, 15:19f. These four dogmasin are mentioned in the Torah as follows: (1) The statute against drinking or eating blood existed even before the covenant made at Sinai (Gen., 9:4). This detail proves that the prohibition against eating blood was one of the original statutes observed by Abraham. The prohibition is also found attached to the covenant given at Mount Sinai as found in Lev., 3:17, 17:10–14, 19:26, and later in Deut., 12:23, 15:23. Blood is connected with life itself, see below Chap. VII, p. 109, n. 97. (2) The porneiva (porneia) statutes—i.e., the laws against illegal and immoral sexual behavior—are listed in Lev., 18:1–30, 20:10–24, and Deut., 27:20–23. In 1 Thess., 4:2f, Saul notes that the dogma (decree) to abstain from porneia was given to Christians by the “paraggeliva~ (paraggelias) we gave you through the sovereign Yahushua.” Paraggelias means, “to transmit a message, i.e. (by impl.) to enjoin” (SEC, Gk., #3853), “to notify, to command, to charge” (ILT, Lex., p. 74); ”to give the word, give orders” (GEL, p. 594). REB renders the passage to mean the “charges we gave you through the Lord Jesus”; ILT has, the “injunctions we gave you through the Lord Jesus”; and NJB gives, “the instructions we gave you on the authority of Jesus Christ.” Therefore, we are charged by Yahushua the messiah to observe the porneia statutes. Many of these restrictions (e.g., brothers and sisters should not marry) only became applicable in the days of Moses due to the increasing development of genetic problems. We know, for example, that in the days of Adam and Eve, brothers and sisters did in fact marry (not only understood by the context of Gen., 1:26–28, 2:7, 21–25, 4:1f, 16f; but acknowledged by Jewish writers: Jub., 4:7–15; Chron. Jerah., 26:1f; Jos., Antiq., 1:2:1–3; etc.). Abraham married his half-sister Sarah (Gen., 20:12); Nahor, the brother of Abraham, married his niece Milkah (Gen., 11:27–29). Neither are the rules applicable in our present day the end of the matter. During the age to come, after our resurrection into a higher form, marriages between men and women, though they have been permissible in our present fleshly state, shall be forbidden (Matt., 22:30). As our condition advances, so shall the relevant requirements. Other forms of sexual misconduct, on the other hand, have always been, and shall always be, counted as evil. These include acts of lewdness as well as effeminate and homosexual activities (1 Cor., 6:9f; Eph., 5:3–5; Gal., 5:19; Rom., 6:19). Those who break these porneia laws shall die in the lake of fire at the end of our present world-age (Rev., 21:8). (3) There is a prohibition against eating things offered to idols (Exod., 34:15; Num., 25:2f; Deut., 32:16f; cf., 1 Cor., 8:10–13). (4) There is also a prohibition against eating animals that have been strangled—an extension of the restriction against eating blood. In Scriptures any animal slaughtered for the purpose of eating must have its blood drained to avoid saturating the meat with blood (Deut., 12:23f, 15:23; cf., the idea behind Exod., 23:18, 29:11f, 15–21, 34:25; Lev., 1:3–6, 11–15; Num., 18:17; Deut., 12:27; and so forth). To sacrifice an animal, for example, one must cut its throat and drain its blood prior to cooking. This procedure is an extension of the prohibition against eating blood and sets the pattern for Christian homes. An example of food prohibited by this regulation is blood sausage. 87 Acts, 15:28f. 85 86

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Saul then passed through the cities of the nations instructing them “to keep the dovgmata (dogmata; decrees) as separated out by the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem.”88 Collectively, therefore, these four customs are dogmata (decrees), a form of the word dogmasin, which are found in Scriptures. If you keep these particular dogmasin “you will do well,” for they are advantageous for us. In a later event, Saul was charged with teaching the Jews apostasy by telling them not to circumcise nor to walk “in the e[qesin (ethesin; customs)” taught by Moses.89 Saul responded, “But concerning those who have trusted of the nations we wrote, judging them to observe no such thing, except to keep themselves from things offered to idols, and blood, and what is strangled, and porneia.”90 Important to our discussion is the fact that these four dogmasin do not include any of the royal commandments, which are also part of the Torah. The messiah straightforwardly states: Think not that I came to abolish the Torah or the prophets: I came not to abolish, but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, Until the heavens and the earth shall pass away, in no wise shall one iota or one tittle pass away from the Torah until all comes to pass. WHOEVER THEN SHALL BREAK THE LEAST ONE OF THE COMMANDMENTS, AND SHALL TEACH MEN SO, SHALL BE CALLED LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS; but whoever shall practice and teach them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I say to you, that unless shall abound your righteousness above the scribes and Pharisees, in no wise shall you enter into the kingdom of the heavens.91 In another place the messiah advised those wishing to gain eternal life: But if you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to him, Which? And Yahushua said, the commandments you know: You shall not commit adultery; You shall not commit murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; [“You shall not defraud” (Mark)]; Honor your father and your mother; [“And you shall love you neighbor as yourself” (Matt.)].92 Yahushua plainly states, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”93 These and numerous other statements from Scriptures prove that none of the Acts, 16:3f Acts, 21:18–24. Acts, 21:25. Matt., 5:17–20 (cf., ST). Luke, 18:18–20; Mark, 10:17–19; Matt., 19:17–19 (cf., ST). This is a summary list which points to the Ten Commandments (Exod., 20:1–17), the commandments explaining other forms of the Ten Commandments (Lev., 19:13; cf., 1 Cor., 6:7f), and the two greater commandments (Lev., 19:18; Deut., 6:5), upon which all of the Torah hangs (Matt., 22:35–40). 93 John, 14:15, 23. 88 89 90 91 92

The Torah

royal commandments have been set aside even after the death of the messiah.94 Indeed, it does not make sense that Yahweh would still require the statute from the Torah of Moses ordering us not to eat blood yet would set aside the commandments that you shall not murder, steal, or commit adultery or negate the greater commands to love Yahweh and to love your neighbor as yourself.95 As a result, it is clear from this evidence that at least four groups of the dogmasin and none of the royal commandments found in the Torah of Moses have ever been annulled. In addition, we have not yet even touched upon the laws and statutes that were in existence long prior to the Torah of Moses. 96 At the same time, Saul pronounces that Yahushua the messiah is the only true offering and is our Phasekh victim.97 Where remission of sins exist, “there is no more an offering for sin.”98 Therefore, since the death of the messiah, there is no more need to sacrifice flock animals as a typology of the messiah’s death. Our true Phasekh has already been sacrificed.

Conclusion These details reveal that the “popular notion” about what the apostle Saul actually meant when he indicated that the dogmasin that were adverse to us have been annulled by the death of the messiah (i.e., the belief that all the commandments, laws, and statutes of the Torah have been nailed to the stake) is both misleading and incorrect. Rather, the evidence indicates that Christians must continue to observe the commandments and a number of the laws and statutes found in the Torah while under grace. At the same time, there are many other statutes and laws which are no longer applicable. The premise is thereby established that, just because one sets aside the authority of the handwritten dogmasin of the Torah that are aginast us, it does not mean that the conditions found in the Abrahamic Covenants are also annulled (see Chart A).99 One must still obey Yahweh, keep his charge, and be subject to the same commandments, statutes, and laws observed by Abraham.100 The questions then stand: “How do we tell which conditions are still required and which have been nailed to the stake?” Secondly, “In which class do we place the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh?” Adding to the complexity of Saul’s dialogue is the fact that, even though the Torah shall continue until heaven and earth pass away, we are not under the Torah but under grace.101 Does grace eliminate all conditions? On the face of it, it would seem that we have an apparent contradiction. Therefore, we shall next address the issue of grace and whether or not, if we continue in grace, we are required to keep the conditions of the Covenants of Promise. 94 See John, 15:10–14. That we are to continue to keep the commandments even after the death of the messiah see 1 Cor., 7:18f; 2 Cor., 3:1–18; 1 Tim., 6:11–16; 1 John, 2:3f, 4:20–5:6; 2 John, 4–6; Rev., 12:17, 14:12, 22:14f. 95 See Matt., 22:34–40; Mark, 12:28–34. 96 Gen., 1:14–18; cf. Lev., 23:1–44. 97 Heb., 10:1–18; cf., 1 Cor., 5:7. 98 Heb., 10:18. 99 Cf. Chart M. 100 Gen., 26:1–5. 101 Gal., 5:18; Rom., 6:14f.

Chapter V

Under Grace

hristians who insist that the festivals of Yahweh are no longer necessary will fall back on the claim that, because we are “under grace” and not under the Torah,1 we are relieved from these earlier statutes. The error of this view stems from a complete misunderstanding of what grace is and how it is connected with the eternal inheritance. Grace does not remove the conditions of the Covenants of Promise. Grace came about only because Yahu Yahweh (Yahushua) died to pass on the eternal inheritance and then—as the only descendant of Abraham to come under and keep the Torah (Old Covenant)—qualified to receive the same. Since Yahu has obtained all rights to the eternal inheritance, he can now forgive our sins and, upon his second coming, when he shall receive use of his inheritance, by grace can share that inheritance with whomever he forgives and determines to be justified. A full understanding of the concept of grace comes with knowing that there are conditions by which Yahushua will justify a person who is under grace. Further, Yahushua is not the source of justification, for it is father Yahweh who justifies.2 Justification, therefore, comes by the instruction and requirements of father Yahweh. Yet it is by this procedure that we are able to by-pass the works of the Torah. This method provides us a way outside of the written Torah for entering into the inheritance promised to Abraham and his offspring. What critics fail to realize is that by circumventing the Torah of Moses and its works we return to the conditions placed upon us through the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise. Remember, Yahushua (Yahu Yahweh) cannot change the conditions of his original will.3 In turn, just because our past offenses are forgiven does not mean we can keep sinning (transgressing those conditions). Otherwise, why forgive us for something that is no longer a sin? Under grace certain behavior is still required.

Grace

The Hebrew term for grace is ˆj (khen), which means “graciousness,” and to show “kindness, favor.”4 Khen is a form of the word ˆnj (khanan), “to bend or stoop in kindness to an inferior” and to “move to favor by petition.”5 The Rom., 6:14f; Gal., 5:18. Rom., 8:33f. Gal., 3:15. The Hebrew term ˆj (khen), means, “graciousness, i.e. subj. (kindness, favor) or objective (beauty)” (SEC, Heb. #2580). 5 ˆnj (khanan) means, “prop. to bend or stoop in kindness to an inferior; to favor, bestow; causat. to implore (i.e. move to favor by petition)” (SEC, Heb. #2603f). 1 2 3 4

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Greek form is cavri~ (kharis), which also is the act of showing “favor” or “kindness” to someone.6 Grace, accordingly, is an act of kindness, something that one bestows upon someone less fortunate and of a lesser position, when that person of a lesser position has made a petition. To demonstrate, an act of grace would be an extension of the due date on a bank note when the person owing the money petitions the bank for relief. This extension is not written into the contract but is granted by the bank as a favor to the person making payments. Grace can also forgive a debt altogether or can restore one to his former position or credit status. For example, if a knight in a kingdom had transgressed a law and had betrayed his king and, because of this outrage, had lost his status as a knight, he could formally repent, make a required restitution, and then make petition to the king for forgiveness. The king, in turn, if being moved by the man’s repentance, could forgive the knight’s error and restore him in good standing to his previous rank—all being forgiven. The key point is that grace is not an obligation on the part of the one bestowing it. Grace is a free gift granted by the one who has the power to give it. At the same time, the person receiving grace is responsible and obligated. He must meet the requirements that would persuade the person in the higher position of authority to grant him grace. After receiving grace, the guilty man must also continue in right behavior. He must never again willingly transgress the laws of the higher authority. The knight in our above example, as a case in point, cannot go back to deliberately transgressing the king’s laws. If he does, he falls from grace. In Scriptures, grace is a gift from Yahweh,7 who is the eloah of all grace.8 His throne, therefore, is the throne of grace and his ruach is the ruach of grace.9 Yahweh’s gift of grace is expressed in various forms.10 Saul, for example, considered his commission to go to the nations an act of grace from Yahweh.11 With regard to the inheritance from the Covenants of Promise, by grace we are saved by means of trust.12 That we are heirs of the Abrahamic Covenants by grace is confirmed by the apostles Saul (Paul) and Keph (Peter). Saul, for example, states, “that having been justified by his (Yahweh‘s) grace, heirs we should become according to the hope of eternal life.”13 He adds that Yahweh’s grace is our access to the eternal inheritance, for we are “justified gratuitously by his grace.”14 Keph speaks of both men and women as “joint-heirs in the grace of life.”15 6 ˆj (khen) is translated into Greek by the word cavri~ (kharis), meaning, “outward grace or favour (as we say well or ill favoured), grace, loveliness . . . on the part of the Doer, grace, graciousness, kindness, goodwill . . . on the part of the Receiver, the sense of favour received, thankfulness, thanks, gratitude” (GEL, p. 882f), “graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act” (SEC, Gk. #5485). 7 Rom., 5:15f; Eph., 3:7. 8 1 Pet., 5:10. 9 Heb., 4:16, 10:29. 10 1 Pet., 4:10. 11 Eg. Eph., 3:8; 1 Cor., 3:10. 12 Eph., 2:5, 8. 13 Titus, 3:7. That this verse refers to the promise of eternal life cf., Titus, 1:2. 14 Rom., 3:24. 15 1 Pet., 3:7.

Under Grace

It is by means of the blood (death and resurrection) of the messiah, i.e., by his passing on and receiving unto himself the eternal inheritance, that the messiah can forgive our sins under grace.16 Yet it is actually father Yahweh who forgives us in Yahushua,17 by means of the covenant established with Yahu Yahweh made long before our world came into existence.18 The free gift is eternal life.19 Yahweh gives grace for his name’s sake,20 for he has sworn by an oath to fulfill the Covenants of Promise to Abraham.21 Since all have sinned and have fallen short,22 Yahweh must forgive us in order to bring us into the eternal inheritance. Grace, accordingly, is an act of passing over our sins by “the forbearance of eloah.”23

Heirs by the Conditions of Grace We are justified to receive the inheritance of eternal life promised in the Covenants of Promise by the grace of Yahweh; but continued grace is a gift conditioned upon required behavior. Put another way, it is a free gift to those who are continuing to keep the conditions of the Covenants of Promise regardless of the fact that they have previously sinned and are no longer eligible under either the Torah of Moses or the Covenants of Promise. A good scriptural example of the conditions of grace is found in a famous story told by Yahushua, where the king, upon petition of one of his slaves, forgave him of a very large debt. But rather than emulating the king’s conduct, the slave immediately went out to one of his fellow-slaves and demanded the full payment of money owed to him. The fellow-slave begged for patience and some time to repay the loan. Yet the demanding slave would not grant his fellow-slave time and, instead, threw the man into debtor’s prison. When the king heard of the slave’s conduct he became furious. Commanding the slave to appear before him, the king reproached him, saying, “Wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt, since you begged me. Must you not also show pity upon your fellow-slave, as I also pitied you?” As a result, the king gave the wicked slave over to those who would continually test him until he had paid back his debt to the king.24 Eph., 1:5–7; Col, 1:12–14. Eph., 4:32. That Yahu Yahweh was under a covenant with father Yahweh prior to the beginning of the world is proven in several ways. For example, none of the promises in the eternal inheritance has been received by anyone. Nevertheless, the messiah was both raised from the dead (e.g., 1 Pet., 1:21; Acts, 2:32, 4:10, 13:32–34, 17:31; Rom., 10:9; 1 Cor., 6:14) and then given life within himself (John, 5:26) by father Yahweh. By reason of this agreement, the death of the messiah was known before the foundation of the world (1 Pet., 1:17–21), and therefore before the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants were made. Yahu’s role in grace was also established before the ages of time (2 Tim., 1:8f). For these reasons Yahu had been given authority by father Yahweh to lay down his life as a fleshly man (John, 10:18). Yahushua even made a special point of adding that he kept his father’s commandments and not his own (John, 15:10). For the reason of this earlier covenant, Yahu was appointed heir of all things (Heb., 1:1–3). For more details see App. B. 19 Rom., 6:23. 20 1 John, 2:12. 21 Gen., 22:15–19; Heb., 6:11–19. 22 Rom., 3:23. 23 Rom., 3:25f 24 Matt., 18:23–35. 16 17 18

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The forgiveness of the king, therefore, was conditioned upon the subsequent like behavior of the debtor. When the slave failed to show compassion to his fellow-slave, the debt to the king once more became due and payable. Yahushua adds to this story, “So also my heavenly father will do to you unless each of you from your innermost self forgives his brother their offenses.”25 In the case of Yahweh, we must be like him, sinless, and showing mercy and grace to others. It is a condition of grace. The failure to forgive others is a sin. At the same time, the wage of sin is death;26 when one willfully returns to sin he falls from grace and the wage of sin once more becomes due and payable. Therefore, grace, though a free gift, does not continue without law-abiding behavior. Jude warns us against “certain men coming in stealthily” to the Assembly of Yahweh, “who of old have been before marked out unto this sentence, wicked persons, changing the grace of our eloahi into ajsevslgeian (aselgeian; licentiousness) and (thereby) denying the only absolute ruler, the eloah (father Yahweh), and our sovereign, Yahushua the messiah.”27 Licentiousness (ajsevslgeian; aselgeian) is behavior without moral laws.28 Keph, for example, speaks of how righteous Lot, while dwelling in the wicked city of Sodom, was “oppressed under the conduct of statutes in licentiousness,” and that “day by day his righteous life was tested by THEIR LAWLESS WORKS.”29 Yahushua counted those religious leaders who “work lawlessness” among those taken from his presence, even though they claimed to cast out demons and performed many works of power in the name of the messiah.30 Accordingly, there is a requirement to avoid sin (the transgression or violation of law),31 an issue which we shall more fully explore in our next chapter. But if we perchance unwillingly sin, under grace, if we repent, confess that sin, and ask for forgiveness, the sin shall be forgiven. Nevertheless, even with the issue of forgiveness under grace, sin is not forgiven carte blanche. We only continue under grace if our subsequent behavior conforms to Yahweh’s requirements. The requirements include the following: • First, we must confess our sins before he will forgive.32 • Second, we must repent before our sins are forgiven.33 • Third, whether we are forgiven or not is dependent upon our forgiveness and mercy to others.34 Matt., 18:35. Rom., 6:23. Jude, 4. The Greek term ajsevlgeian (aselgeian) means, “licentiousness” (GEL, p. 123), “licentiousness (sometimes including other vices):—filthy, lasciviousness, wantonness” (SEC, Gk. #766). To be licentious is to be, “Lacking moral discipline or sexual restraint,” “having no regard for accepted rules or standards. [Latin licentiosus from licentia, freedom, dissoluteness, LICENSE]” (AHD, p. 753). 29 2 Pet., 2:7f. 30 Matt., 7:21–23. 31 1 John, 3:4. 32 1 John, 1:9. 33 Luke, 17:3f. 34 E.g., Matt., 18:22–35, 6:8–15; Mark., 11:25f; Luke, 11:1–13, 6:33–38. 25 26 27 28

Under Grace

• Fourth, we must forgive others as often as they repent.35 • Fifth, we cannot willingly sin after coming to the knowledge of the truth.36 Sin is lawlessness (transgression of law). If lawlessness is evil, it means that we are still bound by moral laws. For example, if anyone breaks any of the commandments, or teaches anyone that it is proper to do so (which shows that it is willful), even if it is the least of the commandments, that person shall be considered the least of things by those in the kingdom of Yahweh.37 Accordingly, those who willingly break any of the commandments will not enter into the kingdom. As we shall demonstrate as our study continues, sin also includes breaking the statutes to observe the festivals and sacred days.

Death of the Testator The grace of Yahweh can only be understood within the context that Yahu Yahweh was the testator of the Covenants of Promise. These covenants are the last will and testament given by Yahu Yahweh to Abraham and his seed (the messiah), to the plural seed (the elect) of Abraham, and to the people of other nations who qualify.38 According to Scriptures, the very fact that Yahu authored the covenant will (Covenants of Promise) required his death, otherwise the will giving the eternal inheritance would be of no use. Yahu had bound himself to this will by a sworn oath. At the same time, in order to receive the inheritance, someone had to qualify under the conditions of (1) the Covenants of Promise and (2) the written Torah that was attached thereto as an augmentation. This detail meant that someone had to be sinless. Since no man is capable of sinlessness, or of keeping the whole written Torah without at least one point of transgression,39 circumstance begs for Yahu Yahweh himself to become the fleshly descendant of Abraham.40 As the seed of Abraham he must qualify for the inheritance under both the Covenants of Promise and the written Torah.41 Yahushua’s sinlessness as the fleshly seed of Abraham accomplished this justification and made him eligible to receive the eternal inheritance. He then had to sacrifice his life to pass on the inheritance, otherwise the will would be without any force. The problem is this: if Yahu Yahweh had not become the fleshly seed of Abraham and did not qualify under the written Torah, then, because all of us have sinned, no other human would ever receive any of the eternal inheritance. Further, if Yahu had died and there was no one to pass the eternal inheritance to, Yahweh’s word and good name would have suffered. This circumstance demands the death of the testator of the will found in the Covenants of Promise and the granting of grace. Since Yahu Yahweh 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Matt., 18:21f; Luke, 17:3f. Heb., 10:26f. Matt., 5:17–19. Gal., 3:15–29. James, 2:10; cf., Rom., 3:23. See App. C. That the messiah came under the written Torah see Gal., 4:4f.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

(Yahushua) was the only one who qualified for the eternal inheritance, and since he can share it with us by grace, it is clear that he died for all those who shall be saved, thereby relieving us from the burden of qualifying under the written Torah. As the justified (righteous) heir, Yahu can now share this eternal inheritance with whomever he justifies (as dictated by father Yahweh). Herein lies the doctrine of grace. By this method, Yahushua is able to bring us into the inheritance by allowing us to circumvent the works of the Torah and bring us back under the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise. To demonstrate these points, we must first recognize that no inheritance is of any force until the one leaving it dies. Therefore, the messiah had to die because he was the author of the will in the Covenants of Promise. This detail is confirmed in the book of Hebrews: For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the defiled, sanctifies for the purity of the flesh, how much rather the blood of the messiah who through the eternal ruach offered himself spotless to eloah (father Yahweh), shall purify your conscience from dead works unto serving the living el. And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions of the first covenant (i.e., the Old Covenant or Torah of Moses), the promise of the eternal inheritance they who have been called might receive. For where there is a diaqhvkh (diatheke; covenant will)42 IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR TO COME ABOUT. For a covenant will is affirmed upon death, since in no way is it of force when the testator is living.43 The text continues by explaining that blood (a life) had to be offered and that the messiah was the better sacrifice. Further, it was the messiah’s own blood that had to be offered, otherwise there was no legal force to pass on the eternal inheritance. There is no mistaking the message here. Yahu made a will and had to die in order to pass on the contents of that will. He also had to be raised from the dead in order to receive and then share the inheritance with his followers. As Keph writes: Blessed be the eloah and father of our sovereign, Yahushua the messiah, who according to his great mercy begat us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Yahushua from the dead, to an incor42 The word diaqhvkh (diatheke) is “prop. a disposition, i.e. (spec.) a contract (espec. a devisory will):—covenant, testament” (SEC, Gk. #1242); “a disposition of property by will, a will, testament . . . an arrangement between two parties, covenant” (GEL, p. 187). 43 Heb., 9:13–18. Saul points out, “for if one died for all, then all died; and for all he (Yahushua) died, that they who live no longer live to themselves, but unto him who died for them and was raised again” (2 Cor., 5:14).

Under Grace

ruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance, reserved in the heavens for us, who by the power of eloah is being guarded through trust, for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.44 Yahushua’s death fulfills the legal requirement for passing on this eternal inheritance. For this reason the apostle Saul writes, “For I delivered to you in the first place, what I also received, that the messiah died for our sins, according to Scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he was raised from the dead the third day, according to Scriptures; and he appeared to Keph, then to the twelve.”45 This Abrahamic “covenant will” was sworn to by an unchangeable oath: Wherein eloahi desiring more abundantly to show to the heirs of promise the unchangeableness of counsel, interposed by an oath, that by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible for eloah to lie.46 Yahushua’s death, resurrection, and quickening into immortality, followed by his permanent perfection, are required to fulfill his mercy with the Israelite fathers “and to remember his (Yahu Yahweh’s) sacred covenant, the oath which he swore to Abraham our father.”47 Yahweh swore to the covenants by himself, i.e., by his sacred name.48 Because there was a “covenant will,” sworn to by an unchangeable oath, the messiah sealed the necessity for his own death. He was destined to die in order to pass on the promised inheritance of eternal life.

Sinless Sacrifice Our inheritance cannot be obtained without a sinless sacrifice. The process requires that father Yahweh give Yahu Yahweh all things, even his sacred name, and then Yahu, in turn, leaves these things as an inheritance in a conditional will. Genesis, 26:1–5, confirms that the covenant with Abraham was conditional when it reports that Yahweh told Isaak that he would fulfill the promises, “BECAUSE Abraham listened to my voice and obeyed my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Yet even Abraham was a sinner, for all have sinned. He, like the rest of us, must come into the eternal inheritance by grace and by means of the messiah. Further requirements were attached to the promises given to Abraham because of transgression.49 These conditions were given in the form of the Old Covenant made at Mount Sinai and the works of the Law which were added thereto,50 i.e., as found in the books of the Torah. The covenant at Mount Sinai and works of the Torah did two things: 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

1 Pet., 1:3–5. 1 Cor., 15:3f. Heb., 6:17f. Luke, 1:72f. Gen., 22:16; Heb., 6:11–19; and see SNY, chap. iii. Gal., 3:18f. Rom., 9:32, 11:6; Gal., 2:16, 3:2, 5, 10.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

First, when Yahweh married Israel at Mount Sinai, he narrowed the eligibility for the inheritance down to the nation and assembly of Israel, thereby building a wall between Israel and the nations.51 This formed a major obstacle in granting the contents of the will, since Abraham was promised to be both the father of many nations and a blessing to the nations.52 Second, the Torah of Moses brought all the Israelites who desired to be justified by its fleshly works under a curse if they could not keep the agreement.53 Unfortunately, the Israelites could not live up to such high standards without trust.54 At this point a huge problem became manifest. The conditions of the Torah of Moses were such that, “For whosoever shall keep the whole Torah, yet shall stumble in one point, he has become guilty of all.”55 If you become guilty, then you lose your rights to the inheritance, for you have not met the conditions. This being the case, there could be no “elect” from Israel that could qualify as Yahweh had promised.56 The question is, “How then can anyone obtain the eternal inheritance, Israelite or non-Israelite, ‘For all have sinned and come short of the glory of eloah’?”57 Therefore, to bring all of the nations, including Israel, back into the eternal inheritance, grace became necessary. Nevertheless, how can someone give grace if he does not have rights to the inheritance? The solution is revealed in the book of Isaiah. Isaiah observed that our iniquities and sins have come between mankind and Yahweh, causing Yahweh to hide his face from us. Yahweh advises us that the source of the problem stems from the fact that we speak falsehoods and murmur perverseness, and no one seeks truth but instead trusts emptiness. Mankind runs to evil and does not know the way to peace, and there is no justice in our tracks.58 “Therefore, justice is far from us; and righteousness (justification) does not overtake us.” We grope for the wall like blind men and stumble at noonday as at the time of the evening breeze. Among mankind’s other crimes, our sins testify against us. “And the truth is lacking; and whoever turns from evil makes himself a prey.”59 There was only one way to solve this immense dilemma: And Yahweh saw, and it was evil in his eyes that there was no justice. And he saw and there was no (just) male, and he was astonished that there was not an intercessor. But his arm saved for him, and his righteousness (justification), it sustained him.60 Eph., 2:11–17. Gen., 17:4f, 18:18; Rom., 4:16–18. Gal., 3:10, 13. Cf., Heb., 3:14–4:9. James, 2:10. The “elect” of the First Resurrection are the 144,000 priest-kings of Israel (e.g., Gen., 17:6– 8; Exod., 19:3–6; Isa., 45:4, 65:9; Rev., 7:2–8, 14:1–5, 20:4–7) and the 24 ruling elders (Rev., 4:4, 10, 5:8–10. 14, 11:16, 19:4). These elders include the 12 apostles (Luke, 22:28–30; Rev., 21:10–14), Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, King David, and 8 other select individuals. 57 Rom., 3:23. 58 Isa., 59:1–9. 59 Isa., 59:10–15. 60 Isa., 59:15f. 51 52 53 54 55 56

Under Grace

Therefore, since no human was capable of keeping the conditions of the “covenant will” and the written Torah, Yahu Yahweh, the saving arm of father Yahweh, had to come and fulfill the conditions himself, becoming the intercessor for mankind. Yahu had to become the messiah saviour, first qualifying as an heir and second by dying to pass on the eternal inheritance. This circumstance demanded that the messiah become the seed of Abraham and then qualify under the conditions of the will and the written Torah. As a result, Yahu had to become a sinless sacrifice, coming “under the Torah.”61 That Yahushua qualified as heir is made self-evident by the fact that he never sinned,62 i.e., never transgressed the laws of the Covenants of Promise or the Torah (Law); he never failed to trust in father Yahweh.63 Yet, if the eternal inheritance in the will was to be passed on and the works of the written Torah circumvented by us, Yahu had to sacrifice himself. In this regard, Saul states, “For also the messiah, our Phasekh was sacrificed for us.”64 The Phasekh lamb, which was sacrificed during the Festival of Phasekh, was to be “perfect.”65 Keph refers to the messiah as “a lamb without blemish and without spot” who gave his “precious blood” for our sake.66 That is, the messiah was the lamb without blemish, a perfect sacrifice because he never sinned. By Yahu’s death and resurrection into eternal life, he also became our high priest, i.e., our intercessor.67 We read in the book of Hebrews, with regard to Yahu’s priesthood: Whence also he (Yahushua) is able to completely save those who approach through him to eloah, always living to intercede for them. For such a high priest he became, sacred, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and becoming higher than the heavens: who has no necessity day by day, as the (earthly) high priests, first for his own sins to offer up sacrifices, then for those of the people; for this he did, having offered up himself once for all.68 The messiah was a sacrifice for “all” because all of those who are saved must come through him. He is the door by which we shall enter the eternal inheritance.69 As part of his body (the assembly),70 we are justified as jointheirs.71 Since our opportunity to receive the inheritance lies with Yahushua, and we become his body, we have died and have been resurrected with him. The blood of the messiah (i.e., his death), being a spotless (sinless) offering to 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Gal., 4:4. 1 John, 3:5; 1 Pet., 1:19, 2:21f; Heb., 4:15, 7:26, 9:14; 2 Cor., 5:21. 1 John, 3:4; Rom., 14:23. 1 Cor., 5:7. Exod., 12:5. 1 Pet., 1:19f. Heb., 3:1f, 4:14–5:10, 6:18–20, 7:21–8:3. Heb., 7:24–27. John, 10:7–9. Rom., 12:3–5; 1 Cor., 12:12–31. Rom., 8:17.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Yahweh, is used to purify our conscience from dead works to serving the living el.72 Nevertheless, we still die in this life, for “it is apportioned for men once to die, and after this, judgment.”73 Further, our present corruptible (decaying), flesh and blood bodies are not capable of inheriting.74 We must wait until after our resurrection when we shall possess our new incorruptible bodies, in which form we can inherit.75 Therefore, Yahushua’s sacrifice provides mankind with redemption, alleviating them from being under the Old Covenant (Torah of Moses), the first covenant of divine marriage,76 which kept them out of the eternal inheritance. The messiah’s own death and resurrection allowed him to be the mediator of a New Covenant, the second covenant of divine marriage.77 The New Covenant is in fact the eternal covenant promised in the will given to Abraham.78 It was given so “that they which are called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance.”79 At the same time, the death of the person making a covenant of inheritance is required if the will is to have any force, otherwise the contents of the “covenant will” cannot be passed on. The book of Hebrews, as we have said, specifically states that it was “not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood,” and it was “the blood of the messiah, who through the eternal ruach offered himself without spot to eloah.”80 Therefore, in order to provide us grace so that we might by-pass the Torah of Moses, Yahushua died for the sins of all mankind.81 Being righteous (justified), he died for the impious and sinners (transgressors of the Law).82 For powerless is the Torah (of Moses), in that it was weak through the flesh, Yahweh, having sent his own son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the requirement of the Torah should be fulfilled in us, who not according to flesh walk, but according to ruach.83 For him (Yahushua), who did not know sin, he (father Yahweh) made for us a aJmartivan (amartian; sin offering),84 that we might become the justified of Yahweh in him.85 Heb., 9:14. Heb., 9:27. 1 Cor., 15:50. 1 Cor., 15:35–58. Heb., 8:6–13; cf., Jer., 31:31–34; Hos., 2:16f (MT 2:18f); Rev., 19:6–9. See above n. 76. Gen., 17:7. Heb., 9:15. Heb., 9:12, 14. 1 Cor., 15:3; 2 Cor., 5:14f; 1 Thess., 5:10. Rom., 5:6, 8. Rom., 8:3f. That aJmartivan (amartian) means a “sin offering” compare the LXX at Lev., 4:20, 21, 24, 25, 29, and so forth with the Hebrew word hafj (khataah) (see CS, 1, pp. 62–64, item 2e; cf., SEC, Heb. #2401–2403). 85 2 Cor., 5:21. 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Under Grace

Grace Manifested The grace of Yahweh could not appear until Yahu Yahweh became a fleshly man, a descendant of Abraham who could qualify to receive the inheritance. As a mortal man he could die to pass on the inheritance and then he could be resurrected to receive the same. Once he became eligible to receive the eternal inheritance, he also gained the authority to share that inheritance with whomever he wishes. This granting of joint-heirship is an act of grace. Therefore, grace was manifested with the appearance of the messiah, his death, and his resurrection. John, for example, tells us, “For the Torah was given by means of Moses; but grace and truth came by means of Yahushua the messiah.”86 Keph (Peter) likewise states that grace was brought to us by the revelation of Yahushua.87 Saul writes that the Torah came first so that “grace might reign through justification unto eternal life, through Yahushua, our sovereign.”88 Saul adds: For we were once also without intelligence, disobedient, led astray, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness and the friend of man appeared, our saviour eloah, not out of works (of the Torah of Moses) which were in righteousness which we practiced, but according to his mercy he saves us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the sacred ruach, which was poured out richly upon us BY MEANS OF YAHUSHUA THE MESSIAH, OUR SAVIOUR; THAT HAVING BEEN JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE, HEIRS WE SHOULD BECOME ACCORDING TO THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE.89 Saul further states that Yahushua taught us this doctrine of grace, “For the grace of eloah which brings salvation for all men appeared, instructing us that, having denied wickedness and worldly desires, discreetly and righteously and piously we should live in the present age.”90 Notice that this grace of eloah is conditioned upon us denying wickedness and worldly desires, and living discreetly, righteously (as one who is justified), and piously in this world. Under this method—if we repent, trust, obey, etc.—Yahushua will forgive us our sins and forbear. As a result, when we have obedient trust, through Yahushua the messiah, on behalf of his name,91 and if we continue abiding by the conditions set out, we shall receive the eternal inheritance by grace. At the same time, Yahu merely being a man did not in and of itself bring about grace. Yahu had to qualify for the eternal inheritance, having come “under the Torah.”92 Saul defines the abundance of grace as reigning through 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

John, 1:17. 1 Pet., 1:13. Rom., 5:21. Titus, 3:3–7. Titus, 2:11f. Rom., 1:1–5. Gal., 4:4.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Yahushua, who “accomplished justification toward all men unto the justification of life.”93 Then the messiah had to suffer death in order to pass on the inheritance. The book of Hebrews states it was for the reason of the “putting away of sin by his sacrifice that he was manifested,”94 i.e., he came to sacrifice himself for the cause of bringing grace into existence. The book of Hebrews states: Yahushua, on account of the suffering of death, was crowned with glory and honor; so that by the grace of eloah for every one he might taste death. For it was becoming of him, by means of whom are all things and by means of whom shall be all things, bringing many sons unto glory, the leader of their salvation by means of sufferings to make perfect.95 In turn, sins cannot be forgiven, grace cannot be dispensed, and justification cannot be made unless the messiah is alive. This fact demands Yahushua’s resurrection. Saul informs us that by trust we are reckoned to be righteous (justified), “to those that trust upon him (father Yahweh) who raised Yahushua, our sovereign, from out of the dead, who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION.”96 In another place Saul writes that Yahushua was marked as the son of eloah, “out of the resurrection of the dead,” and “by whom we receive grace and apostleship unto obedience of trust among all the nations, in behalf of his name, among who you are also called of Yahushua the messiah.”97 That is, it is by the resurrected messiah that we receive grace. Saul is supported by Keph, who states that, through the great mercy of Yahweh, he has “begat us again to a living hope through the resurrection from out of the dead, to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance.”98

Grace Revealed Though grace was manifested with the fleshly life, death, and resurrection of the messiah, no one has as of yet received use of any of the eternal inheritance99 —i.e., no one has attained to eternal life, the eternal ownership of land, the eternal circumcision, and so forth—by means of the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise. This fact is even true of the messiah, the seed of Abraham, who was resurrected by means of another covenant that was made with father Yahweh before the foundation of our world.100 Therefore, the act of grace with regard to Rom., 5:18. Heb., 9:26. Heb., 2:9f. Rom., 4:22–25. Rom., 1:4–6. 1 Pet., 1:3f. Heb., 11:13, 39f; Acts, 7:2–5. Yahu’s resurrection into eternal life came via an agreement made between Yahu and father Yahweh prior to the foundation of the world. For this reason Scriptures count only two resurrections under the Abrahamic Covenants: the resurrection of the elect at the coming of the messiah (the First Resurrection), and the general resurrection (the Second Resurrection), which takes place after the 1,000-year reign of the messiah (cf., Rev., 11:3–12, 20:4–15). For details see App. B. 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Under Grace

the eternal inheritance has not yet been granted. But this grace shall begin to be granted when the messiah returns to earth, an event referred to as the future revelation of the messiah. To understand this principle of delayed distribution let us refer to an earthly type. A father has died and left his five-year-old son a vast fortune. Yet in his will the father specifies that the young lad cannot possess or spend any of the money until he has reached the age of twenty-one. Therefore, even though the young man is the heir and has inherited, and his right to share his inheritance with others is now manifest, he cannot actually do so until the arrival of the date specified within his father’s will. Likewise, the messiah must wait until the specified time commanded by father Yahweh for the inheritance to be released, at which time Yahu (Yahushua) can share it with whomever he wishes, the saved being those doing Yahweh’s will and meeting his conditions. Yahu then can distribute a joint-share in the eternal inheritance by grace. The dispensation of the eternal inheritance by grace has yet to occur. In the book of Isaiah, for example, Yahweh notes that the Israelites are a rebellious people: And therefore YAHWEH WAITS TO BE GRACIOUS TO YOU (Israel). And therefore, he is high to have mercy on you, because Yahweh is an eloahi of justice. Blessed are those who wait for him. For the people in Zion shall live in Jerusalem; you surely shall not weep. SURELY HE SHALL GIVE YOU GRACE at the sound of your cry. When he hears he will answer you.101 Clearly, the fulfillment of this statement has not yet taken place, for the people of Zion, who are waiting for Yahweh, are not yet living in Jerusalem. Neither has Yahweh, as of this date, answered the cry of his people. It cannot occur until the messiah returns and lays hold of his eternal inheritance, establishing his throne on Mount Zion at Jerusalem and obtaining all of the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.102 Keph also points to this future grace. While writing to “the elect sojourners of the dispersion,”103 i.e., to the dispersed Israelites, he advises them, “Wherefore having girded up the loins of your mind, being sober, have a perfectly complete hope upon the grace being brought to you at the revelation of Yahushua the messiah.”104 This statement demonstrates that the “elect” of Israel shall be provided the eternal inheritance by grace at the second coming of the messiah. It fully complies with the statement in Galatians that the Torah Isa., 30:18f. Thus fulfilling the promise found in the Covenants of Promise at Gen., 15:17–20, cf., Exod., 23:31; Deut., 1:7f; Josh., 1:3f. For examples that Yahweh the messiah shall then dwell at Jerusalem on Mount Zion see Ps., 146:10; Isa., 2:3, 8:18, 24:23, 46:12f, 51:11, 59:20f; Joel, 3:15–17; Amos, 1:2; Obad., 1:17; Zech., 1:14–17, 8:3; and so forth. 103 1 Pet., 1:1. 104 1 Pet., 1:13. 101 102

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

was an augmentation to the Covenants of Promise given to Abraham, “until should have come (into existence) the sperma (group of seed) to whom the promise has been made.”105 These comments are a direct reference to the First Resurrection, which occurs at the second coming of the messiah.106

Conclusion By the grace of the messiah, who can grant us a share in the inheritance with him, we are justified to receive the promises of the eternal inheritance. Unlike the written Torah made at Mount Sinai, to which the works of the Torah became an integral part, grace is not granted by debt.107 But neither is grace without conditions, for Yahweh will only give the gift of eternal life by grace (bestowing as a favor the eternal inheritance) to those who, like Abraham, continue in the conditions of the covenant and trust him, obey his voice, keep his charge, and keep his commandments, statutes, and laws. Under grace, the works of the Torah of Moses are not relevant; but the conditions of the eternal covenant are. The question still stands, “How do we know if the statutes of the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are included as one of Yahweh’s conditions?” To address this question completely we must explore two more important aspects of our problem. We must define what it means to transgress any of the conditions of the Covenants of Promise, and we must discover how we can gain knowledge of what these conditions are. 105 106 107

Gal., 3:18f. Rev., 20:4–6. Rom., 4:4.

Chapter VI

The Knowledge of Sin

cting under grace does not mean that the conditions for the Covenants of Promise are no longer relevant. They are. Yet to make sense out of this complex problem, we must realize that any transgression of the Covenants of Promise is classified as a sin. At the same time, though we are not presently under the Torah of Moses, the written Torah reveals the knowledge of what behavior constitutes sin against the Covenants of Promise. The purpose of the Torah is to teach. Therefore, the written Torah of Moses must remain until heaven and earth pass away.1 At that time, all those remaining justified and eligible to be quickened into eternal life shall be saved. Once quickened, they will have Yahweh’s laws written within their innermost self,2 and like the quickened messiah, they shall be unable to sin.3 As a result, they will no longer need the Torah to teach them about sin. Until that time, however, the written Torah must continue as a teaching tool. Further, under grace Yahushua will forgive our sins against Yahweh’s covenants and by grace grant us joint-heirship in the eternal inheritance. Nevertheless, Yahweh’s forgiveness of sins does not mean that we can continue to willingly sin. Otherwise, why forgive sin if that transgression is no longer sin? And if breaking the conditions of the Covenants of Promise are no longer of any force, why should Yahweh forgive those living today of transgressions against his earlier covenants, especially since most people of the world were never part of either the covenants made with Abraham or at Mount Sinai? When we answer these questions, we shall be able to address the issue of whether or not the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are not only part of the conditions of the Covenants of Promise but, as such, if they are still required to be observed.

Sin Defined That we are to follow the requirements of the Covenants of Promise is first indicated by the definition of sin and how sin is connected with the Torah of Moses. Sin is defined as “to miss the mark” and to commit “an offense” 1

Matt., 5:17f; cf. Rev., 21:1–8. E.g., Jer., 31:33f; Isa., 51:7; Pss., 37:30f, 57:7–11; Heb., 8:8–13, 10:16f. Those with Yahweh’s laws written in their bbl (lebab; innermost self) are those with a permanently circumcised lebab (cf., Deut., 30:6; Jer., 4:4; Rom., 2:29; Phil., 3:2–11; Col., 2:11). 3 Since those saved cannot break the eternal covenant, by definition they will be changed into a form that cannot sin. Therefore, we are to be changed, becoming like the messiah in his higher form (1 John, 3:1–3). Further, one must be born from above in order to enter the kingdom of Yahweh (John, 3:3). Those born from above, like Yahushua, have attained a higher form and cannot sin (1 John, 5:18). The messiah, being without sin, was the first born from the dead (Rom., 8:29; Col., 1:18). 2

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

against a covenant.4 The apostle John, for example, writes that, “everyone that practices sin, also practices lawlessness, and sin is ajnomiva (anomia; a transgression or violation of a law = Torah).”5 The Torah (Law) of Moses is composed of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. For that reason the entirety of the books of the Old Testament are referred to as “the Torah and the Prophets.”6 Yet because the books of the prophets are appendaged to the Torah, the name Torah is at times applied to the entirety of the Old Testament.7 The word translated into English as “righteousness” is in Hebrew qdx (tsadoq) and in Greek divkaio~ (dikaios). These terms actually mean that one is “justified” and therefore is “right” and “innocent” in his actions.8 If one abides by the conditions of a covenant will he is justified to receive the contents therein. As used in Scriptures, those justified (the righteous) shall receive the inheritance, while those unjustified (the unrighteous), who have broken the conditions of the contract, will not receive the inheritance.9 Accordingly, John writes, “All unjustification (unrighteousness) is sin”10—i.e., everything which makes us unjustified in the covenants to receive the eternal inheritance is sin. Next, that which mentally prepares us and motivates us to obey Yahweh, to perform good works, and to keep Yahweh’s commandments, twqj (khoquth; statutes), and trwt (torath; laws) is “trust” in Yahweh.11 As a result, the apostle Saul tells us, “everything which is not of trust is sin (transgression of law).”12 Those who lack trust disobey, for which reason disobedience is also a sin.13 Indeed, to obey Yahweh and his voice is to keep the conditions that he has laid out for us so that we might receive the eternal inheritance. Finally, James and Paul add to this definition of sin two more issues. James notes, “If now you have respect of persons (show favoritism), you work sin, 4 Hebrew afj, hafj (khata, khatah), “prop. to miss; hence (fig. and gen.) to sin,” i.e., “an offence” (SEC, Heb. #2398, 2403). The Hebrew term is translated into Greek as aJmartavnw (amartano), aJmartiva (amartia), “prop. to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), i.e. (fig.) to err, esp. (mor.) to sin.—for your faults, offend, sin, trespass” (SEC, Gk. #264, 266). 5 1 John, 3:4. The Greek term ajnomiva (anomia), ajnomvhma (anomema), etc., means, “illegality, i.e. violation of law” (SEC, Gk. #458); “transgression of the law . . . lawlessness, lawless conduct . . . the negation of law, opp. novmo~.” (GEL, 1968, p. 146). 6 E.g., Matt., 11:13, 22:40; John, 1:45; Acts, 28:23; Rom., 3:21. 7 E.g., John, 10:34, cf., Ps. 82:6; John, 15:24f, cf., Ps., 35:19; 1 Cor., 14:21, cf., Isa., 28:11f. 8 The Hebrew qdx (tsadoq) means, “was righteous, equitable . . . acted justly . . . was in the right . . . was acknowledged to be just, in the right . . . justified” (HEL, p. 218); “just . . . to be (causat. make) right (in a moral or forensic sense):—cleanse, clear self, (be, do) just (-ice, -ify, -ify self), (be, turn to) righteous (-ness) . . . the right (nat., mor. or legal)” (SEC, Heb. #6662–4). The Greek word is divkaio~ (dikaios), meaning, “of persons, observant of custom and social rule, well-ordered, civilised . . . observant of right, righteous . . . so of actions, in accordance with right, righteous . . . right, lawful, just” (GEL, p. 202); “equitable in character or act); by impl. innocent, holy (absol. or rel.):—just, meet, right (-eous)” (SEC, Gk. #1342–1345). 9 E.g., 1 Pet., 4:18; Matt., 25:34, 46; Heb., 11:7; 1 Cor., 6:9. 10 1 John, 5:17. 11 For example, it was from lack of trust that the Israelites disobeyed Yahweh and failed to keep the covenants (Heb., 3:16–19). As another example, Jacob states that in one’s good works you can see his trust, and trust without good works is dead (James, 2:14–26). 12 Rom., 14:23. 13 E.g., Adam disobeyed Yahweh in reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen., 2:16f, 3:1–19). This disobedience was counted to Adam as sin (Rom., 5:12–19). Also see 2 Cor., 10:1–6; Eph., 2:1–3, 5:5–7; Col., 3:5f; 1 Tim., 1:8–11; Titus, 1:15f.

The Knowledge of Sin

being convicted by the Torah as transgressors.”14 Saul speaks of misleading the susceptible as sin. If one who is strong in understanding does things that cause a brother with a weak conscience to sin, “you sin against the messiah.”15 He uses as his example a follower of Yahweh who knows that idols are nothing and the food sacrificed to idols has no force. The follower therefore eats this food knowing it does not really belong to any deity. Yet the weaker brother who sees a knowledgeable follower of Yahweh eating food offered to idols will be built up in such practices, believing that it is acceptable. As a result, the weaker brother will eventually defile himself by willingly participating in the sacrifices to idols.16

Different Torahs These definitions of sin bring us back to the question of why Yahweh made the Torah covenant at Mount Sinai. Saul states that the Torah of Moses was created due to transgression of the Covenants of Promise.17 Yet Saul also states, “for where there is no Torah (Law) there is no transgression.”18 What Torah then did the Israelites transgress that brought about the creation of the Torah at Mount Sinai? A covenant is a legally binding agreement, and therefore a Torah (Law). As with any covenant agreement (marriage, contractual, last will and testament, and so forth), it can be enforced in a court of law. In Scriptures the handwritten covenant at Mount Sinai is referred to as the Torah.19 The New Covenant, meanwhile, is described as having the torath (laws) of Yahweh written within our bbl (lebab; innermost self).20 The name Torah (Law) is applied to the Old Covenant at Mount Sinai by Scriptures to distinguish it from the Covenants of Promise and the New Covenant, which are also by definition legal contracts. The difference is that the Torah at Mount Sinai was a handwritten agreement, while the Covenants of Promise were a verbal contract. That the covenants previous to Mount Sinai are also a Torah is verified by the words of Saul. Saul clearly separates the written Torah, containing works of the Torah, from the verbal Torah that Abraham was under when he writes: Where then is the boasting? It was excluded. Through what Torah? of works? No, but through a Torah of Trust. We reckon therefore a man to be justified by trust, apart from works of the Torah.21 James, 2:9. 1 Cor., 8:12. 1 Cor., 8:1–13. Gal., 3:19. Rom., 7:15. E.g., Gal., 3:15–21; Rom., 5:12–21. Jer., 31:33f; Isa., 51:7; Ps., 37:30f, 57:7–11; Heb., 8:8–13, 10:16f; cf., e.g., Rom., 2:29, 10:8–10; Matt., 5:28. Lebab is generally translated as heart, mind, or thought (SEC, Heb. #3824–3825; HEL, p. 132). The word tends to the idea of the innermost person. CHAL, pp. 171f, for example, includes within its definition “the seat of vitality . . . inner self, seat of feelings & impulses . . . mind, character, disposition, inclination, loyalty, concern . . . determination, courage, (high) morale . . . intention, purpose . . . mind, attention, consideration, understanding . . . conscience . . . person.” 21 Rom., 3:27f. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Abraham was made an heir, as we are made heirs, “through the justification of trust.”22 Therefore, Abraham was under the Torah of Trust. Saul also refers to the Covenants of Promise as “the Torah of the ruach of life in the messiah Yahushua” and “the Torah of the messiah.”23 Jacob (James) calls it, “the perfect Torah, that of freedom.”24 This Torah of Trust was the verbal agreement secured by an oath sworn to by Yahweh’s own name. The Israelites, on the other hand, with their marriage covenant at Mount Sinai, found themselves under a handwritten augmentation to the Torah of Trust that had been given to Abraham. This covenant was later expanded to provide further augmentations which included the works of the Torah. Saul writes: What then shall we say? That the nations that follow not after justification (righteousness), attained justification, but justification that is out of trust. But Israel, following after a Torah of justification, to a Torah of justification did not attain. Why? Because it was not out of trust, but was out of works of the Torah.25

Sin from the Beginning The fact that the Israelites had transgressed a covenant that existed prior to the marriage covenant given at Mount Sinai indicates that sin (the transgression of a Torah) was committed prior to the Old Covenant given at Mount Sinai. Indeed, sin has existed for mankind since the time of Adam. Saul writes: On this account, as by one man (i.e., Adam) sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and thus death passed to all men, for that all have sinned: For until the Torah (of Moses) sin was in the world. But sin is not put into account, there not being the (handwritten) Torah (of Moses); yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even upon those who had not sinned in the same kind of transgression of Adam, who is a figure of the coming one (the messiah, the second Adam).26 Two points are made: • First, sin was from the beginning. The sin of disobedience against the voice of Yahweh was the first commandment transgressed. Not only did Adam sin but so did Eve when she disobeyed Yahweh and then led Adam into sin.27 Cain was warned of sin before he killed Abel;28 the people of Sodom 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rom., 4:13–25. Rom., 8:2; Gal., 6:2. James, 1:25. Rom., 9:31f. Rom., 5:12–14. Gen., 3:1–6; 1 Tim., 2:13f. Gen., 4:6f.

The Knowledge of Sin

and Gommorah, who practiced thievery, homosexuality, and rape,29 committed grievous sins in the days of Abraham and Lot before they were destroyed;30 Abimelech and Joseph both feared the evil sin of adultery;31 and Jacob acknowledged stealing was a sin.32 All of these crimes were labeled as sin long before the covenant given at Mount Sinai. This fact means that Adam and Eve were also under a Torah covenant with Yahweh. This covenant is proven to be eternal, offering the promise of eternal life, since it gave Adam access to the tree whose fruit was eternal life.33 When Adam sinned he lost access to this tree.34 Since all mankind was within Adam,35 they fell under this same covenant, sinned with him, and also lost their access to the tree of life (the tree being a representation of the messiah).36 When he sinned, we all sinned. For example, if a man fails to make some of his payments as required in a contract to buy a piece of property, he has sinned against that covenant (legal agreement). If the property is thereby repossessed, the buyer has not only lost his right, title, and interest to the property but his heirs have lost their rights as well. In the case of Yahweh’s covenant with Adam, which offered access to eternal life, the wages of sin are death.37 For this reason, “by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin (came) death, and thus death passed to all mankind.”38 Therefore, it is “apportioned to men to die once, after this, judgment.”39 • Second, we know that Yahweh cannot supplement conditions to his covenants. He can only expand or restrict those conditions already allowed for.40 Therefore, the conditions found in the Adamic Covenant must be the same as those found in the Abrahamic Covenants, and these in turn must be adhered to by the handwritten Torah. This detail means that the entire human family is under the same covenant and the same rules of sin. In Isaiah we read of this covenant: The land mourns, languishes, droops and languishes THE WORLD; the proud of the people of the land droop; and the land is profaned under its inhabitants, for they transgress laws, violate a statute, and break THE μl[ (OLAM; world-age lasting) COVENANT.41 29 Gen., 19:5–9, cf., Jude, 7; Ezek., 16:49f. Also see Lev., 18:22, 20:13, and the comments in Jos., Antiq., 1:11:1; Jub., 16:5; Test. Twel., 4:1. 30 Gen., 18:20f. 31 Gen., 20:1–9, 39:6–9. 32 Gen., 31:32–36. 33 Gen., 2:9, 3:22. The tree of life is in fact a parable for the messiah, see App. E. 34 Gen., 3:23. 35 For this principle see Deut., 5:1–4, 29:14f, and Heb., 7:9f. 36 For the identity of the tree of life see App. E. 37 Rom., 6:7, 23. 38 Rom., 5:12. 39 Heb., 9:27. Cf., Eccles., 9:2–5; Ezek., 18:4, 20; Ps., 22:28f. All of these statements must be taken in context with Rom., 3:23, “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of eloah,” and Rom., 6:23, “The wages of sin are death.” 40 Gal., 3:15–17; cf., John, 10:34–36, “the scripture cannot be broken.” 41 Isa., 24:4f.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Since the world was never under the handwritten Torah of Moses, as the Israelites were, the only way by which the rest of the world can all be part of the same olam covenant is through Adam. This particular world-age for the Adamic Covenant is elsewhere described as μl[ d[ (ad olam; a perpetual world-age).42 That olam only occurs after the completion of our present limited olam (world-age), at which time we shall have residence with father Yahweh for eternity. The handwritten Torah, on the other hand, is limited in its olam in that it shall be dispensed with when heaven and earth pass away. Hosea goes even further when he writes: For I desired trustworthiness and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of eloahim more than burnt offerings. And they (the Israelites), LIKE ADAM, THEY HAVE BROKEN THE COVENANT; they have acted like traitors against me.43 This passage points out that the Israelites broke the same eternal covenant as Adam. Yet the Torah the Israelites were under was an augmentation to the Covenants of Promise given to Abraham. These facts demonstrate that the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise, also being eternal and promising eternal life, were themselves an augmentation to the eternal covenant given to Adam. Under the Adamic Covenant, Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life, the fruit of which gave “life for olam,” i.e., for the eternal world-age.44 Under the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise we also gain access to the tree of life (the messiah). Both represent the Torah of Trust. Sin is directly tied to the conditions of the inheritance. To demonstrate, Keph remarks that Yahushua’s death was foreknown prior to the foundation of the world.45 Yet, the messiah died for our sins so that we might receive the inheritance.46 The inheritance was also from the beginning. Then the king (Yahu Yahweh) shall say to those (sheep) on his right hand, Come, the blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the kovsmou (kosmou; universe, world).47 Notice that this inheritance has been prepared for us from the beginning of the world. It is the same one we shall receive by grace under the Torah of Trust. Since the wages of sin are death and not eternal life, and sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, preventing them from receiving eternal life, it is clear that the covenant leaving an inheritance was from the beginning and sin prevents us from receiving the inheritance of eternal life. Therefore, as with the death of the messiah, the eternal inheritance by grace is part of the original plan of Yahweh for the salvation of mankind. In turn, this fact proves 42 43 44 45 46 47

E.g., Pss., 37:27–29, 21:4–7, 61:8; Dan., 12:3; Mic., 4:5; etc. Hos., 6:6f. Gen., 3:22. 1 Pet., 1:17–21. See above Chap. V, pp. 75–84, and App. A–C. Matt., 25:31–34. For the Greek term kosmou (kosmos) see above Chap. II, p. 43, n. 77.

The Knowledge of Sin

that the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants are connected and are two stages in this original plan of inheritance.

Can We Sin Under Grace? It is popular to conclude that there are no present requirements for receiving the eternal inheritance under grace or the Covenants of Promise. If that were true, then there is no more sin. The messiah merely forgives us of past sins. All new behavior would be allowed under grace. Saul makes it clear that this interpretation is not the case. He writes that all men, whether Israelite or nonIsraelite, are not permitted to sin while under grace. What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? May it not be. We who died to sin how shall we still live in it?48 Saul further explains this principle by stating: For if conjoined we have become in the likeness of his death, so also of (his) resurrection we shall be, this knowing, that our old man was killed on a (torture-) stake with him, that might be annulled the body of sin, that we no longer be subservient to sin. For he that died has been justified from sin. Now if we died with the messiah, we trust that also we shall live with him, knowing that the messiah, having been raised from the dead, no more dies: death no more rules over him. For in that he died, to sin he died once for all; but in that he lives, he lives to eloah. So also you reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to eloah, in messiah Yahushua our sovereign. Therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal body, for to obey it in its desires. Neither be yielding your members instruments of unjustification to sin, but yield yourselves to eloah as alive from among the dead, and your members instruments of justification to eloah.49 Again Saul writes to those who would allow sin, “Wake up to justification and do not sin; for ignorance of eloah some of you have: to your shame I speak.”50 The messiah points out, “Verily, verily I say to you, that everyone that practices sin is a bondman of sin. Now the bondman does not abide in the house forever; the son abides forever.”51 Since we are to be sons and daughters who are heirs,52 and friends of Yahweh rather than his bondmen,53 we must not sin. 48 49 50 51 52 53

Rom., 6:1f. Rom., 6:5–13. 1 Cor., 15:34f. John, 8:34. Rom., 8:16f; Gal., 3:29, 4:7; 1 Pet., 3:7; 2 Cor., 6:14–7:1. James, 2:23; Isa., 41:8; cf., John, 15:12–17, and John, 11:11, in context with 11:11–44.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Saul charges those in the assembly, “Those that sin convict before all, that also the rest may have fear.”54 Of course, this condemnation of sin does not mean that one cannot be forgiven if he unwillingly sins. John writes, “My children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin; and if anyone should sin, a comforter we have with the father, the justified Yahushua the messiah; and he is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours only, but also for the whole world.”55 Yet John also adds, “He that practices sin is out of the devil; because from the beginning the devil sins.”56 On the other hand, one who willingly sins after coming to the truth is condemned. In the book of Hebrews we read, “For where we willingly sin, after receiving the knowledge of the truth, no longer does there remain a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fervor of fire to devour about the adversaries.”57 But if we are not under the contract of the handwritten Torah, how do we know what conditions are attached to the Covenants of Promise (the Torah of Trust)? Put another way, “From where do we receive the knowledge of this sin?”

Where is the Knowledge of Sin? How do we know what sin is while under grace and the Covenants of Promise? The handwritten Torah with its augmentations was provided to Israel for the precise reason of teaching them what sin is. Further, the written Torah was utilized not only to teach but to counter the excuse of ignorance. In short, because the laws of Yahweh are not yet written inside our innermost selves, we need something in writing, otherwise we can always claim that we forgot or are ignorant of the conditions of the verbal Adamic and Abrahamic covenants. This explanation is proven by the following facts: Although the word hrwt (torah; law), plural trwt (torath), does mean “a precept or statute,”58 it more specifically comes from the root hry (yarah), meaning, “to point out (as if by aiming the finger), to teach.”59 The idea behind a torah, therefore, is a law that gives “instruction.”60 For example, in the book of Leviticus, after giving the torath (laws) for every plague of leprosy and scurf—for a leprosy of a garment and of a house and for a rising (scab), and for scurf, and for a bright spot—Yahweh adds that he did so “to teach when it is unclean and when it is clean; these are the torath of leprosy.”61 54 1 Tim., 5:20. Also see Eph., 4:26f, “Be angry but do not sin, let not the sun set upon your provocation, neither give place to the devil.” 55 1 John, 2:1f. 56 1 John, 3:8. 57 Heb., 10:26, cf., v. 18. 58 A hrwt (torah), plural trwt (torath), is “a precept or statute . . . a custom” (SEC, Heb. #8451, 8452), “instruction, direction . . . law, enactment” (HEL, p. 116). The Hebrew word hrwt (torah) is translated into Greek as novmo~ (nomos), meaning, “(to parcel out, espec. food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), gen. (regulation)” (SEC, Gk. #3551). 59 The root hry (yarah), means, “prop. to flow as water (i.e. to rain); trans. to lay or throw (espec. an arrow, i.e. to shoot); fig. to point out (as if by aiming the finger), to teach” (SEC, Heb. #3384); “put forth, as instruction, teach” (HEL, p. 115); “to direct, to teach, to instruct in” (NBD, p. 718). The form hrwm (moreh, ma-urah; one who points the way) means “teacher” (HEL, p. 115; SEC, Heb. #4175; NBD, p. 718). 60 NBD, p. 718. 61 Lev., 14:57. Cf., Lev., 4:27f. Other examples of torath are the torath of the guilt offering (Lev., 7:1), the torath of the sacrifice of the peace offerings (Lev., 7:11), the torath of the animals, fowl and every living creature which moves in the waters and swarms on the earth (Lev., 11:46).

The Knowledge of Sin

A large body of laws is referred to in the singular as a Torah.62 The book of the Torah (the Pentateuch) of Moses, which embodies the commandments, khoquth (statutes), and torath (laws) of Yahweh, is described by Saul as “our paidagwgo;n (paidagogon; schoolmaster).”63 After making the covenant of the written Torah with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, Yahweh advised Moses that he had given “the tablets of stone, and the Torah, and the commandments, which I have written, to teach them.”64 What then does the Torah teach us? Saul explains: Now we know that whatsoever the Torah says, to those in the Torah it speaks, that every mouth may be stopped, and under judgment shall be all the world to Yahweh. Wherefore out of works of the Torah shall not be justified any flesh before him; FOR BY MEANS OF THE TORAH IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.65 What then shall we say? Is the Torah sin? May it not be! BUT SIN I KNEW NOT UNLESS BY MEANS OF THE TORAH: for also covetousness (lust) I had not been conscious of unless the Torah said, You shall not covet.66 In demonstrating his point, Saul has referred to one of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not covet.” By doing so, Saul is equating “sin” with breaking one of the Ten Commandments,67 thereby agreeing with Yahushua’s words that to gain the inheritance of eternal life we must also keep the commandments.68 The handwritten Torah of Moses gives us the knowledge of what sin is under the Covenants of Promise for all mankind. Therefore, the Torah teaches us to trust, love, and obey Yahweh, and observe the commandments, statutes, and laws of Yahweh, all which existed prior to the covenant made at Mount Sinai. Because the instructions from the handwritten Torah of Moses leave us without the excuse of ignorance, even though all of mankind is now under grace and not under the Torah, the handwritten Torah is not yet abolished and not one yod or keraia (iota and tittle; i.e., Hebrew letter marks)69 of the Old Covenant Torah will pass away until heaven and earth pass away.70 The written Torah will then no longer be relevant because the laws of Yahweh will at that time be written in our innermost self (our nature).71 NBD, p. 718 Gal., 3:24f. The Greek word paidagwgo;n (paidagogon) means, “a boy-ward . . . a kind of tutor” (GEL, p. 584); “a boy-leader . . . (by impl. [fig.] a tutor [‘pœdagogue’]):—instructor, schoolmaster” (SEC, Gk. #3807); “a boys’ guardian or tutor” (ILT, Lex., p. 73). 64 Exod., 24:12. 65 Rom., 3:19f. 66 Rom., 7:7. 67 Exod., 20:17. 68 Matt., 5:19f, 19:16–22; Mark, 10:17–23; Luke, 18:18–23. 69 See above Chap. III, p. 53, n. 56. 70 Matt., 5:17f. 71 E.g., Jer., 31:33f; Isa., 51:7; Pss., 37:30f, 57:7–11; Heb., 8:8–13, 10:16f. 62 63

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The Statutes of the Old Covenant That portion of the Old Covenant first composed at Mount Sinai further delineates the separation between the original statutes and those statutes (works of the Torah) meant to augment. We often forget that when the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai (up to and just before the written covenant was composed) only the information from the book of Genesis, relating to the existence of the original covenants and the early family history of the Israelites, and the history for the first nineteen chapters of Exodus were in hand. In the pre-Old Covenant records, though trust, grace, obedience, and justification are revealed, the conditions of the commandments, statutes, and laws attached to the earlier covenants were not yet itemized in a formal written contract. They were still part of a verbal agreement. Meanwhile, the augmentations found in the written Torah were due to transgressions or sins against the Covenants of Promise given to Abraham.72 And, as we have already demonstrated, these augmentations were provided to give knowledge of what sin was.73 At the same time, there are acts of justification found in the Torah of Moses which even for those not abiding under the Torah are to this day required to keep.74 Justification is by definition those things which one does to qualify to be justified to receive the inheritance. Indeed, we are told that the commandments, statutes, and laws of Yahweh, including the Sabbath day, which predated the Old Covenant, were placed in the covenant made at Mount Sinai.75 Accordingly, the conditions of the Old Covenant marriage contract 76—which cannot contradict the original will 77—contain the requirements for the Covenants of Promise. This covenant agreement, therefore, gives us knowledge of the requirements for the Torah of Trust (the Covenants of Promise) with regard to the commandments, khoquth (statutes), and torath (laws, which are themselves a type of statute). The Old Covenant at Mount Sinai was divided into two major parts: (1) It contained the ten royal commandments.78 These Ten Commandments embody the two greater commandments, enunciated later on, to love Yahweh with all our innermost self and to love our neighbor as ourself.79 The ten, as a result, reflect the two greater commandments upon which all of the Torah hangs.80 The Mount Sinai covenant also contained the commandment to obey the voice of the angel Yahweh.81 All of these commandments reveal the requirement to love Yahweh.82 Gal., 3:12–19. For the discussion of the augmentations of the Torah see above Chap. V. E.g., Rom., 2:26; and see Chap.IV, pp. 66–69. Exod., 16:26–29, 18:20, 19:5, were statutes all named prior to the covenant at Mount Sinai, cf., Exod., 19:3–23:33. The Sabbath day of Exod., 16:4–30, for example, is later found in the statutes given at Mount Sinai (Exod., 23:12). 76 Exod., 20:1–24:8; cf., Jer., 31:31–33, esp. v. 32, “my covenant which they broke, although I ytl[b (baalthi; was a husband) to them.” 77 Gal., 3:15; cf., John, 10:35, “the scripture cannot be broken.” 78 Exod., 20:1–17. 79 Lev., 19:18; Deut., 6:4f. 80 Matt., 22:34–40. 81 Exod., 23:20–23. That this angel is the angel Yahweh is confirmed by the statement, “my name is on him” (v. 21). 82 Therefore, the NT theme to love Yahweh, e.g., Mark, 12:30–33; Rom., 8:28; 1 Cor., 16:22; 1 John, 4:9–21, 5:2. 72 73 74 75

The Knowledge of Sin

(2) Attached to the Ten Commandments was a list of statutes (including torath; laws) and judgments (a punishment form of statute).83 Abraham is not said to have been obligated to any of the judgments. Indeed, they were not necessary in Abraham’s case because judgments only come into effect if one is continuing to break the commandments, statutes, and laws of the Abrahamic Covenants. Judgments, as we have already pointed out,84 itemize punishments for breaking the commandments, statutes, and laws. As a result, the giving of judgments mark them out as an augmentation of the original commandments, statutes, and laws kept by Abraham due to Israelite sin against the Covenants of Promise. To demonstrate, at Mount Sinai Yahweh commands the execution of a murderer,85 of anyone who dishonors his father by striking him,86 and of anyone who has sexual intercourse with an animal.87 If someone steals he is to pay compensation,88 or if a man borrows something and ruins it he must replace or pay for it.89 These statutes also give guidelines for conduct—e.g., a judge is not to favor the lowly in a law-suit,90 you shall not revile eloahim or curse a ruler among your people,91 nor shall you afflict a resident alien, a widow, or an orphan.92 The Torah at Mount Sinai, therefore, reflects the eternal commandments, the age-lasting statutes, and laws of Yahweh. These are expressed by the commandments to love Yahweh and to love your neighbor as yourself and by the statutes to do good works. Along with these judgments were the statutes they were enforcing. Among other things, these non-judgment statutes required the observance of the Sabbath years, rest on the Sabbath day, and the three khag periods of Yahweh. With regard to the last issue, we read: Three times in the year you shall khag to me: This, the Khag of Unleavened Bread you shall keep. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, AS I HAVE COMMANDED YOU for the moad (appointed time) of the moon of Abib, because in it you came out of Egypt. And you shall not appear to my face unworthy. And the Khag of the Harvest (Pentecost), the first fruits of your labor of what you sow in the field. And the Khag of Ingathering (Tabernacles), when the year goes out, in your gathering of your work from the field. Three times in the year every one of your males shall appear to the face of adon (sovereign) Yahweh.93 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Exod., 21:1; cf., Deut., 4:12–14; Mal., 4:4. See above Chap. IV, p. 62. Exod., 21:12–14. Exod., 21:15. Exod., 22:19. Exod., 22:9–13. Exod., 22:14. Exod., 23:3. Exod., 22:28. Exod., 22:21f. Exod., 23:14–17.

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

These khagi are clearly not judgments, for a judgment is rendered, “if you do such and such then you shall be punished in such and such a way.” The statement “as I commanded you” is important, for it testifies that this command to keep the khag days predates the handwritten Torah (Old Covenant). Since they were known previously, it is understood that they were part of the Abrahamic Covenants. Also notice that there are no commanded sacrifices, burnt offerings, or other such trappings in the initial contract at Mount Sinai. Close examination of this agreement reveals another striking feature. There are no works of the Torah attached to the Tabernacle service mentioned in this agreement at all94—e.g., washings, cleansing rites, customs, etc. Neither do we find other fleshly works, such as the requirement for fleshly circumcision, nor any commanded sacrifices or burnt offerings.95 There are no curses pronounced, no cleansing laws, no torath for leprosy, clean and unclean foods, dress codes, no priestly functions for a Tabernacle, or the like. The only priestly function mentioned is the prohibition against using cut stones for the altar or building steps up to the altar, which would cause a man’s nakedness to be seen.96 All such dogmasin (public decrees) were attached later for the purpose of teaching and prophecy. Nevertheless, in this initial contract made at Mount Sinai Yahweh’s khagi and Sabbath days are present. They are clearly not judgments and cannot be classified as such. They too are without the trappings of any commanded sacrifices or works of the Torah. For example, the additional requirement given later on of living in booths during the Khag of Tabernacles is not found, neither is the omer wave offering, which is associated with the Khag of Unleavened Bread.97 This evidence reveals that the numerous fleshly works of the Torah have not yet been attached. As a result, the statutes for keeping the khagi and Sabbath days are revealed in this covenant precisely because they predate Yahweh’s marriage contract with Israel, a contract which was meant to reveal what constituted sin against the original Covenants of Promise.

Sin More Sinful What has been done by creating the written Torah is to make the offense of sin greater by heightening the punishment for transgression of the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenants.98 But sin having taken an occasion through the commandment worked out in me all manner of coveting; for apart from the Torah sin is dead. But I was alive apart from the Torah once; but having come to the commandment, sin revived, then I died. And was found to me that the commandment which was unto life, this was unto death; for sin having taken an Rom., 9:31f; Gal., 3:10; Heb., 9:6–10. Jer., 7:22. The mention of sacrifices and burnt offerings in Exod., 20:24, and 23:18, are not constrained by time. Therefore, they are freewill offerings. 96 Exod., 20:23–26. 97 Lev., 23:9–17, 39–43. 98 Rom., 5:20. 94 95

The Knowledge of Sin

occasion through the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew (me). So that the Torah indeed is sacred, and the commandment sacred and just and good. That which then is good, to me has it become death? May it not be! But sin, that it might appear as sin, through that which was good to me working out death; THAT SIN MIGHT BECOME EXCESSIVELY SINFUL BY THE COMMANDMENT.99 Ignorance of the conditions of the eternal covenants lessens, yet does not set aside, the punishment for the crime. Jacob explains, “Therefore, the one knowing to do good and not doing it, he is sinning.”100 To demonstrate, all men die in this age because of sin;101 but death is temporary. All will be resurrected back to life. Then, after the resurrection, all will be made aware of the complete truth. Meanwhile, blasphemy against the sacred ruach occurs when one rejects that truth and becomes unrepentent. It is only this form of sin that cannot be forgiven, “neither in this age nor in the coming one.”102 Deliberate sin with foreknowledge, as a result, can cost a person his eternal life. This lesson is taught by Yahushua’s parable of the steward and his servants. Yahushua states in this parable: And that servant who knew the will of his sovereign, and prepared not nor did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he who did not know, and did the things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few (stripes).103 In short, those servants who did not know received few stripes (i.e., they were still punished but given a chance to live); yet those who knew and committed evil received many stripes (which would cause death). For this reason Saul writes that sin committed by the world before the handwritten Torah was “not put into account, there not being the Torah at Mount Sinai.”104 In another place he writes, “apart from a Torah sin is dead,”105 and “the strength of sin is the Torah.”106 Why make sin more sinful? There are two reasons. First, when Yahweh made the original verbal covenant with Adam, by defacto, he made it with all mankind, for all those who would ever live were in Adam at that time.107 Meanwhile, Yahweh’s Judgment Day is an approximate thousand years long because he is “not willing for anyone to perish, but for all to come to repentance.”108 Rom., 7:7–13. James, 4:17. See above ns. 26 & 39. Matt., 12:31f; Mark, 3:28f; Luke, 12:10. An example of someone knowing the full truth in this age and having been subject to the ultimate penalty would be Yahushua the messiah. Also see Rev., 14:9–12. 103 Luke, 12:42–48. 104 Rom., 5:12–14. 105 Rom., 7:8. 106 1 Cor., 15:56. 107 Cf., Deut., 5:1–4, 29:14f, and Heb., 7:9f, for this principle. 108 2 Pet., 3:8f. 99 100 101 102

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

At the same time, no one can achieve eternal life unless, after forgiveness, he keeps the conditions of the Covenants of Promise and does not willingly sin. To achieve this goal, Yahweh by definition must give everyone the knowledge of what sin is, otherwise they will have no chance. Neither will they know for what sins they are repenting. Therefore, Yahweh must resurrect everyone back to life who has not been justified for the First Resurrection.109 That all who have ever lived will attain this knowledge is demonstrated by the fact that during the Judgment period every knee shall bow to Yahweh and the written Torah shall exist until the end.110 Further, at the end of Judgment, both the wicked and justified shall refer to the messiah as sovereign Yahweh.111 Saul notes that the report given by the prophets of Scriptures goes out “unto all the earth” and “until the ends of the habitable world.”112 For this reason, those who “endure until the end shall be saved.”113 The behavior of all humankind after they gain this knowledge of what sin is shall separate the wicked from the justified. Next, it naturally follows that when the knowledge of sin is achieved then its punishment becomes greater. For this reason, it shall be more difficult during the Judgment period for those who have received the truth in our present time and have rejected it than it will be for the great sinners of our present time who do not receive this knowledge until they return in the Judgment Day.114 The principle is based upon the reasoning that the more you are given the more that is expected from you.115 The greater punishment is referred to as “the second death,” a fiery death from which none of the wicked shall return.116 Saul explains, “for the Torah works out wrath.”117 Why the need for wrath? It is necessary in order to finish the project and to put an end to this world-age and to the wicked,118 the wicked being those who will not repent and would, with foreknowledge, will109 There are two resurrections in Scriptures: one occurring at the return of the messiah (the First Resurrection), which includes the elect who rule during the approximate 1,000-year Sabbath Day, and the general or Second Resurrection, which occurs early within the approximate 1,000year Judgment Day (see Rev., 20:1–15, and cf., Heb., 3:7–4:11; 2 Pet., 3:3–14; Pss., 84:10, 90:4). 110 Isa., 45:23f; Matt., 5:17–20. 111 Matt., 7:21–23, 24:25–13, esp. v. 11, 24:31–46, esp. v. 37 and 44. The expression kuvrie kuvrie (sovereign sovereign) in these Greek passages, found as ynwda ynwda (adonai adonai; sovereign sovereign) in the Shem Tob (ST) Hebrew version of Matt., is a gloss for the common Hebrew expression, “ynwda hwhy (Yahweh adonai).” See e.g., MT of Pss., 71:5 (cf., LXX 70:5), 109:21 (cf., LXX 108:21), 140:7 (cf., LXX 139:7), 141:8 (cf., LXX 140:8), and the reading of Ps., 130:1f (cf., LXX 129:1f), which appears to be incorrectly divided in the English text into separate sentences. 112 Rom., 10:16–18. 113 Matt., 10:22, 24:13; Mark, 13:13; cf., Heb., 3:6, 14–16; 1 Tim., 2:12f; James, 5:10f. 114 Matt., 10:2–15, 11:20–24, 12:43–45, 13:10–17; Mark, 6:7–11; Luke, 10:1–15; Rom., 11:22; 2 Pet., 2:20–22. 115 Mark, 4:24f; Luke, 8:18; cf., Matt., 25:14–30. 116 Rev., 20:13–15, 21:7f. We should also notice that a second death requires a second life. In this present time, we all live and die the first death (see above ns. 26 & 39). For a second life, a resurrection back to life is required. 117 Rom., 4:15. 118 Isa., 28:22; cf., 2 Pet., 3:3–13. 119 This unwillingness to repent is what lies behind the unpardonable sin of blaspheming against the sacred ruach (Mark, 3:28–29). Since Yahweh forgives all who repent (Luke, 17:3f), only those who do not repent, and therefore will speak evilly against the sacred ruach (which can save them), Yahweh cannot forgive. The unrepentant will be those committing the unpardonable sin.

The Knowledge of Sin

ingly continue to sin.119 By doing so, Yahweh will advance those receiving the eternal inheritance into the next world.120 For this reason, at the end of this world-age Yahweh will destroy the wicked eternally in a great end-time, unquenchable fire.121 It is the day of Yahweh’s wrath.122 Further, to inherit we must reach perfection,123 but perfection comes only when we are tested and continue to keep the conditions of the covenants while suffering in adversity.124 To persevere in correct behavior while suffering adversity demands trust in Yahweh, that he will fulfill his word. Therefore, “the scripture shuts up all things under sin, that the promise out of the trust of Yahushua the messiah might be given to those that trust.”125 These points of evidence demonstrate that the Mount Sinai Torah, which is a written contract, brings the crime of sin to a higher level of responsibility. The Mount Sinai Torah is not sin itself,126 but it gives us knowledge of what sin is and thereby strengthens the punishment. By giving all mankind the knowledge of sin, the Torah shall bring the whole world under judgment and make everyone subject to the wrath of Yahweh. Saul writes: Now we know that whatsoever the Torah says, to those in the Torah it speaks, that every mouth may be stopped, and under judgment shall be ALL THE WORLD to eloah.127 At the same time, the failure of all men to obtain the inheritance under the written Torah speaks for Yahweh’s action, otherwise he cannot keep his word. To solve the dilemma, Yahweh became a fleshly descendant of Abraham,128 qualified under the handwritten Torah to receive the inheritance, and died to pass it on.129 In doing so, grace was manifested and with it a way to circumvent the works of the handwritten Torah. We are now only obligated to the conditions of the Covenants of Promise.

Conclusion Even though we are not under the covenant made at Mount Sinai, the handwritten Torah does give us the knowledge of what sin is under the verbal Torah of Trust. According to Scriptures, if we continue to trust in Yahweh, if we obey his voice, if we love, if we do good works, if we repent, and if we Rom., 4:13, 8:16–21; James, 2:5; Matt., 25:31–34. Pss., 11:5–7, 21:8–11, 37:10f, 20, 36f, 46:4–6, 75:2f, 83:13–15, 104:35; Isa., 1:28–31, 5:21–24, 30:27–30, 66:15f, 22–24; Mal., 4:1–3; 2 Pet., 3:3–13; Matt., 25:31–46; Rev., 20:13–15, 21:7f. Also cf., Matt., 10:28; Luke, 12:4–5; and see Matt., 5:21–22, 29–32, 18:8f, 23:15, 29–33; Mark, 9:43–47; Luke, 16:14–31. For parables dealing with the end-time Gehenna fire see Matt., 3:7–10, 7:17–20, 13:24–30 (cf., 36–43), 13:47–50, 25:41; 2 Thess., 1:8f. As an unquenchable fire see Matt., 3:12; Luke, 3:17; Mark, 9:43–48. 122 Zeph., 1:15–18. 123 Matt., 5:48; Prov., 2:21, 11:5; 1 John, 2:3–5, 4:12, 16–18; Col., 3:12–15. 124 Heb., 2:8–10, 5:7–10; Rom., 5:1–5; 2 Cor., 12:9; James, 1:4; 1 Pet., 2:19–23, 3:14–17, 4:15–19. 125 Gal., 3:22. 126 Rom., 7:7. 127 Rom., 3:19. 128 See App. A–C. 129 Gal., 4:4f, cf., 3:23. 120 121

100

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

keep those other commandments, khoquth, and torath which Yahweh also made as part of the earlier Covenants of Promise with Abraham, Yahweh will grant us the inheritance by grace. Just as important, once coming to the knowledge of the truth, we must not willingly sin. The handwritten Torah, thereby, is the key to obtaining the knowledge of the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants and the conditions required for receiving the eternal inheritance from the Covenants of Promise under grace. With this fact firmly established, we can now turn our attention toward gleaning from the Torah of Moses what these conditions are. In this effort we shall fully answer the question: “Are the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh part of the Torah of Trust?”

Chapter VII

Acts of Justification in the Torah

ince the resurrection of the messiah, we have no need to come under the conditions of the handwritten covenant (Torah) established at Mount Sinai. Nevertheless, knowledge of acts that justify us under grace are found written within this same handwritten Torah. These conditions include certain requirements not specifically listed for the covenant of the Sinai Torah, nor are they needed to fulfill the works of the Torah. Yet these other conditions are standards for the Covenants of Promise (Torah of Trust). They include trust (faith),1 grace, the sacred ruach, and the nature of love. Important for our study, we are told that Abraham was not justified under the works of the Torah.2 Yet he qualified to receive the inheritance by grace not only because he trusted and obeyed Yahweh’s voice, but because he faithfully kept Yahweh’s commandments, twqj (khoquth; statutes), and trwt (torath; laws).3 These commandments, statutes, and laws kept by Abraham, therefore, could not have been works of the Torah. Abraham, in turn, serves as our prime example for those who wish to be justified by trust in order to receive the eternal inheritance by grace, for Abraham was justified while he was still in his uncircumcised flesh and never was under the handwritten Torah.

Trust and the Torah The covenant of the handwritten Torah does not specifically require trust or grace as a condition for the inheritance. To begin with, trust is defined as, “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”4 Indeed, “apart from trust it is impossible to well please (Yahweh); for it behooves him who approaches to eloah to trust that he exists, and he becomes a rewarder to those seeking him out.”5 It is out of trust that one obeys Yahweh.6 The covenant of the handwritten Torah, which contains the works of the Torah, meanwhile, “is NOT out of trust; but, the man who does these things shall live in them.”7 As Saul explains, “Now to him that does the works 1 For the reasons that the term “trust” is used throughout our text instead of “faith” see Chap. II, p. 35, n. 4. 2 Rom., 4:1–3. 3 Gen., 26:1–5. 4 Heb., 11:1. 5 Heb., 11:6. 6 E.g., because Abraham trusted he “obeyed” Yahweh “to go out into the place which he is about to receive for an inheritance, and went out, not knowing where he was going,” see Gen., 15:1–6; Heb., 11:8, cf., Gen., 12:1–8; Heb., 11:17–19, cf., Gen., 22:1–14. 7 Gal., 3:12.

101

102

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

(of the Torah) the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt.”8 The report given by the handwritten Torah did not profit most of the ancient Israelites because they disobeyed, not having mixed that report with trust.9 Instead, they tried to collect the inheritance as a debt; and they failed. The ancient Israelites had missed the purpose of the Torah of Moses, which was to bring men to the messiah and to teach them about justification under grace. The apostle Saul writes in the book of Romans: For I bear witness to them (the Israelites) that they have zeal for Yahweh, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of the eloah of justification, and their own justification seeking to establish, to the justification of Yahweh they submitted not. For the tevlo~ (telos; result, end)10 of the Torah is the messiah unto justification for every one that trusts.11 In another place Saul points to the difference between those justified under grace and those Israelites attempting to be justified under the Torah of Moses: What then shall we say? That the nations that follow not after justification, attain justification, but justification that is out of trust. But Israel, following after a Torah of justification, to a Torah of justification did not attain. Why? Because it was not out of trust, but was out of works of the Torah.12 The failure to trust in Yahweh is itself sin.13 Since the Torah did not specifically command trust—though it would take trust to fully comply with all its tenets—it is clear that the sin which is attached to the failure to trust is a specific condition of the Covenants of Promise. Indeed, by trust we are reckoned to be justified to receive the eternal inheritance apart from the written Torah,14 for trust gives us access unto grace.15 Therefore, those being justified shall live by trust,16 whether they are Israelites or non-Israelites.17 Meanwhile, no one, except for the messiah, is capable of being justified for the eternal inheritance by the works of the handwritten Torah, because “the Torah is not made for a justified man.”18 Rom., 4:4. Heb., 3:16–4:2; Deut., 32:20. 10 The Greek term tevlo~ (telos; result) means, “the fulfilment or completion of anything . . . its consummation, issue, result, end . . . the end proposed . . . the end of action” (GEL, p. 799); “prop. the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by impl.) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [lit., fig. or indef.], result [immed., ultimate or prophetic], purpose)” (SEC, Gk. #5056). 11 Rom., 10:2–4. 12 Rom., 9:31f. 13 Rom., 14:23. 14 Rom., 3:28; Gal., 3:24; Rom., 9:30. 15 Rom., 5:1f. 16 Heb., 10:38; Gal., 3:11; Rom., 1:17. 17 Rom., 3:27–31. 18 1 Tim., 1:9. 8 9

Acts of Justification in the Torah

103

For not by means of the Torah was the promise to Abraham or to his spermati (single seed = the messiah),19 that heir he should be to the world, but justification by means of trust. For if those out of the Torah (of Moses) are heirs, trust has been made void, and the promise made of no effect.20 Wherefore out of works of the Torah shall not any flesh be justified before him; for through the Torah is the knowledge of sin.21 But to him that does not do the works (of the Torah), but trusts upon him that justifies the wicked, his trust is reckoned for justification (righteousness).22 Therefore, justification (righteousness) itself does not come from being under the handwritten Torah. Rather, it comes by means of grace and by the adherence to the conditions of Yahweh’s covenant will, which is based upon trust. This will leaves to its heirs the eternal inheritance for which the messiah, as its testator, died in order that we might receive it through grace. As Saul reports, “I do not set aside the grace of eloah; for if by means of the Torah (of Moses) is justification, THEN THE MESSIAH DIED FOR NOTHING.”23 Even more to the point, since grace has entered the picture, to try to gain justification by means of the handwritten Torah is a mistake. To demonstrate, the book of Acts reports that certain men from the Jewish sect of the Pharisees who had come to trust in the messiah began to teach that, in order for those of the nations to be saved, it was necessary for them to be circumcised in the flesh and to keep the Torah of Moses (i.e., it was necessary for them to be under the works of the handwritten Torah). The apostle Keph (Peter) corrected them stating: Men, brethren, you know that eloah, from early days, chose among us through my mouth for the nations to hear the word of the good news, and to trust. And the mind-knowing eloah bore witness to them, giving to them (the nations) the sacred ruach, as also to us (the Israelites), and put no difference between both us (Israelites) and them (the nations), by trust having purified their minds. Now, therefore, why tempt you eloah to put a yoke (the works of the Torah) upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear, but by the grace of the sovereign, Yahushua the messiah, we (the Israelites) trust to be saved, in the same manner as they (the nations) also.24 19 20 21 22 23 24

Gal., 3:15f. Rom., 4:13f. Rom., 3:20. Rom., 4:5. Gal., 2:21. Acts, 15:5–11.

104

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Saul summarizes this problem by stating that, if you circumcise the flesh of your foreskin in order to inherit, the messiah profits you nothing. You have merely become “a debtor to do the whole Torah,” which would include all of the works of the Torah.25 “You are deprived of all effect from the messiah, whosoever in the Torah are being justified; you fall from grace.”26 Therefore, through the Old Covenant made at Mount Sinai, to which various works and curses were attached because of sin, “no one is justified with Yahweh” because “the justified shall live by trust.”27 Does all of this mean that it is a sin or improper to practice those things of the handwritten Torah (e.g., men should never circumcise their flesh nor abstain from unclean meat)? Certainly not. The Torah is counted as “right” and a product “of the ruach.”28 Indeed, if one does those things found in the handwritten Torah he will “live in them.”29 If one practices some of these rules for health and cleanliness reasons, or for the prophetic reasons for which they stand, it may enhance him in his efforts to grow in Scriptures and give him a healthy life. Yet, if one tries to be justified to receive the eternal inheritance because he is doing these things, he becomes subject to the whole handwritten Torah and is doomed to failure. In this understanding lies the intent of Saul’s words. For this reason Saul allowed Timothy, who was Jewish only on his mother’s side,30 to be circumcised in the flesh. Yet Timothy was not circumcised as an act of justification under the Torah of Moses. Rather, he was circumcised so that he could be accepted among the Jews of Asia Minor in order that he might teach Scriptures among them.31 The Torah of Trust, on the other hand, does not require the fleshly works found in the handwritten Torah, such as animal sacrifices, circumcision, and cleansing rites. It does demand trust in order that one can obey Yahweh’s voice, keep his charge, and observe his eternal commandments, world-age lasting statutes, and laws. Trust is neither stated as a requirement for attaining the inheritance in the handwritten covenant made at Mount Sinai nor is it espoused in those parts attached thereafter. Nevertheless, the requirement of trust for the earlier Covenants of Promise is revealed within that same handwritten Torah. As Saul states, “So trust is out of report, but the report is by means of the word of Yahweh.”32 To demonstrate, the book of Genesis is part of the Torah.33 It is also that part of the handwritten Torah which reveals the existence of the Covenants of Promise. In this report we read that Abraham was justified to receive the inheritance by trust.34 This report proves that Abraham was under the Torah of Trust (i.e., the Torah of Justification).35 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Cf., James, 2:10; Gal., 5:1–4. Gal., 5:1–4. Hab., 2:4; Rom., 1:17; Gal., 3:11; Heb., 10:38. Rom., 7:14–16. Ezek., 20:11, 13, 21. Acts, 16:1. Acts, 16:2–3. Rom., 10:17, and read this verse in context with v. 10:13–11:10. Gal., 4:21–31, cf., Gen., 16:15, 21:2, 9. Gen., 15:6; Rom., 4:1–24; Heb., 11:8f, 17–19; James, 2:21–23. Rom., 3:27. It is also called “the Torah of Justification” (Rom., 9:31).

Acts of Justification in the Torah

105

Acts of Justification Revealed We are not justified (made righteous) by the works of the handwritten Torah but we are justified by utilizing trust, which enables us to keep the justification which is also found in the handwritten Torah. More precisely, the justification required by the Covenants of Promise (which lie outside the Torah of Moses) does not come by means of the handwritten Torah; on the other hand, it is revealed by the Torah of Moses and the prophets. Saul explains: But now apart from the Torah (of Moses) justification of eloah has been manifested, BEING BORNE WITNESS TO BY THE TORAH (OF MOSES) AND THE PROPHETS: but justification by means of the trust of Yahushua the messiah, toward all and upon all those that trust. For there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of eloah; being justified gratuitously by his grace by means of the redemption which is in the messiah Yahushua; who eloah set forth a mercy seat by means of trust in his blood (i.e., his death), for a showing forth of his justification, in respect of the passing by of the sins that had before taken place in the forbearance of eloah.36 Saul demonstrates this point when he writes that the work of fleshly circumcision is profitable only if you abide by the handwritten Torah.37 But if you transgress the handwritten Torah, your fleshly circumcision becomes as if it was uncircumcision.38 Jacob (James) explains this further by saying, “For whosoever shall keep the whole Torah, but shall stumble in one (point), he has become guilty of all.”39 At the same time, if those who are uncircumcised in the flesh ”keep the dikaiwvmata (dikaiomata; acts of justification)40 of the Torah,” their uncircumcision is reckoned as circumcision. Their innermost self becomes circumcised.41 As quoted above, Saul calls this “justification of the Torah” the “justification of eloah” which was manifested and “borne witness to by the Torah and the prophets.” Saul also informs us that grace reigns “through justification unto eternal life, through Yahushua the messiah, our sovereign.”42 To make our point, let us give some examples of this manifestation in the Torah of Moses. In the antediluvian world Abel, Enoch, and Noah were all counted as justified men. For example, Abel’s “trust” caused him to give Rom., 3:21–26. For a discussion of the issue of fleshly circumcision see App. D. Rom., 2:24f. James, 2:10. The word dikaiwvmata (dikaiomata) means “an act by which wrong is set right . . . justification”; ILT, Lex., p. 27, “a righteous statute, an ordinance . . . a righteous act.” NTB renders it “requirements,” while REB has “righteous requirement,” and NJB defines it as to “keep the commands of the Law.” 41 Rom., 2:26–29. 42 Rom., 5:21. 36 37 38 39 40

106

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

better gifts to Yahweh,43 “by which he was borne witness to as being justified.”44 Abel’s good “works” were just and connected with love.45 Enoch “walked with eloahim,”46 i.e., he walked in the ruach,47 thereby obeying Yahweh and keeping his commandments, khoquth (statutes), and torath (laws).48 Because of his trust, Enoch was transported away from the angry crowds who sought his life because he testified against them due to their wickedness.49 His witness given to the wicked well-pleased Yahweh.50 Noah is called “a justified male” who had been “perfected among his peers; Noah walked with the eloahim.”51 But Noah was not justified simply on his own merit. “Noah found ˆj (khen; grace) in the eyes of Yahweh.”52 Noah trusted Yahweh, and having been divinely instructed concerning the things not seen, he obeyed Yahweh and prepared the ark and saved his family.53 By doing so, Noah “became heir of the justification which is by trust.”54 That Noah “found ˆj (khen; grace)” directly ties together justification by trust with grace. It is from this premise that the prophets speak of salvation by grace.55 These statements verify that there was already a Torah of Trust providing an inheritance which was granted by grace prior to the Covenants of Promise given to Abraham (i.e., as required in the Adamic Covenant).56 The Covenants of Promise given to Abraham, therefore, were subjoined to the Adamic Covenant. We know this because Abraham—as with Abel, Enoch, and Noah—was also justified by trust,57 a fact testified to by the handwritten Torah. Acting in this trust, Abraham will receive the eternal inheritance by grace because he obeyed Yahweh and kept his charge and his commandments, statutes, and laws.58

The Ruach

The sacred jwr (ruach)59 is the tool by which Yahweh will give us eternal life. This ruach comes to us by means of trust through grace and is contained in the promises given to Abraham.60 Saul notes that it is not “out of works (of the Gen., 4:1–7. Heb., 11:4; Matt., 23:35. 1 John, 3:7–12. Gen., 5:22, 24. Cf., Rom., 8:2–4. Cf., Gen., 17:1, cf., 26:5. And also see as examples Exod., 16:4, 18:19f; Lev., 18:3f, 26:3; Deut., 13:4f; 1 Kings, 2:3f, 3:14f, 6:12; Neh., 10:29f. 49 Heb., 11:5; Gen., 5:21–24; Jub., 4:16–26; Jos., Antiq., 1:3:4; Yashar, 3:1–38. 50 Heb., 11:5. 51 Gen., 6:9. 52 Gen., 6:8. 53 Heb., 11:7; Gen., 6:22; cf., Gen., 6:1–8:22. 54 Heb., 11:7. 55 See for example Isa., 33:2; Jer., 31:2; Amos, 5:15; Ps., 84:9–11; Prov., 3:33f (cf., 1 Pet., 5:5; James, 4:6); Joel, 2:13. 56 For the Adamic Covenant see above Chap. VI, pp. 89f. Also cf., App. B. 57 Gen., 15:6; Rom., 4:1–24; Heb., 11:8f, 17–19; James, 2:21–23. 58 Gen., 26:1–5. 59 See above Chap. I, p. 18, n. 99. 60 Though the word ruach does not directly appear in the Covenants of Promise, it is understood by the fact that Yahweh must have some means by which to change humans into immortal ruach beings. Therefore, Saul speaks of it as promised (Gal., 3:13f). 43 44 45 46 47 48

Acts of Justification in the Torah

107

Torah) which were in justification” and practiced that we are saved, but according to Yahweh’s mercy, “through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the sacred ruach, which he (the father) poured out upon us richly through Yahushua the messiah, our saviour; that having been justified by his grace, heirs we should become according to the hope of eternal life.”61 Accordingly, the quickening of the sacred ruach shall come to us by a promise in the Torah of Trust. This quickening of the sacred ruach must not be confused with the “gifts of the sacred ruach,” such as healing, wisdom, prophecy, and the like, which are temporal and can be obtained in our present life.62 The quickening of the ruach gives us eternal life.63 Saul, for example, informs us that the messiah ransomed us from the curse of the written Torah of Moses, having become for us a curse, “that to the nations the blessing of Abraham might come in the messiah, Yahushua, that THE PROMISE OF THE RUACH we might receive by means of trust.”64 Notice that we are to receive the blessing of Abraham by means of the messiah. For that reason, the ruach is called the “ruach of trust.”65 The ruach does not come to us “out of the works of the Torah” but rather “out of the report of trust.”66 Because the report is the word of Yahweh, the ruach is the ruach of truth,67 as Scriptures is the “word of truth.”68 Once more the two aspects of the handwritten Torah are revealed: (1) the instructions for the works of the Torah and (2) the instructions revealing the conditions of the Covenants of Promise. In the latter instance, trust and the ruach are involved. By means of Yahushua, we are set free from those portions of the Torah of Moses demanding works of the flesh (sacrifices, cleansing rites, dress requirements, etc.) for justification. For the Torah of the ruach of life in the messiah Yahushua set me free from the Torah of sin and death. For powerless is the (handwritten) Torah in that it was weak through the flesh, eloah having sent his own son in the likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TORAH SHOULD BE FULFILLED IN US, who not according to flesh walk, but according to ruach.69 Yahweh is by substance ruach and from him comes forth the ruach of truth.70 Accordingly, we must love and become obedient to truth,71 and those who bow to him must do so in ruach and truth.72 At the same time, if we live by 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Titus, 3:3–7. E.g., see 1 Cor., 12:1–30, 14:1, 12; Heb., 2:4. 2 Cor., 3:6; Rom., 8:1f, 11; Gal., 6:8. Gal., 3:13f. 2 Cor., 4:12. Gal., 3:2, 5. John, 14:16f, 15:26, 16:13; 1 Pet., 1:22; 1 John, 4:6, 5:7. 2 Tim., 2:15. Rom., 8:2–4. John, 4:24, 15:26; 1 John, 5:6. 1 Pet., 1:22; Eph., 4:15.; 2 Thess., 2:10. John, 4:23.

108

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

ruach, by ruach and truth we should also walk.73 By walking in the ruach (of truth) we are given eternal life by the ruach; and we are given this ruach by our trust in Yahweh. These are conditions required under the Covenants of Promise (the Torah of Trust) in order for us to receive the inheritance of eternal life. We also know that the eternal inheritance comes by the promises made outside of the handwritten Torah. Unable to achieve our goal by means of the handwritten Torah, we shall receive the eternal inheritance under grace, through trust, and by means of the sacred ruach. We are to condemn sin in the flesh, “that the requirement of the Torah should be fulfilled in us, who not according to the flesh walk, but according to ruach.”74 Saul asks, “Do we make the (handwritten) Torah of no effect through trust?” He answers, “May it not be. But we establish the Torah.”75 We establish the handwritten Torah because the stated intent of the Torah covenant made at Mount Sinai is to give us a blessing and the inheritance of the Promised Land.76

Trust Working Through Love Another important requirement of the Covenants of Promise is Yahweh’s concept of love. As with trust and the ruach, love does not come through the works of the Torah. Saul demonstrates this point when he explains that, while in the messiah, circumcision (in the flesh), being a work of the Torah, is not of any force, nor is uncircumcision (in the flesh), “but trust working through love.”77 The kind of love about which Yahweh speaks is not merely affection; it is internalized behavior. Yahushua remarks, “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not the tax gatherers also do the same?”78 Therefore, of what great thing is normal human affection if even the wicked can love those who love them? Yahushua continues by stating, “You shall therefore be perfect, even as your father who is in the heavens is perfect.”79 The perfect love described in Scriptures is called the fruit of the ruach.80 Yahweh, who is a ruach being,81 is himself defined as both pure and love,82 love being the divine nature.83 We are to attain the highest level of love and the divine nature when we reach pure love, which is one step above brotherly Gal., 5:25; 2 John, 1:4. Rom., 8:4. Rom., 3:31. Exod., 23:20–33. In this passage Yahweh agrees to bring the Israelites into the land of the Emori, Hetti, Perizzi, Kanaani, Hiui, and Yebusi (i.e., into the greater land of Kanaan), setting their border from the Suph Sea (Gulf of Aqaba) as far the Palestim Sea (the Mediterranean), and from the wilderness (the Sinai) until the nahar (LXX, “Euphrates river”), if they keep the covenant and obey the voice of the angel Yahweh. 77 Gal., 5:6. 78 Matt., 5:46. The publicans or tax gatherers bought rights to collect the state’s taxes, from which they made a sizable profit. They were seen as an evil plague on the land. 79 Matt., 5:48. 80 Gal., 5:22. 81 John, 4:24. 82 1 John, 3:3, 4:8, 16. 83 2 Pet., 1:3–7; cf., 1 John, 3:1–2. Along with this nature we shall have a body of his glory (Phil., 3:20f; 2 Pet., 5:1–4); being in a state of perfection (2 Pet., 5:10); and sanctified (Heb., 12:10). 73 74 75 76

Acts of Justification in the Torah

109

love.84 This love includes loving your enemies,85 and the ability to sacrifice one’s own life to save his friends.86 This type of love is specifically defined in Scriptures as the commandments of Yahweh. Yahushua states, “For this is the love of eloah (Yahweh), that his commandments we should keep; and his commandments are not burdensome.”87 Yahushua adds, “If you love me keep my commandments.”88 Further, those who love the father keep his commandments.89 Therefore, the commandments are an expression of pure love. These pure commandments (expressions of the nature of Yahweh) are eternal. They are meant not only for this world-age but for the eternal world-age to come. Though perfect love is not directly stated as a requirement of the Torah of Moses, the conditions of perfect love for the Covenants of Promise are revealed in the handwritten Torah and represent the nature of justification. To love one another, we are told, is in fact an old commandment.90 Saul reminds us to “walk in love”91—which is equivalent to his request that we “walk in ruach.”92 Abraham kept Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and laws,93 which mean that they are part of the conditions of trust and love attached to the eternal inheritance under the Abrahamic Covenants. The two great forms of love mentioned by Keph (brotherly love, followed in higher rank by pure love)94 are expressed in the two greatest commandments found in the handwritten Torah, these being to love your neighbor as yourself,95 and to love Yahweh with all your bbl (lebab; innermost self).96 The messiah was asked: Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Torah? And Yahushua said to him, You shall love Yahweh your eloahi with all your lebab (innermost self), and with all your yuch/` (psukhe = nephesh),97 and 2 Pet., 1:3–7; cf., Heb., 12:10; 1 Pet., 5:10. Luke, 6:27; Matt., 5:43–45; cf., Exod., 23:4; Prov., 25:21; Rom., 12:20. John, 15:12f. 1 John, 5:3. 88 John, 14:15. 89 For example, see John, 14:23, 31. 90 2 John, 5. 91 Eph., 5:2. 92 Rom., 8:2–4. 93 Gen., 26:1–5. 94 2 Pet., 1:3–7. 95 Lev., 19:18; cf., Matt.,19:17–19, 22:39; Mark, 12:31–33; Rom., 13:9f; Gal., 5:14; James, 2:8. 96 Deut., 6:4–5, 11:13f, 22–25, 19:8–10, 30:15–16; cf., Dan., 9:4; Matt., 22:37; Mark, 12:30–33; Luke, 10:27. 97 The Greek term yuch/` (psukhe) is a translation of the Hebrew term çpn (nephesh) (CS, 2, pp. 1486–1490). For consistency of thought, we shall utilize the Hebrew transliteration nephesh throughout our translations of the Old and New Testaments. The Hebrew word çpn (nephesh), plural form μçpn (nepheshim), is a primary root meaning “to breathe . . . a breathing creature, i.e. animal or (abstr.) vitality” (SEC, Heb. #5314, 5315); “an animal (that which breathes) . . . a person” (HEL, pp. 170f). Animal life forms are called nephesh (Gen., 1:20f, 24, 2:19f), and when Yahweh made Adam, the man ”became a living nephesh” (Gen., 2:7). “The NEPHESH of the flesh is IN THE BLOOD” (Lev., 17:11f; cf., Gen., 9:4; Deut., 12:23). The nephesh is not only in the blood, but the blood is PART OF THE NEPHESH (Gen., 9:5; also see Jer., 2:34). Since the exchange of oxygen in the blood stream is throughout the body, the life principle itself, nephesh is oftentimes translated as “life” (i.e., Gen., 19:17,19, 32:30; Exod., 21:23,30, and so forth), because a thing that is breathing is “alive,” and after that thing dies, it has been “alive.” Therefore, the word nephesh generally stands for the idea of life itself. 84 85 86 87

110

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh with all your mind. This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS ALL OF THE TORAH AND THE PROPHETS HANG.98

Flowing from these two categories are the Ten Commandments.99 The first through fourth commandments are to have no other eloahim but Yahweh, not to bow down to carved images, not to carry Yahweh’s name to uselessness, and to keep the Sabbath—all showing a love for Yahweh. The fifth—honoring your father and mother—applies both to father Yahweh and to one’s neighbors. The sixth through tenth extend to loving your neighbor—not murdering, not committing adultery, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting your neighbors’ possessions. Also embodied in the last six is to love your enemies (who are also your neighbors). We should not forget that during the Judgment all shall be brothers and sisters in the Assembly and, therefore, all shall be our neighbors. Just as importantly, we are their neighbors. Yahushua defines a neighbor (i.e., one’s brother) with his story about the good Samaritan and the Jewish man who had been abused by thieves and left hurt along the roadside. Those who were geographical neighbors and of the same family as the abused man avoided helping him. It was a stranger who lived in Samaria, a country whose people the Jews held in disdain, that came to the abused man’s assistance. The Samaritan, who showed compassion, was the true neighbor of the abused man.100 This principle of pure love is demonstrated in a great number of ways throughout the handwritten Torah. Typical expressions come from such commandments which refrain us from doing harm to our neighbors, such as bearing false witness against them,101 defrauding,102 deceiving,103 devising evil against anyone,104 hating or killing,105 and many other like things. We are even commanded by statute to relieve the burden of a pack animal belonging to someone who hates us when that animal is in trouble.106 Love, like trust, fulfills the intent of the Torah of Moses. Saul writes, “For the whole Torah is fulfilled in one logos (word), You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”107 That Saul includes all of the commandments is verified when he writes: To no one owe anything unless it is to love one another; for he that loves the other has fulfilled the Torah. For, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not commit murder, You shall not steal, You shall not 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Matt., 22:34–40; cf., Mark, 12:28–34; Luke, 10:25–27. Exod., 20:1–17. Luke, 10:25–37. Exod., 20:16; Deut., 5:20. Lev., 19:13. Prov., 26:18f. Prov., 3:29. Exod., 21:14; Deut., 19:11–13. Exod., 23:5. Gal., 5:14.

Acts of Justification in the Torah

111

bear false witness, You shall not covet; AND IF ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, in this word is summed up, in this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.108 Those who keep the commandments are those who love father Yahweh and the messiah. As Nehemiah notes, Yahweh “keeps covenant and mercy for those who LOVE HIM AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS.”109 It is Yahushua the messiah who grants us the inheritance by grace; and it is he who informs us to abide in his love. He then defines this love by stating, “If my commandments you keep, you shall abide in my love, as I have kept the commandments of my father.”110 It is clear from this evidence that Yahweh’s idea of expressing love, a condition of the Covenants of Promise, is by keeping the ruach of the commandments found in the handwritten Torah. The Torah is to be written within our innermost self,111 which means we shall possess the divine nature. The Abrahamic Covenants, therefore, stand together as a covenant of love which leaves to us the eternal inheritance of the divine nature.

Abraham: Our Example The scope of our problem is now narrowed. The evidence shows that everyone under grace is seeking to obtain the eternal inheritance from the Torah of Trust. Not only is this the same covenant to which Abraham was subject but the conditions for receiving this inheritance are identical. Abraham stands as our example. To demonstrate, in the book of Romans, Saul discusses the works of the handwritten Torah versus the acts of justification found in the handwritten Torah, using Abraham’s justification while in fleshly uncircumcision as his example.112 Saul explains that we are all subject to the “Torah of Trust,” to which we are reckoned justified by trust apart from the works of the Torah.113 He then turns our attention toward Abraham, his prime example. Abraham, Saul points out, was not justified by the works of the handwritten Torah.114 Indeed, the handwritten Torah and its works did not exist until centuries after Abraham’s time.115 This point is of vital importance for our research. The Scriptures report that Abraham, whose trust was reckoned to him for justification, shall receive the eternal inheritance by grace because he obeyed Yahweh’s voice,116 kept his charge, and his commandments, khoquth (statutes), and torath (laws). This fact alone proves that these particular “statutes” and “laws” were not part of the works of the Torah.117 Accordingly, they are part of the Covenants of Promise and exist outside the covenant of the handwritten Torah of Moses. 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Rom., 13:8–10. Neh., 1:5. John, 15:9f. Jer., 31:33f; Isa., 51:7; Pss., 37:30f, 57:7–11; Heb., 8:8–13, 10:16f. Rom., 4:1–25. Rom., 3:27f. Rom., 4:1–3. Gal., 3:15–20. Cf., Heb., 11:8. Gen., 26:1–5.

112

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Next, not only was Abraham justified by trust, but he was justified many years before he was given the token of circumcision in his flesh.118 The fact that Abraham was justified prior to his being circumcised in his flesh is held up as the type for all nations under grace. Saul continues: Is this blessedness then upon the circumcision (Israel), or also on the uncircumcision (the nations)? For we say that trust was reckoned to Abraham unto justification. How then was it reckoned? being in circumcision (of the flesh) or in uncircumcision (of the flesh)? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And the token he received of circumcision, a seal of justification of the trust, which he had in the uncircumcision, unto him to be father of all those that trust in uncircumcision, for the justification to be reckoned also to them; and a father of circumcision to those not out of circumcision only, BUT ALSO TO THOSE THAT WALK IN THE STEPS OF THE TRUST DURING THE UNCIRCUMCISION OF OUR FATHER ABRAHAM.119 As a result, Abraham is the father of all those who walk in his steps under the Torah of Trust. Remember, that while walking in trust Abraham obeyed the voice of Yahweh and kept his charge and his commandments, statutes, and laws.120 Saul continues: For not by means of the Torah (of works) was the promise to Abraham or his spermati (single seed = the messiah), that heir he should be of the world, but by means of justification of trust. For if those out of the Torah (of works) be heirs, trust has been made void, and the promise made of no effect. For the (handwritten) Torah works out wrath; for where there is no Torah, neither is there transgression. Wherefore out of trust it is, that according to grace it might be, the promise being sure unto every individual seed, not to that out of the Torah only (i.e., the messiah being justified while under the handwritten Torah), but also to that OUT OF THE TRUST OF ABRAHAM, WHO IS FATHER OF US ALL, according as it has been written, “A father of many nations I have made you (Gen., 17:5).”121 Those being justified under grace are being justified by the same promise and in the same manner as uncircumcised Abraham, because Yahweh is 118 119 120 121

Gen., 15:6, cf., 17:1–14. Also see App. D. Rom., 4:9–12. Gen., 26:5. Rom., 4:13–17.

Acts of Justification in the Torah

113

granting the eternal inheritance to Abraham by means of a promise.122 For that reason, Abraham is the father of all those who are being justified by grace. Saul confirms this understanding in the book of Galatians. He (Yahweh) who therefore supplies to you the ruach, and works of power among you, is it out of works of the Torah (of Moses) or out of the report of trust? EVEN AS ABRAHAM TRUSTED YAHWEH, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM UNTO JUSTIFICATION, KNOW THEN THAT THEY THAT ARE OUT OF TRUST, THESE ARE SONS OF ABRAHAM; and the scripture foreseeing that out of trust Yahweh justifies the nations, before announced the good news to Abraham: (saying) “In you shall all the nations be blessed (Gen., 12:3, 18:18).” So that those out of trust are being blessed WITH trusting Abraham.123 The “works of the Torah” and “the report of trust” are both found in the Torah of Moses. We must follow that portion of the handwritten Torah which gives us the report of trust. Abraham set the example. As he trusted, we must trust. As he walked, we must walk. Therefore, the commandments, statutes, and laws that Abraham followed while under trust, as reported by Scriptures, must also be observed by all those who seek to be justified by the trust of uncircumcised Abraham.

Conclusion The handwritten Torah contains conditions for justification by means of grace and the Covenants of Promise. It also shows that, for our present world, Abraham was our human example (the messiah coming in the flesh but being of a much higher form than earthly men). The key to our study is the fact that, while under the Torah of Trust, Abraham kept Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and laws. That fact brings us to the question, “Were the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh among the statutes observed by Abraham?” 122 123

Gal., 3:18. Gal., 3:5–9.

Chapter VIII

Are They Required?

e are now poised to answer the question as to whether or not the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are a requirement under grace in order to receive the inheritance granted by the Torah of Trust (Covenants of Promise). Our guiding principle is the knowledge that there are two levels of sin found in the handwritten Torah. First, there is sin against the Covenants of Promise (Torah of Trust) to which Abraham was subject. Second, there is sin under the augmentations of the handwritten Torah with its works of the flesh. As we have demonstrated, knowledge of both levels is found within the handwritten Torah.

Order of Prominence There is an obvious order of importance in the list of the various conditions to the different covenants. For example, this order is demonstrated when Yahweh foretold that Abraham would inherit because he “obeyed my (Yahweh’s) voice, attended to my charge, my commandments, my twqj (khoquth; statutes), and my trwt (torath; laws).”1 This list is given in order of importance. The primary command is to obey Yahweh and to attend to his charge. Yet one must have love and trust to facilitate obedience and the ability to follow through with Yahweh’s instructions. Then, flowing from obedience and the willingness to follow instructions, come the commandments—the greatest two being to love Yahweh with all your innermost self and to love your neighbor as yourself. All of these conditions are meant to be followed during the μl[ d[ (ad olam; a perpetual world-age) to come and all reflect the divine nature. The khoquth (statutes) and laws of Yahweh are of a lesser place in this order, following after the commandments. Statutes determine time, space, labor, and usage, while laws teach. Yet if the labor, usage, or teaching are no longer required, they are no longer applicable and fall into disuse. Therefore, by definition these things have a less permanent character and are controlled by circumstance. These statutes and laws are themselves divided into two classes: (1) those which are meant as conditions for the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants and continue during this entire present olam (i.e., world-age from Adam until heaven and earth pass away) and (2) those meant to exist as conditions only under certain limited bounds, such as a requirement for justification under the written Torah. In each case they are constructed so that, if circumstances dictate, they are no longer relevant. For the yd[wm (moadi; appointed times), i.e., festivals and sacred days, to still be relevant for all Christians trying to qualify for the inheritance under grace, there must be scriptural evidence in two areas. 1

Gen., 26:5.

115

116

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh • There must be evidence that these particular moadi existed and were observed prior to the handwritten covenant made at Mount Sinai. • The observance of these days must have authority for the time after the death and resurrection of Yahushua the messiah. To demonstrate, they either can be prescribed as a future observance by the prophets, affirmed by the messiah as a future event, or continued in the early assemblies by apostolic authority.

It is now left up to us to examine the evidence and determine whether or not the statutes for the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh meet these qualifications.

Two Sets of Requirements There are two important groups of requirements found in the greater Torah (Old Testament): (1) the requirements for justification under the written contract of the Old Covenant made at Mount Sinai (with the augmentations found in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy); and (2) the requirements for justification under the verbal contract of the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants. The khoquth observed by Abraham were neither formally written down nor classified as works of the Torah.2 Therefore, they were not annulled with the death of the messiah.3 At the same time, sin against the Adamic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise is revealed within the handwritten Torah of Moses. With this information in hand, we can now proceed to verify whether or not the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh represent statutes required by the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants. To separate those requirements (i.e., those applicable under grace) that belong to the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants from those requirements that belong only for those under the handwritten Torah, we must divide them into three levels. (1) The first level is based upon fleshly requirements and itself has two parts. In one part, it contains the works of the Torah established by dovgmasin (dogmasin; public decrees) which are adverse to us (e.g., the judgments, curses, animal sacrifices, cleansing rites, customs in food and clothing, etc.). These dogmasin, coming in the form of khoquth and torath, are augmentations of the original requirements under the Abrahamic Covenants. With the manifestation of grace at the death of the messiah, these augmentations (dogmasin) have been nailed to the stake.4 Along with these fleshly requirements comes a second part, the four categories of dogmasin that are not adverse to us (i.e., adhering to the laws against porneiva [porneia; sexual misconduct] and observing the restrictions against eating blood, things strangled, and things offered to idols).5 These were part of the fleshly works in the covenant of the handwritten Torah but are also applicable to this day. 2 3 4 5

Gen., 26:5; cf., Rom., 4:1–3. Eph., 2:11–17; cf., Rom., 9:30–32; Gal., 2:15–3:14. Col., 2:11–16. Acts, 15:18–29. See our discussion above Chap. IV, pp. 66–69.

Are They Required?

117

(2) The second important level contains the royal commandments (including the command to obey the voice of the angel named Yahweh),6 the khoquth, and those torath which are not part of the works of the Torah but were observed by Abraham. The royal commandments further reveal Yahweh’s requirement for perfect love, especially expressed in the greater commandments to love Yahweh with all your innermost self and to love your neighbor as yourself. These commandments, statutes, and laws were requirements of the Covenants of Promise and existed prior to the handwritten Torah. All of them are applicable to this day. They are also found as a condition of the covenant of the handwritten Torah and represent part of the justification found in that Torah. At the same time, when one comes under the covenant of the handwritten Torah, he is subject to both the first and second levels of conditions. (3) The third level represents those conditions of the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants not directly required by the covenant of the handwritten Torah at Mount Sinai and its augmentations but are revealed in the greater Torah (Old Testament). Along with the above second level, this group is applicable for those coming under grace. For example, the Torah reveals the existence of the Adamic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise and the need for grace, obedience to Yahweh, the promise of the sacred ruach, and justification by trust (the Torah of Trust). Next, we know that sin against the Adamic Covenant and the Covenants of Promise is revealed in the handwritten Torah separately from the works of the Torah. Therefore, the commandments, statutes, and laws required for Abraham under the Torah of Trust are also listed in the covenant of the handwritten Torah. It is merely a matter of separating them out. Separation between the commandments, statutes, and laws of the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants and the works of the Torah is accomplished with a simple formula: Except in reference to the four categories of dogmasin not adverse to us, those conditions no longer applicable were not required prior to the composition of the written Torah. They have been nailed to the stake and annulled with the death of the messiah. Therefore, those things which are still applicable, unless otherwise stated, must have existed prior to the written Torah and continued to exist after the messiah’s resurrection. This formula is based upon the scriptural principle that we must use line upon line, here a little, there a little, to discover any scriptural doctrine, and that every issue is established upon two or three witnesses.7

Examples of this Principle To demonstrate our principle let us give some examples of these levels. For instance, under the handwritten Torah the Israelites were required to eat meat 6 The Ten Commandments (Exod., 20:1–17); obey the voice of the angel named Yahweh (Exod., 23:20f). 7 For line upon line see Isa., 28:9f, cf., 34:16f; for two or more witnesses see 2 Cor., 13:1; Heb., 10:28–31; John, 8:12–20; Deut., 17:6f, 19:15–20. Each scripture has its mate within the Scriptures (Isa., 34:16), forming at least two witnesses.

118

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

from clean animals and to abstain from eating meat from unclean animals.8 Earlier, in the antediluvian world, only the command to eat green vegetation was given.9 Nevertheless, during this same period, animals were already classified as clean and unclean.10 Then, after the great flood of Noah, mankind was given permission to eat “all things, even as the green plants.”11 This statement is all-inclusive and refers both to clean and unclean types. In time came the Torah of Moses, which restricted the Israelites, as a priestly nation,12 from eating any unclean meats. Later, the messiah states that the things which go into the mouth, pass through the stomach, and cast into the sewer do not defile us; but the things coming out of the mouth, i.e., from the innermost self, do defile.13 After the resurrection of the messiah, Saul reports that whether we are vegetarians or not, and despite our choice of fast days, or what we choose to eat, it should have no bearing on receiving grace.14 Accordingly, the restrictions with regard to eating unclean meat were not a condition of the Covenants of Promise. Of course, this freedom to eat anything does not mean that one must or should eat unclean animals (dogs, skunks, rats, snakes, etc.). Yahweh established such rules of the flesh under the Torah for health reasons and to parabolically teach us two things: (1) we should not partake in unclean knowledge and (2) those nations living without Yahweh are unclean.15 If one follows these rules for their intended reasons of health and their parabolic meaning, they are a good thing. Nevertheless, what food you eat does not justify you to receive the eternal inheritance under grace and the Covenants of Promise. If you eat clean meat in an effort to be justified then you have brought yourself under the Torah of Moses. In that case, you must keep all the handwritten Torah, not just this one part.16 Circumcision in the flesh is another case.17 For instance, Abraham was declared justified before he received the token of fleshly circumcision.18 The Israelites born after the Exodus, though ordered to be circumcised in the flesh under the Levitical codes composed while still at Mount Sinai,19 were not immediately circumcised. Regardless of the fact that Yahweh was with them, Lev., 11:1–47, 20:25; Deut., 14:3–20. Gen., 1:29f, 2:16f. Gen., 7:2f, 8, 8:20. Gen., 9:3. Exod., 19:3–8. Matt., 15:11–20, esp. v. 11, 17, 12:34f; Luke, 6:45. Rom., 14:1–20; and cf., the theory behind Acts, 10:9–48; Titus, 1:5; Col., 2:16; 1 Tim., 4:1–5. One of the parabolic meanings of such works of the Torah was to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean (Lev., 10:10, 11:47). For example, one can eat the words of Yahweh (Jer., 15:16; Ezek., 3:1–4; Rev., 10:8–11), and there is bread of an evil eye, which delicacies we are not to desire (Prov., 23:6). We are also told that it is not the physical items of food which enter the mouth of a man that make him unclean, but rather the thoughts from his innermost self (Matt., 15:10–20; Mark, 7:14–23). For this reason, one can have unclean lips (Isa., 6:5), the wicked are called unclean (Isa., 35:8, 52:1), and our sins make us “as the unclean thing, and all our justifications are like filthy cloths” (Isa., 64:5f). The nations living without Yahweh are counted as unclean, but Yahweh makes these nations clean once they join themselves to him (Acts, 10:1–48). 16 James, 2:10. 17 Also see App. D. 18 Gen., 15:6, cf., 17:23f. 19 Lev., 12:1–3. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Are They Required?

119

they did not receive this fleshly circumcision until they invaded the land of Kanaan, which followed their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness.20 Further, fleshly circumcision, as with any work of the handwritten Torah, is only relevant if you keep all the conditions of the handwritten Torah. Saul writes: For indeed, circumcision profits if you do the Torah (of Moses); but if a transgressor of the Torah (of Moses) you are, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the justification of the Torah, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? and the uncircumcision out of nature, fulfilling the Torah, shall judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the Torah? For he that is not outwardly one is a Judahite; but he that is hiddenly a Judahite; and circumcision is of the innermost self, in ruach, not in letter; of whom the praise is not from men, but from eloah.21 Therefore, Saul writes, “Has anyone been called being circumcised? Let him not be uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping eloah’s commandments is (something).”22 Does that mean that fleshly circumcision as a token is wrong? Certainly not. If it were wrong then Abraham would have erred under grace. Do we charge him with coming under the works of the Torah when he was circumcised? Scriptures deny it. But Abraham kept fleshly circumcision as a token of the covenant of circumcision, a covenant which calls for the circumcision of one’s innermost self, i.e., the removal of the excess of sin from one’s very nature.23 Abraham was not circumcised in the flesh as a condition of the covenant. Therefore, if one is circumcised or has his infant son circumcised in the flesh, and he does so as a token of the covenant of circumcision of the mind and one’s nature, it may enhance his trust. But if he does it in order to be justified, he is subject to the whole handwritten Torah and falls from grace. It is not circumcision in the flesh that pleases Yahweh but the circumcision of the innermost self (i.e., the removal of our sinful nature). Still another example of a work of the Torah is the command to have animal sacrifices and burnt offerings. Sacrifices and burnt offerings were performed by men from the very beginning, but these were counted as free-will offerings.24 When the Israelites left Egypt there were no commanded sacrifices.25 Even under the handwritten Torah, Yahweh took no delight in sacrifices and Josh., 5:1–9. Rom., 2:25–28. 1 Cor., 7:18f. Gen., 17:11; cf., Rom., 4:11. That fleshly circumcision is a token of the true circumcision of one’s bbl (lebab; innermost self) see Deut., 10:16, 30:6; and cf., Rom., 2:27–29; Col., 2:8–12; Phil., 3:3. Also see Jer., 4:4, 9:25; cf., Isa., 52:1. 24 For example, Abel’s sacrifices to Yahweh (Gen., 4:4–7) were called a “gift” (Heb., 11:4, 12:24), and Noah’s burnt offering was on the occasion of being saved from the flood (Gen., 8:20:f). 25 Jer., 7:22. 20 21 22 23

120

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

burnt offerings. Rather he desired mercy and the knowledge of eloahim,26 justification and justice.27 The true sacrifices of eloahim are a broken ruach and a repentant innermost self,28 and the sacrifices of giving thanks to Yahweh, demonstrating joy about Yahweh, and accomplishing those things relevant to justification.29 In turn, after the death of the messiah, the requirements for commanded sacrifices once more ceased. Instead, we are to present our bodies as living sacrifices,30 to give the sacrifices of the ruach,31 to give the sacrifice of thanksgiving,32 the sacrifice of trust,33 and the sacrifice of praise to Yahweh continually, confessing his name.34 Why, for example, kill the Phasekh lamb when the true Phasekh lamb, the messiah, has already been slain for us?35 Indeed, once we attain to the knowledge of the truth, if we then willingly sin, there no longer remains any sacrifice for sins.36 On the other hand, the royal commandments are on a higher level. To demonstrate, adultery, stealing, and disobeying Yahweh were considered sins prior to the covenant at Mount Sinai,37 and they shall continue to be sins until the end of our present world-age.38 According to the messiah, “if you desire to enter life, keep the commandments,”39 and those who would break even the least of the commandments and teach others to do so will be considered the least of things by those in Yahweh’s kingdom.40 As mentioned above, fleshly circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping eloah’s commandments is something.

Before Mount Sinai Did the khagi and sacred days of Yahweh exist prior to the covenant at Mount Sinai? Most definitely, and from the very beginning. The festivals and sacred days of Yahweh were established during the very first week of creation. Genesis, 1:14–18, for instance, notes that on the fourth day of the creation week the luminaries (the sun, moon, and stars)41 were made to appear in the open expanse of the heavens, “to give light upon the earth.”42 These lights appeared in order “to divide between the day and the night” and to be “for signs and for the μyd[wm (moadim; group of appointed times)43 and for days 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

See for example Ps., 51:16; Jer., 6:20; Hos., 6:6; Amos, 5:22. Also see Matt., 9:13, 12:7. Prov., 21:3. Ps., 51:17. Thanksgiving, Pss., 107:22, 116:17; justification, Pss., 4:5, 51:19; joy, Ps., 27:6. Rom., 12:1. 1 Pet., 2:5. Pss., 107:22, 116:17. Phil., 2:17. Heb., 13:15. 1 Cor., 5:7; Eph., 5:1f; Heb., 10:11–26. Heb., 10:26. Gen., 20:1–9, 39:6–9, 31:32–36; Rom., 5:12–20 (cf., Gen., 2:15–17, 3:1–24). Rev., 21:8; 1 Cor., 6:9f; Eph., 5:5f; Col., 3:5f. Matt., 19:17, in context with v. 16–22. Matt., 5:19. Gen., 1:14, cf., v. 16. Gen., 1:15. See above Chap. I, p. 15, n. 70.

Are They Required?

121

and years.”44 In one of the Psalms, for example, we read that Yahweh, “made the moon for the moadim.”45 Accordingly, one of the stated purposes of the sun, moon, and stars is to clock-in the moadim of Yahweh. This detail makes no sense unless the moadim of Yahweh were brought into existence at that point. The moadim of Yahweh are specifically defined in Leviticus as the weekly Sabbath day, the Khag of Phasekh (Passover) and Unleavened Bread, the Khag of Weeks (Pentecost), the Day of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Khag of Tabernacles, together with its eighth day, also called the Last Great Day.46 The Sabbath day is an important example of a pre-Exodus sacred day. The seventh day of the week was designated as the Sabbath day during the very first week of creation.47 The messiah adds that, “the Sabbath (day) was made for the sake of mankind, not mankind for the sake of the Sabbath (day).”48 Accordingly, the Sabbath day was established from the very beginning for all mankind, not just for the Israelites under the handwritten Torah. It was even observed by the Israelites prior to their arrival at Mount Sinai.49 These moadi, therefore, have to be the statutes observed by Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob. The pre-Exodus nature of these statutes was even understood by the Jews of the second century B.C.E., who noted that the Patriarchs, from Noah to Jacob, observed them.50 This combined evidence proves that the moadim for the royal festivals and sacred days of Yahweh were established on the earth before the first man was even created. They were made for mankind. By necessity, therefore, they were part of the Adamic Covenant, the transgression of which was a sin.

Phasekh and Unleavened Bread Before Sinai As already demonstrated, the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh derive their legal power by the twqj (khoquth; statutes)—enactments dealing with an appointment of time, space, quantity, labor, or usage.51 To this detail we can add the fact that the statutes and laws of Yahweh, which give legal power to Gen., 1:14. Ps., 104:19. Lev., 23:1–44; John, 7:37. Gen., 2:2f. Mark, 2:27. The Greek term a[nqrwpon (anthropon) means “man” as a species, i.e., “mankind” (GEL, p. 71; GEL, 1968, pp. 141f; SEC, Gk. #444; ILT, Lex., p. 9). 49 The Sabbath day was already being observed by the Israelites prior to their reaching Mount Sinai (Exod., 16:4–30). During this pre-Sinai period, when some had broken the Sabbath, Yahweh complained, “How long do you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws” (Exod., 16:28). These words indicate that the Sabbath day had already been a commandment for sometime. The oracle given at Mount Sinai, as another example, commands the Israelites to “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it sacred” (Exod., 20:8). This statement is premised upon the assumption that the Sabbath day already existed and the Israelites were not to forget its observance. Further, the fourth commandment was required in the covenant given at Mount Sinai because, “in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and all which is in them, and he rested on the seventh day. Therefore, Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day and made it sacred” (Exod., 20:11). Therefore, the Sabbath day was sacred from the very beginning of man’s world. 50 E.g. in the late second century B.C.E. book of Jubilees: Jub., 2:17–33 (the Sabbath day); Jub., 16:28–31 (the Festival of Tabernacles); Jub., 6:17–22, 22:1f, 44:1–4 (Festival of Weeks). The observance of the Sabbath and Jubilee years is also taken for granted throughout this text. 51 SEC, Heb. #2706. See our discussion above in the Intro. to Part I, pp. 25ff. 44 45 46 47 48

122

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

a moad, already existed in the days of Abraham and prior to the covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai.52 To demonstrate, in the description of the Phasekh statute prior to it becoming part of the written Torah made at Mount Sinai, we are told that this khag was already in legal force for a period lasting an μl[ (olam; world-age).53 And this day (the Phasekh) is a memorial for you, and you shall gj (khag; celebrate), it is a khag to Yahweh for your generations, an μl[ (olam; worldage lasting) khoquth (statute), you shall khag (celebrate) it . . . And you shall observe this day for your generations, a khoquth olam (world-age lasting statute).54 Therefore, the Khag of Phasekh is to continue in legal force outside of the handwritten Torah made at Mount Sinai until the end of our present worldage. This world-age does not pass away until our present heavens and earth pass away, which is when the written Torah, which gives us knowledge of sin, shall also be abolished.55 Though nothing is said of the eternal olam or worldage that is to follow, this passage clearly demonstrates that this khag is still in force today, despite the existence of the handwritten Torah. Another point of evidence comes with the story of Lot, the nephew and adopted son of Abraham.56 The relevant event occurred on the day that Lot was delivered from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, like Abraham,57 is described as being a very wealthy man.58 He dwelt for a considerable period of time with Abraham but eventually had to separate because of the large numbers of flock and herd animals each possessed.59 As with Abraham, Lot is emphatically referred to as “justified (righteous).”60 For Lot to be described as a justified man it can only mean that he followed the same path as his uncle, Abraham. Therefore, Lot also trusted and obeyed Yahweh, keeping Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and laws as found both in the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants. According to Scriptures, on the day prior to the destruction of Sodom and its neighboring cities, Abraham entertained the same angels that later appeared to Lot. He gave them, among other things, a morsel of bread and some freshly baked cakes to eat.61 The angels then left for Sodom and arrived in the city at br[ (arab; evening twilight).62 Seeing them at the city gate, Lot brought Gen., 26:2–5; e.g. Exod., 12:14f, 17, 43, 13:3–10, 15:26, 16:28. See above Intro. to Part I, p. 26, n. 10. Exod., 12:14f, 17. Matt., 5:17f; cf., Isa., 66:22f; 2 Pet., 3:11–13; Rev., 21:1–8. Gen., 11:27, 31, 12:4f; Jos., Antiq., 1:7:1, “Now Abraham, having no legitimate son, adopted Lot, his brother Harran’s son.” 57 That Abraham was a wealthy king see Gen., 12:4f, 13:1–12, 23:14–16, 24:10, 22, 34f, 52f; Jos., Antiq., 1:8:1. He also had an army of 318 men under his authority (Gen., 14:14; Jos., Antiq., 1:10:1). 58 Gen., 12:5, 13:1–12. Lot had many servants of his own (Gen., 12:5, 13:7f). 59 Gen., 11:30–32, 12:4f, 13:1, 5–12. 60 2 Pet., 2:7. 61 Gen., 18:5–8. That two of the same angels seen by Abraham went to Sodom and were seen by Lot see Gen., 18:1–19:3. 62 Gen., 19:1. 52 53 54 55 56

Are They Required?

123

them into his house to spend the night’s lodging: “At that time he made them a htçm (mishteh; banquet);63 he baked UNLEAVENED BREAD and they ate.”64 Unleavened bread is called the “poor man’s bread, as he could not afford to wait even twenty-four hours for it to leaven.”65 Therefore, it was called “the bread of the yn[ (aniy; afflicted).”66 Before the angels had lain down to sleep for the night, the townspeople tried to make a sexual attack upon them. After this horrible experience, the angels warned Lot to flee from the coming disaster. The catastrophe occurred just after sunrise on the following morning.67 Why would a very wealthy man serve unleavened bread at a sumptuous feast? Certainly, for such special guests as these angels, Lot could have spared some of his leavening. Indeed, why even mention that the bread at this feast meal was the unleavened type? These statements only make sense if Lot was celebrating the first day of the Khag of Unleavened Bread and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah took place on that date. This conclusion is supported by other data. Just prior to the destruction of Sodom, Yahweh spoke to Abraham and had given him another covenant with further promises. On that same day Abraham circumcised the flesh of his foreskin and of all the males in his household.68 Abraham is said to have been 99 years old at the time.69 Yahweh also promised Abraham on that occasion that his wife Sarah would bear “to you hzh d[wml (la-moad hazah; toward this moad) in the next year” a son.70 This phrase refers to a moad which was at hand and points to the birth of Abraham’s son, Isaak, during the same moad when it reoccurred the next year. Then, shortly after Abraham had been circumcised in the flesh, and on the day before the angels stayed the night with Lot, he had another conversation with the angel (Yahu Yahweh).71 In their conversation, this Yahweh told Abraham, “I will return to you according to the time of life, and behold a son shall be to Sarah your wife.”72 The expression, “according to the time of life” literally means, “next year at this time.”73 Philo, for example, translates this passage to read, “I will return and come to you at this season next year.”74 The LXX similarly renders it, “I will return and come to you according to this season”; and the James Moffatt translation gives, “I will come back to you next spring.”75 63 htçm (mishteh), “drink; by impl. drinking (the act); also (by impl.), a banquet or (gen.) feast” (SEC, Heb. #4961; HEL, p. 278). 64 Gen., 19:1–3. 65 JE, 8, p. 393. 66 Deut., 16:3. The term yn[ (aniy) means, “depressed, in mind or circumstances . . . afflicted, humble, lowly, needy, poor” (SEC, Heb. #6040–6042); “afflicted, miserable, poor” (HEL, p. 197). 67 Gen., 19:4–24. 68 Gen., 17:1–27. 69 Gen., 17:1, 24. 70 Gen., 17:21. That l (la) means “to, towards . . . at, in” see HEL, p. 131. 71 That the angel who appeared to Abraham was Yahu Yahweh see TTY. 72 Gen., 18:10. 73 Cf., 2 Kings, 4:16f, and see CHAL, p. 286f; HEL, p. 205; NJB, “I shall come back to you next year”; Thackeray, Jos., iv, p. 97, n. d, “the Heb. is taken to mean ‘a year hence’”; AB, “I will surely return to you when the season comes around.” 74 Philo, Abr., 23, §132. 75 NTB, loc. cit.

124

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

This statement connects the moad which would reoccur in the next year with this second conversation with Abraham, and with the feast meal given by Lot the next day, during which unleavened bread was served. Next, based upon parabolic types used in Scriptures and upon the context of Abraham’s fleshly circumcision, there would seem to be little doubt of a connection between the date of the fleshly circumcision of Abraham and the much later date for the fleshly circumcision of the Israelite men when they entered Kanaan. After 40 years of sojourning in the wilderness without being circumcised, the Israelites invaded the Promised Land. At the beginning of that invasion there was an en masse circumcision of all the Israelite males. This event took place on the 10th day of Abib, being four days before they kept their first Phasekh in the Promised Land.76 Abib 10 is also the date that the Phasekh flock animals were set aside and held until the 14th to be slaughtered.77 The fact that Abraham’s “first conversation,” at which time he was circumcised, occurred shortly before his “second conversation” with Yahweh, itself followed the next day by Lot’s eating of unleavened bread, points to the 10th of Abib as the day of Abraham’s fleshly circumcision. Therefore, the moad in which Isaak was to be born occurred the year after the date that Abraham had been circumcised, and was a reference to the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread. In support of this construct we have two other items of evidence. First, when Isaak was born, Scriptures state that Sarah bore “a son to Abraham in his old age, d[wml (la-moad; to the appointed time) that eloahim had spoken with them,”78 Abraham being 100 years old at the time.79 The age of Abraham, going from 99 to 100, and the arrival of the moad of the next year indicates the passage of a year. Second, Jewish tradition reports their belief that Isaak was born on the day of Phasekh.80 This combined evidence verifies that Lot had been keeping the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Indeed, Jewish traditions also hold that Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob all observed the Khag of Unleavened Bread (later called Phasekh).81 The book of Jubilees not only notes that Abraham observed the seven-day Khag of Unleavened Bread every year but connects Yahweh’s command to have Abraham sacrifice his son Isaak (seen by early Christian writers as a prophetic type of the sacrifice of the messiah)82 with that event.83 A midrash (commentary on Scriptures) in the Mekilta also connects the blood of the Phasekh lamb with “the blood of the sacrifice of Josh., 4:15–5:12, esp. 4:19. Exod., 12:1–6. As we shall later see, the 10th of Abib was also the date that the messiah arrived in Jerusalem to keep his last Phasekh, keeping himself out of the hands of the religious leaders until after midnight on the 14th of Abib, when he delivered himself to these rulers. 78 Gen., 21:2. 79 Gen., 21:5. 80 R.Sh., 11a; LJ, 1, p. 261, 5, p. 245, n. 204. 81 LJ, 1, pp. 231, 261, 332; 5, p. 224, n. 89, p. 283, n. 87. 82 E.g. Melito, frag. 9 (Hall, Melito, pp. 74f); Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 4:4. In full support of this connection, we might add, we find that the offering of Isaak took place on Mount Zion (Gen., 22:2, cf., 2 Chron., 3:1; also see Jub., 18:13; Jos., Antiq., 1:13:1–2, 7:13:4) the place where Yahushua, the lamb of Yahweh, was murdered. 83 Jub., 18:1–19, esp. v. 18. 76 77

Are They Required?

125

Isaak.”84 The celebration of the festival was never seen in Jewish history as a later invention. It always existed. Finally, the seven-day Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread were kept by the Israelites in Egypt during the Exodus, an event that occurred prior to the handwritten Torah covenant made at Mount Sinai.85 Even in the oldest literary record of Exodus, 12:21, which discusses the story of the Exodus, it “already presupposes the Passover.”86 Because of this presupposition, there have been several theories advanced trying to explain its earlier origin, including a pre-Mosaic shepherd’s festival.87 The fact that there has been from the time of Adam a seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread seems too simple for those bent on creating a much more primitive foundation. It was during the event of the Exodus and in association with the sevenday Festival of Unleavened Bread that the first Phasekh sacrifice was commanded.88 It was understood to be a one-time commanded offering, for when Israel left Egypt (the Exodus) there were no commanded sacrifices or burnt offerings, only free-will gifts.89 Indeed, there was no command shortly after the Exodus to sacrifice a Phasekh victim in the handwritten covenant made at Mount Sinai.90 Only after the Israelites had sinned against this marriage covenant by building the golden calf was the Phasekh victim reinstated as a commanded work of the handwritten Torah and under that agreement permanently attached to the Festival of Unleavened Bread.91

Moadi After Yahushua’s Death Many Christians argue that the festivals and sacred days were eliminated when the works of the handwritten Torah were annulled, either at the death and resurrection of Yahushua or at the time of the famous Pentecost celebration that followed shortly thereafter.92 Contrary to this position, Scriptures teach that just the opposite is true. We find that the festivals and sacred days not only continued after the death and resurrection of the messiah but are to be observed in the future. If they are to exist in the future, it confirms their existence in the past, prior to the handwritten Torah, since nothing can be added to the conditions of the promises.93 Remember, the festivals and sacred Mekilta, Piskha, 7:87f. Exod., 11:1–15:21. EJ, 13, p. 170; EEC, p. 119, referencing Exod., 12:21, states, “Moses’ way of speaking seems to indicate that the Pesach was already known to the Hebrews. Probably the tenth plague of Egypt and the Exodus simply happened to coincide with the festival—as it is said in Exodus 12:17 that the Exodus occurred on the first day of Unleavened Bread, implying the pre-existence of the feast.” 87 THP, pp. 78–95; NSBD, 3, pp. 688–690. 88 E.g. Exod., 12:1–11, 21–28. The statute for that day is given in Exod., 12:43–51. 89 Jer., 7:22. 90 Exod., 23:14–17. The expression “my sacrifice” in v. 18 is unconnected with the previous verses with regard to the festivals and nothing is said that you shall sacrifice on such and such a date or at any given time. 91 The Phasekh sacrifice was not permanently instituted until Exod., 34:25, and the other Phasekh sacrifices and offerings are added much later in Num., 28:16–25. 92 The idea of postponing the annulling of the Torah until Pentecost is an attempt to explain why the followers of the messiah kept Pentecost after the death and resurrection of Yahushua, and, as a result, Yahweh having responded by giving them the sacred ruach (Acts, 1:1–2:42). This view is not only without authority but is a total misunderstanding of what was annulled. 93 Gal., 3:15–20; cf., John, 10:35, “the scripture cannot be broken.” 84 85 86

126

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

days are not listed among the four dogmasin which are not adverse to us. Therefore, if they are to continue they must belong to the statutes that predate the works of the handwritten Torah. Phasekh and Unleavened Bread Let us first look at the Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread. The apostle Saul, writing many years after the death and resurrection of the messiah, and whose writings are accredited with the instructions for setting aside the works of the handwritten Torah, demonstrates that the Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread continued after the resurrection of the messiah. In his first letter to the people of the nations living in Corinth, Greece, and in a direct reference to the Phasekh festival and days of unleavened bread, Saul writes: Not good is your boasting. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore, purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, according as you are unleavened. For also messiah, our Phasekh, was sacrificed for us. So that WE SHOULD eJortavzwmen (heortazomen; CELEBRATE THE FESTIVAL),94 not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and of truth.95 Not only is Saul commanding the uncircumcised Christians at Corinth to continue to keep this festival, but he is giving us the typology of the lamb and the unleavened bread that goes with this celebration. Another example is found in the book of Acts. Here we read that Saul, while teaching among the Greeks, set sail from Philippi, in Macedonia (northern Greece) to go to Troas in Asia Minor, “after the days of unleavened bread.” 96 There was no need to mention his waiting until after the days of unleavened bread unless Saul kept the festival while dwelling among the nonIsraelite peoples living in Philippi. Some argue that Saul continued to keep Phasekh and the days of unleavened bread because he was a Jew. Yet this hypothesis makes even less sense. Only the Israelites were under the handwritten Torah. The nations were never subject to it and, in fact, had effectively been locked out of the inheritance with the Mount Sinai covenant.97 Saul merely points out that with the advent of grace the wall between Israelites and non-Israelites had been torn down.98 Saul also chastised those who would try to bring the nations under the works of the handwritten Torah.99 Why then, if the festival was a work of the Torah, 94 The word eJortavzwmen (heortazomen), a form of eJorthv (heorte), means a “festival” (GEL, 1968, p. 601) and is the Greek term used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word gj (khag) (CS, 1, pp. 502, 503). Also see above Chap. I, pp. 16f, n. 79. 95 1 Cor., 5:6–8. 96 Acts, 20:5–12. 97 In fact, Saul came to announce to the nations the good news that by grace they now had access to the inheritance (Acts, 26:15–18; Rom., 4:13–25, 11:1–28; Gal., 3:21–29; Eph., 1:11–18, 2:11– 22, 3:1–6). 98 Eph., 2:11–22. 99 E.g. Acts, 15:1–10; Gal., 4:21.

Are They Required?

127

would Saul command the Corinthians, a non-Jewish people, to “keep the khag” of Phasekh? And if Saul taught that no one is now under the Torah, why would he continue to observe the days of unleavened bread? These details prove that this festival was a condition under the Covenants of Promise and not a work of the Torah of Moses. Saul gives us still other charges to continue the festival until the messiah returns,100 as does the messiah in the synoptic texts.101 Yet before we can fully utilize these items of evidence, we must first prove that the famous Last Supper of the messiah was the Phasekh meal. Therefore, we shall wait to explore this additional evidence at the appropriate time in our study.102 The future observance of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread is also proven by the prophet Ezekiel. Writing in the 25th year of his exile (during the sixth century B.C.E.),103 Ezekiel confirms that the seven-day Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread will be celebrated in the future. He writes that at the time when Yahweh is living in the city of Jerusalem,104 and after all twelve tribes of Israel have been returned to the Promised Land,105 there will be a new Temple of Yahweh in the Promised Land.106 From under this new Temple a river will flow from Jerusalem to the Salt Sea, which will then have fresh water and fish.107 Obviously, all of these events have not yet occurred. At that time, he writes, “you shall have the Phasekh, a khag of seven days of eating unleavened bread.”108 Finally, that the observance of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread was a requirement after the death and resurrection of the messiah is also confirmed by the continuance of the celebration by all the early Christian assemblies.109 It is true that there arose a dispute in later centuries over exactly how this celebration should be kept, but there was no disagreement that it must be observed in some form. Even under the present Roman Catholic system of Easter, the taking of the Eucharist, and Communion, Phasekh has in some way been continued. Other Festivals and Sacred Days There is also substantial evidence that the other festivals and sacred days of Yahweh continued after the resurrection of the messiah and are to be observed well into the future. For example, the apostle Paul (Saul) makes mention of the Fast day (Day of Atonement) during his ministry among the nations.110 Next, not only was the day of Pentecost (the Khag of Weeks) celebrated by the followers of the messiah shortly after his death and resurrection,111 but the apostle Saul 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

1 Cor., 11:20–34. Mark, 14:22–25; Matt., 26:26–29; Luke, 22:14–20. See FSDY, 2. Ezek., 40:1. Ezek., 48:34. Ezek., 48:1–33. Ezek., 41:1–44:14. Ezek., 47:1–12. Ezek., 45:21. See the discussion below in Intro.: Sect. II. Acts, 27:9. Acts, 2:1.

128

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

continued to observe Pentecost many years later. Saul’s own records prove that he observed one Pentecost in Ephesus and another at Jerusalem.112 Pentecost was also observed for centuries by the early Christian assemblies.113 The seven-day Khag of Tabernacles will also continue well into the future. Ezekiel, for example, reports that this festival will be practiced at Jerusalem in the kingdom of the messiah after his return.114 In association with this thought, the book of Zechariah notes that after Yahweh begins his reign in Jerusalem “all the nations” left in the world shall keep the Khag of Tabernacles. Those nations that fail to do so shall be struck with a plague.115 The fact that all nations will be required to keep the Khag of Tabernacles fully demonstrates the universality of keeping this and the other khagi. The weekly Sabbath day likewise continued after the death of the messiah. The apostle Saul, for example, kept “every Sabbath” day with both Jewish and non-Israelite Christian converts.116 It was originally observed by all of the early Christian assemblies, even including those at Rome and Alexandria, the first to break from this practice.117 The Sabbath day will even be observed in the days of the Great Tribulation, which occurs just prior to the messiah’s return.118 Ezekiel also informs us that the gates to the future Temple that exists in Jerusalem during the earthly reign of the messiah will be opened “on the Sabbath day” and on the “day of the new moon.”119 Saul exhorts members in the early assemblies following Yahushua not to be judged for their share in a “festival, or new moon, or Sabbath.”120 Ezekiel adds, as confirmation, that there shall be Temple services after the return of the messiah “on the khagim (festivals) and on the moadim (appointed times).”121 These comments about the observance of the new moon are important, for the moon is used to determine the moadi.122 There is no reason to mention the new moons if the moadi were not to continue. Acts, 20:16; 1 Cor., 16:8. See below Chap. XXII. Ezek., 45:25. Zech., 12:16–21. Acts, 13:14, 42–44, 16:13, 17:1–4, 18:4. Socrates Schol., 5:22, notes that even in the early fifth century C.E. almost all of the Christian assemblies, except for those at Rome and Alexandria, kept the weekly Sabbath day. He adds that Rome and Alexandria “ceased” this observance after they began another custom (i.e., they once had kept it themselves but discontinued the practice). In time the Roman Catholic Church suppressed the weekly Sabbath day in favor of the Sovereign’s day (Sunday). For a complete discussion of the Sabbath day see FSDY, 3. 118 Matt., 24:20. 119 Ezek., 46:1, 3. 120 Col., 2:16. 121 Ezek., 46:11. Ezekiel also mentions the establishment of various sacrifices and Temple services. These new rituals will come about as the result of another covenant that is required to be made with the fleshly Israelites who return to the Promised Land after the second coming of the messiah. This agreement has nothing to do with the previous covenant (the Old Covenant) made at Mount Sinai, which the Israelites transgressed, or with the New Covenant, which is to be made only with the elect of the First Resurrection who will be quickened into eternal life. It is a temporary agreement made with mortal, fleshly Israelites to permit them a right to remain in the Promised Land. This agreement will remain in force until just prior to the general resurrection (the Second Resurrection). At that time, the last fleshly humans, including those of Israelite heritage, will die. When these last deaths occur, the covenant containing the new rituals will pass into disuse. The dying off of fleshly humans will then be followed by the general resurrection and the judgment (Heb., 9:27). 122 Ps., 104:19. 112 113 114 115 116 117

Are They Required?

129

Conclusion According to the evidence, it is clear that the festivals and sacred days commanded as statutes in the Scriptures are Yahweh’s moadi. They are not Jewish holy days meant only for those of the Jewish faith and should not be so construed. It is proper to conclude that the observance of the festivals and sacred days are derived from an olam (world-age) lasting statute which are a condition of the Covenants of Promise (Torah of Trust). They apply to all mankind as conditions for receiving the eternal inheritance by grace under the Torah of Trust. Yahweh’s festivals and sacred days were in force from the very beginning of man’s existence. They were kept, for example, by the justified patriarchs (e.g., Abraham, Lot, Isaak, and Jacob), who lived long before the handwritten covenant was agreed to with Israel at Mount Sinai. Abraham kept these statutes while he was under trust. The Phasekh and the weekly Sabbath day are even specifically said to have been kept by the Israelites under instructions of Yahweh before they came to Mount Sinai. The apostle Saul kept these days himself long after the death and resurrection of the messiah and instructed those from among the nations to observe the Phasekh. The prophets tell us that the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are to be kept well into the far distant future. Not only are celebrations like the Khag of Tabernacles to be observed by the messiah during his millennial reign at Jerusalem but those nations not celebrating that festival shall be cursed. These moadi shall continue as a condition of the eternal inheritance until heaven and earth pass away, when the wicked are destroyed in the lake of fire (i.e., the Gehenna fire). At that time the eternal inheritance will have been dispensed to all those remaining to be saved. The role of the moadi as a shadow of coming things will have been fulfilled and even the handwritten Torah, which gives us the knowledge of sin, shall pass away. Accordingly, for all those following Yahweh and seeking to be justified to receive the eternal inheritance under grace, by means of trust rather than by means of the fleshly works of the written Torah, it is necessary that we too continue the proper observance of Yahweh’s festivals and sacred days. With this understanding in mind, our efforts must now shift to answering new questions: • When exactly do we observe them? • How are they to be kept? • What are their purpose? To this effort we dedicate the remainder of our study.

PART TWO Phasekh and Shabuath: Background and Controversy

CHART B MONTH EQUIVALENCY CHART No. of Month

Known Ancient Israelite Month-names

Jewish (Babylonian– Assyrian) Month-names

Equivalent Macedonian Month-names in Josephus

Approx. Modern Day Equivalent

1st

Abib

Nisan (Nisânu)

Xanthicus (Xanthikos)

March/April

2nd

Ziu

Iyyar (Aiaru)

Artemisius (Artemisios)

April/May

3rd

Siwan (Simânu)

Daesius (Daisios)

May/June

4th

Tammuz (Duzu)

Panemos (Panemus)

June/July

Ab (Abu)

Lous (Loos)

July/Aug.

Elul (Ululu)

Gorpiaeus (Gorpiaios)

Aug./Sept.

5th

Tsach (?)

6th 7th

Ethanim

Tishri (Tashritu)

Hyperberetaeus (Hyperberetaios)

Sept./Oct.

8th

Bul

Marheshuan (Heshuan Arahsamnu)

Dius (Dios)

Oct./Nov.

9th

Khisleu (Kislimu)

Apellaios (Apellaeus)

Nov./Dec.

10th

Tebeth (Tebetu)

Audynaios (Audyneus)

Dec./Jan.

11th

Shebat (Shabatu)

Peritios (Peritus)

Jan./Feb.

12th

Adar (Addaru)

Dystros (Dystrus)

Feb./March

13th

Every few years an intercalary month was required. This extra month was labeled “Be-Adar” or the “Second Adar.” 132

PHASEKH AND UNLEAVENED BREAD EXODUS, 12:3–20, AND 23:15 Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, On the tenth (day) for this moon (named ha-Abib),1 they shall take for themselves a flock animal, each one for a father’s house, a flock animal for a house. And if the house is too small for a flock animal, he and his neighbor next to his house shall take according to the number of tçpn (nepheshth; persons).2 You shall count, each one by the mouth of his eating, concerning the flock animal. The flock animal shall be for you a perfect one, a male, and a son of a year. You shall take it from the sheep or from the goats. And it shall be for you to keep until the fourteenth day for the moon. And all the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim; within the periods of twilight).3 And they shall take from the blood and put it upon the two door-posts and upon the lintel upon the houses within which they eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in this night, roasted with fire and unleavened bread; together with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat it raw or boiled in water at all, for it shall be roasted with fire, its head with its legs and with its innards. And you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that left from it until morning you shall burn with fire. And this is the way you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the Phasekh for Yahweh. And I will pass through, in the land of Egypt, in this night and I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from man and as far as beasts. And on the eloahi4 of Egypt I will execute judgments. I am Yahweh. And the blood 1 The reference to “this moon” is to the moon or month named bybah (ha-Abib; the Abib) (see Exod., 13:4, 23:15, 34:18; Deut., 16:1). During the post-Exile period, this month-name was changed by the Judahites to the Babylonian form ˆsyn (Nisan) (see Neh., 2:1; Esther, 3:7). Also see our Chart B. For the definition of ha-Abib and how one determines the first moon see FSDY, 3. 2 The Hebrew term çpn (nephesh), plural tçpn (nepheshth), means, “prop. a breathing creature, i.e. animal or (abstr.) vitality” (SEC, Heb. #5315); “breath . . . an animal (that which breathes) . . . a person” (HEL, p. 171; CHAL, pp. 242f). “‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being” (quoting Dr. H. M. Orlinsky of the Hebrew Union College, in reference to his translation of the Torah, NYT, Oct. 12, 1962, p. 20). 3 For proof that byn ha-arabim is the period of twilight extending from sunset until dark see FSDY, 2. 4 For the use of the term eloah (plural eloahi, and collective noun eloahim), the Hebrew generic term for a deity, see Chap. I, p. 9, n. 25.

133

134

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh shall be for you a sign upon the houses where you are. And I will see the blood and ytjsp (phasekh-thy; I will pass over) you, and the plague shall not be upon you for destruction when I smite the land of Egypt. And this day shall be a memorial for you and you shall celebrate it a festival for Yahweh for your generations; you shall celebrate it an olam (worldage) 5 statute. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. Indeed, on the first day you shall cause leaven to cease from your houses, because anyone eating anything leavened that çpn (nephesh; person) 6 shall be cut off from Israel, from the first day to the seventh day. And on the first day shall be a sacred convocation and on the seventh day shall be a sacred convocation for you. Not any work shall be done by you. And you shall observe the unleavened bread, because on this very day I brought your armies out from the land of Egypt. And you shall observe this day for your generations, an olam (world-age) statute. In the first (moon), on the fourteenth day for the moon, at br[ (arab; twilight),7 you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day for the moon, at arab (twilight). Seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, because anyone eating anything leavened that nephesh (person) shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, among the resident aliens and among the natives of the land. Not anything leavened shall you eat. In all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread. (Exod., 12:3–20) You shall keep the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I have commanded you, for the moad (appointed time) 8 of the Abib moon, because in it you came out from Egypt, and they shall not appear unworthy before me. (Exod., 23:15)

5 For the translation of the Hebrew term μl[ (olam) as a “world-age” in time see above Intro. to Part I, p. 26, n. 10. 6 See above n. 2. 7 For proof that arab is the period of twilight just after sunset see FSDY, 2. 8 For the definition of moad see Chap. I, p. 15, n. 70.

SHABUATH (PENTECOST) LEVITICUS, 23:15–17, 21, AND DEUTERONOMY, 16:9–10 And you shall number for yourself from the day after the Sabbath, from the day you bring in the rm[ (omer) wave offering, they shall be seven complete Sabbaths, until the day after the seventh Sabbath. You shall number 50 days. And you shall bring near a new food offering to Yahweh; you shall bring in bread out of your dwellings for a wave offering, two (loaves); they shall be of two-tenth parts of flour; they shall be baked with leavening, firstfruits to Yahweh . . . And you shall make a proclamation on this same day, a sacred convocation it is to you. You shall not do any laborious work. It is an olam statute in all your dwellings in your generations. (Lev., 23:15–17, 21) You shall number for yourself seven weeks. From the sickle beginning to cut on the growing stalks of grain you shall begin to number seven weeks. And you shall perform the Khag of Shabuath (Weeks) to Yahweh your eloahi, according to the measure of the free-will offering of your hand, which you shall give, accordingly as Yahweh your eloahi has blessed you. (Deut., 16:9–10)

135

Introduction to Part II

t first thought, it would seem that the dates for the Phasekh supper, the seven days of eating unleavened bread, and the Khag of Shabuath (Pentecost) should hardly be controversial issues. One would suppose, for instance, that those of the Jewish faith would have been aware of the correct timing of these festivals from time immemorial. One would also assume that a quick check of the relevant statements from Scriptures should solve any apparent problems. Unfortunately, this optimistic view is simply not the case. Few realize that the issues of just how and when to celebrate the Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Khag of Pentecost have been hotly debated for centuries. Indeed, as early as the second century B.C.E. strongly divergent interpretations over exactly what the Scriptures had commanded in this regard were being voiced within the Jewish community. The Christian assemblies began to struggle over these issues in the second century C.E. The search for the correct Phasekh and Shabuath systems, accordingly, must begin by laying out these various ancient constructs. At the same time, our study must remain cognizant of the fact that these different systems can only be understood within their historical and cultural backdrop.

The Task of Part II The task of Part II of our first volume is to examine and define the different Jewish and Christian schools with regard to their observance of Phasekh, with its seven days of unleavened bread, and Shabuath (Pentecost). We will begin with two introductory chapters. These chapters shall define relevant terms, such as Phasekh (Passover), unleavened bread, Shabuath (Weeks), Pentecost, and the like. The instructions and reasons for keeping these celebrations will also be examined. The study shall then divide our subject matter into two sections: one examining the Jewish schools and a second investigating the Christian schools. Section I: Different Jewish Schools Our initial inquiry shall delve into the practices of the Jewish schools. In this effort, we will explore the history, culture, and origin of three major Jewish schools of thought regarding the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Pentecost. We will show that the issues separating each school are derived from their diverse interpretations concerning the time of day called br[ (arab) and μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim). The three basic Jewish systems for observing the Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread were as follows:

137

138

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh • The Aristocratic system celebrated both the Phasekh sacrifice and supper after sunset on the 14th day of the first moon. The seven days of unleavened bread lasted from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day (sunset marking the beginning and ending of a legal day). • The Hasidic system celebrated the Phasekh sacrifice on the afternoon of the 14th day of the first moon while the Phasekh supper was eaten after sunset during the nighttime portion of the 15th day. The seven days of unleavened bread continued from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day. • The third school was the neo-Aristocratic system. This system used two parallel reckonings for a day, one ending at sunset (legal) and one ending at dark (common). Its advocates celebrated the Phasekh sacrifice after sunset, still being part of the 14th day by common-day reckoning but the first part of the 15th day by legal reckoning. They ate the Phasekh supper after dark, being the first part of the 15th day (i.e., at a time falling within both the legal and common-day reckonings).

In the process of this discussion, the competition between the various Jewish factions will be examined, especially the conflict between the Aristocratic Sadducees and the Hasidic Pharisees. The eventual victory of the Pharisees shall be placed in its proper historical context. Finally, the date for the Khag of Shabuath (Pentecost) was heavily reliant upon how one calculated Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread. As a result, there developed four competing Jewish systems for counting the 50 days to Pentecost: the Aristocratic, the neo-Aristocratic, the Hasidic, and the neo-Hasidic. Section I shall investigate and explain each of these views and place them within their proper historical context. Section II: Early Christian Schools Section II is devoted to examining the systems of the early Christian assemblies, from the first until the early eighth century C.E. Four major Christian views were practiced: Quartodeciman (= Aristocratic), quasiQuartodeciman, Roman (later called Roman Catholic), and the Syrian Hybrid (which was in part Quartodeciman but largely built upon Roman Catholic reckoning). Several minor variant views shall also be touched upon when they become relevant. It will be demonstrated in this discussion that the most primitive Christian assemblies followed the Aristocratic system for both the Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and for the Khag of Pentecost. These primitive Christian assemblies were called Quartodecimani (14th keepers) because they kept Phasekh on the 14th day of the moon of Abib, the first lunar month, just as some of the Aristocratic Jews did who continued to follow the ancient priestly system. Like their Aristocratic Jewish counterparts, they also kept the seven days of unleavened bread from the 14th until the end of the 20th of Abib. The Quartodecimans differed from the Aristocratic Jews in that they believed in Yahushua as the messiah and saw no need for animal sacrifices or offerings, 9 We will use the phrase “Phasekh Eucharist” when referencing the thanksgiving offered with the bread and wine at Passover.

Introduction to Part II

139

only for the repast and the seven days of eating unleavened bread. With their Phasekh meal they observed the Eucharist (i.e., the Phasekh Eucharist).9 As time moved on, a large number of the Quartodecimans began altering their views and strayed from their original doctrines. As a result, several variations developed, which are all classified as quasi-Quartodeciman. This study shall demonstrate that in the early part of the second century C.E. an important quasi-Quartodeciman view about Phasekh took root among Western Christians. Under this school, heavily influenced by the joyful celebration of the resurrection of the messiah and its connection with the first day of the 50day Pentecost season, the Phasekh Eucharist celebration, originally performed on the 14th day of the first moon, was moved permanently to the first day of the week falling within the seven days of unleavened bread (i.e., from the 14th until the end of the 20th of the month of Abib). In the last half of the second century C.E., a newer version of this quasiQuartodeciman view arose among the Western Christian assemblies who were led by Rome. The Roman assembly adopted the seven-day system of unleavened bread that was advocated by the Hasidic branch of Judaism, i.e., from the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first month. The Phasekh Eucharist, accordingly, was placed on the first day of the week falling within those seven days. This became the Roman Catholic system and was subsequently followed by the Protestants. During the years when Roman assembly dominance became increasingly present throughout the Christian world, a compromise developed in the East forming a hybrid Syrian system. Under this system, Phasekh was kept on the 14th but the seven days of unleavened bread were observed from the 15th until the end of the 21st. Its advocates nonetheless followed the Roman Catholic guide and celebrated the Phasekh of the resurrection on the first day of the week during these seven days. This section shall also investigate the history and evidence for the transformation of the Christian Phasekh, as it moved from its original Aristocratic roots to the Roman assembly system. The key element for this change was the Christian Pentecost system, which was modeled after the Jewish Aristocratic Pentecost system. It shall be demonstrated that the first day of the 50-day Pentecost count, the day of the rm[ (omer) wave offering, was also the anniversary of the messiah’s resurrection. In the process of separate development, it was the Western Christian groups who abandoned their original Aristocratic construct for Phasekh and replaced it with a Phasekh celebration on the day of the messiah’s resurrection. Resurrection day had become a time of joyous celebration and for many Western Christians this day was deemed a more appropriate time to celebrate the Phasekh Eucharist. The 14th of Abib, on the other hand, was now viewed by many Westerners as far too sad an occasion for celebration due to its remembrance of the messiah’s death. The Phasekh Eucharist for the Western Christians, as a result, became the first day of the week (Sunday) that fell during the week of unleavened bread.

140

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Essential Christian Differences The evidence from these chapters will reveal that there are seven basic Jewish and Christian systems for the celebration of Phasekh that we must consider. Other minor variations are all ultimately based on one of these seven views. Separating these systems are some essential differences. In all cases, the 14th of the moon of Abib—counted as the first month of the year—is recognized as the day commanded in the written Torah (Old Testament) for the Phasekh lamb to be slaughtered. The Phasekh supper was then eaten in the night immediately following that sacrifice.10 Here the agreement ends. As our investigation shall prove, the advocates of the Christian Quartodeciman (Aristocratic) system, which view was held by the early assemblies who followed Yahushua the messiah, contended that the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread began with the 14th of Abib and ended at the close of the 20th of Abib. This system recognized that the 14th was not only the date for the ancient Phasekh sacrifice (an event no longer required) but was the correct date for both the Phasekh supper and the first high Sabbath day of that khag. In this construct, Phasekh is the first day of the seven days of unleavened bread. This research shall also prove that the early assemblies believed that the messiah did in fact observe the 14th of Abib as the date of his famous “Last Supper,” and that most Christians believed that Yahushua celebrated this dinner as the Phasekh repast. In the afternoon of that same day (Hebrew reckoning, sunset-to-sunset), the Pharisees, who dominated the Judaean state religion in those days, sacrificed their Phasekh lamb. It was at that time that the messiah was wrongfully executed. The following night, i.e., on the 15th of Abib, the Pharisees ate their Phasekh supper. Disregarding whether any particular system believes that the legal Phasekh supper was held on the 14th or 15th of Abib, there is another essential difference between the Aristocratic Phasekh system (which includes the Quartodeciman and some aspect of the quasi-Quartodeciman models) and all of the other varieties. All of the other systems disassociate the 14th of Abib from being the high Sabbath which marks the first of the seven days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Indeed, this was at the heart of the ancient debate between the Quartodecimans (14th day keepers) and the Quintodecimans (15th day keepers) in the early Christian assemblies. The debate was never just about what day one was to eat the Phasekh Eucharist. Practice of the Aristocratic system, which was followed by Yahushua and the early assemblies, or anything like it, has been totally suppressed since the eighth century C.E. Except for the most ardent students of history, few are even aware that it existed. The Hasidic or Pharisaic model, on the other hand, which in some way or another serves as the basis for the constructs of almost all the remaining systems (despite its late appearance relative to the Aristocratic system), has become so well-entrenched that few pundits have thought to search beyond its perimeters to solve the several contradictions presented by its format. This study shall expose these problems. 10

The basis for this belief is Exod., 12:6–8; Lev., 23:5; Num., 28:16; Deut., 16:2–5; and so on.

Chapter IX

What are Phasekh and Unleavened Bread?

s already demonstrated, the gj (Khag; Festival) of Unleavened Bread forms part of the yd[wm (moadi; appointed times) commanded by Yahweh, which gain their legal authority by means of a tqj (khoquth; statute).1 The term gj (khag) is also used when the entire seven days of eating unleavened bread is called the Phasekh.2 The first and seventh day of this khag are described as sacred yarqm (miqrai; gatherings for reading),3 i.e., a sacred convocation on a Sabbath or high Sabbath day during which Scriptures are to be studied.4 To understand the Festival of Phasekh (Passover) and Unleavened Bread, we must first define the meanings of these two terms and explain what prompts them to be festival observances.

The Covenant Meal The Phasekh supper and the eating of unleavened bread for seven days are meant to be a celebration and a reaffirmation of the Abrahamic Covenants.5 It is centered around the festival meal of the Phasekh victim and the eating of unleavened bread for seven days. One of the important ingredients in the Phasekh and this seven-day khag, therefore, is the Phasekh repast. In Hebrew culture, a meal binds one to an oath, vow, or contract and can be used to ratify a covenant.6 Herein, for example, is the source for the covenant meal of marriage which accompanies a wedding. The wedding meal is called a htçm (mishteh; banquet).7 The Phasekh supper, therefore, is in fact a covenant meal, binding one to the Abrahamic Covenants and to the messiah.8 The continued observance of the Phasekh repast and the seven days of eating unleavened bread during the centuries that followed the Exodus 1 E.g., Exod., 13:3–10; Deut., 4:12–14, cf., Exod., 21:1, 23:14–17; and see our discussion above Chap. I, pp. 16ff. 2 Ezek., 45:21; cf., Exod., 34:18; Deut., 16:1–8, 16; 2 Chron., 30:21. 3 Lev., 23:7f. And see above Chap. I, p. 15, n. 71. 4 For example, Lev., 23:3, reads, “Six days work is to be done, and on the seventh day is a Sabbath sabbathon, a sacred arqm (miqra; gathering for reading), not any work you shall do. It is a Sabbath for Yahweh in all your dwellings.” 5 For the connection between the act of cutting meat and eating a meal as part of the act of confirming a covenant see above Chap. II, pp. 37f, p. 38, n. 27. 6 E.g., Gen., 14:18–24; 26:30; 31:51–54; Josh., 9:14; Obad., 7. 7 SEC, Heb. #4960; e.g., Gen., 29:16–30, esp. v. 22. 8 The Phasekh lamb served this covenant function. Joachim Jeremias notes that, “The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power and made God’s covenant with Abraham operative” (EWJ, pp. 225f, and cf., his ns. 4 & 5). For a complete discussion of the Abrahamic Covenants, the inheritance attached thereto, and its connection with the messiah see TCP.

141

142

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

were expressly stated to be a rkz (zakar; memorial)9 khag, the purpose of which was to recall the significance of the Exodus parable signifying the fact that Yahweh would fulfill the words of his covenant to Abraham.10 Phasekh is also a “night of μyrmç (shamarim; observations, guarding, watching),11 i.e., a night to establish the covenant. Since the Abrahamic Covenants are an agreement enabling men to obtain the divine nature (Yahweh’s love), after the resurrection of the messiah, the Phasekh supper was also counted among the Christian “ajgavpai~ (agapais; love feasts).”12

Meaning of Phasekh Phasekh comes from the root meaning to “skip” or “limp” over or “pass over,” and by extension “to spare,” “protect,” or “set apart” something.13 It does not derive from the Greek term pavqo~ (pathos; to suffer) as some of the early Christians tried to claim.14 When Elijah challenged the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel, the latter, we are told, jsp (phasekh; limped) beside the altar 9 rkz (zakar), means, “prop. to mark (so as to be recognized, i.e. to remember . . . a memento . . . impl. commemoration:—memorial, memory, remembrance” (SEC, Heb. #2142, 2143); “mediate upon, call to mind” (HEL, p. 74). 10 Exod., 12:14, 13:6–10. 11 Exod., 12:42, cf., 12:7, 25. μyrmç (shamarim), from rmç (shamar), “prop. to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; gen. to protect, attend to, etc.” (SEC, Heb. #8104); means, “observance of a festival” (HEL, p. 272); “observances” (YAC, p. 708). The LXX of Exod., 12:42, translates the Hebrew to read, “It is a watch kept to the sovereign, so that he should bring them out of the land of Egypt; that very night is a watch kept to the sovereign, so that it should be to all the children of Israel to their generations.” 12 Jude, 1:12 (cf., 2 Pet., 2:13; 1 Cor., 11:20–34). NBD, p. 754, notes that, “The separation of the meal or Agape from the Eucharist lies outside the times of the New Testament.” It is very possible that the term Agape was applied early on to all of the early Christian festival meals, from Phasekh to Tabernacles. Yet, as time proceeded, this term lost its connection with the scriptural festival suppers and was broadly applied to any fellowship meal. Also see NCE, 1, pp. 193f; ISBE, 1, pp. 69f; ADB, 3, p. 149, “Christ placed the new rite in close connexion with the Passover.” 13 jsp (Phasekh), a prim. root, “to hop, i.e. (fig.) skip over (or spare); by impl. to hesitate; also (lit.) to limp, to dance:—halt, become lame, leap, pass over . . . a pretermission, i.e. exemption; used only tech. of the Jewish Passover (the festival or the victim):—passover (offering) . . . limping . . . lame” (SEC, Heb., #6452–6455); “be lame, limp . . . limp around (in cultic observance)” (CHAL, p. 294); “passed over for defense, defended, protected” (HEL, p. 211); “TO PASS OVER, TO PASS BY . . . to pass over, to spare . . . sparing, immunity from penalty and calamity” (GHCL, p. 683); “Passover, Heb. pesah, comes from a verb meaning ‘to pass over,’ in the sense of ‘to spare’ (Ex. xii. 13, 27, etc.)” NBD, p. 936); “to ‘pass over,’ to ‘spare’ (BJK, p. 324); “meaning ‘to pass or spring over,’ also ‘to limp’” (MDB, p. 648); “to pass through, to leap, to halt . . . then topically to pass by in the sense of sparing, to save, to show mercy” (CBTEL, 7, p. 733). J. B. Segal shows that, like the term rb[ (heber), Phasekh can also mean to “set apart,” as something “singled out (for forgiveness or kindness)” (THP, pp. 185ff). On various theories of the etymology of the word Phasekh see THP, pp. 95–113. 14 The popular interpretation among many early Greek-speaking Christians that the word Phasekh is derived as a pun from the Greek term pavqo~ (pathos), “paschein being the present infinitive, pathein the aorist infinitive of the same verb” (EEC, p. 138, #21, n. a), meaning to “suffer,” is, as Raniero Cantalamessa concludes, a “naive etymology (deriving a Hebrew from a Greek word” (ibid.). It was apparently derived from the Greek-speaking Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (Philo, Heir, 40, §192, Cong., 19, §106); cf., Ambrose (Epist. 1, 90), who connects the Phasekh with pavqo~ (pathos). This etymology quickly became popular among the Greek-speaking Christians of Asia (e.g., Melito, Pas., 46; an unnamed Quartodeciman writer, Ps.-Hippolytus, 49, see SC, 27, pp. 175–177) and spread among the Latin writers (e.g., Tertullian, Marc., 4:40:1; Ps.Tertullian, 8:1; Ps.-Cyprian, 2; Gregory Elv., 9:9). The primary reason for this popularity was the allusion to the sufferings of the messiah at Phasekh. Despite the efforts of Origen (Pas., 1) and others (e.g., Augustine, Tract., 55:1, on 13:1–5), who correctly and strongly opposed this interpretation, it prospered for a long time.

What are Phasekh and Unleavened Bread?

143

as part of their statutory procedure—this in an effort to ask their deity to perform a sign so that they could be delivered from the hands of Yahweh and his prophet Elijah.15 One could also phasekh (limp, pass over) at a funeral, in an attempt to ask a deity to spare or deliver the deceased. In this regard, Theodor Herzl Gaster writes of the term Phasekh: Similarly, Heliodorus, a Greek author of the early Christian era, informs us specifically that the seafaring men of Tyre, on the coast of Syria, used to worship their god by performing a strange dance, one movement of which consisted in limping along the ground. Analogous performances are recorded also among the pre-Mohammedan Arabs and among the ancient inhabitants of both India and Ireland.16 Theodor Herzl Gaster then adds: The performance of a limping dance happens to be a characteristic feature of mourning ceremonies among Arab and Syrian peasants—so much so that in the Arabic and Syriac languages the word for limp comes to be a synonym for mourn. “It is customary,” says the great Arabist Lane in his famous Manners and Customs of Modern Egyptians, “for the female relatives and friends of a person deceased to meet together by his house on each of the first THREE DAYS AFTER HIS FUNERAL, and there to perform a lamentation and a strange kind of dance. . . . Each dances with a slow movement and in an irregular manner; generally pacing about and raising and depressing the body” (italics mine). Nor is this custom confined to modern times. An ancient Canaanite poem of the fourteenth century B.C. uses the word “hoppings” (or “skippings”) in the sense of mourning exercises; and a Babylonian document now in the British Museum lists the term hopper (or skipper) as a synonym for professional mourner. Moreover, it is significant that the standard poetic meter used in ancient Hebrew dirges was distinguished by a special limping rhythm—a fact which would be readily explicable if they were designed to accompany a limping dance.17 Therefore, it was ancient practice to phasekh as part of a funeral ceremony. There are Egyptian people who still limp for three days following a death. One might readily ask, “From where did this common meaning and tradition 15 16

1 Kings, 18:26, in context with 18:17–19:1. PHT, p. 23. For the Tyrian dance in honor of Heracles see Heliodorus, 4:17, cf., Herodian,

5:5:9. 17

PHT, p. 24.

144

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

in the Near East arise?” The answer proves important not only in the story of the Exodus and the death of the first-born in Egypt at that time, but in the story of Yahushua’s own death and subsequent resurrection after three days. We shall have more to say about this aspect later. The Jewish priest Josephus and the Christian theologian PseudoChrysostom (late fourth century C.E.) both give us the theological interpretation. Josephus notes that Phasekh “signifies uJperbavsia (hyperbasia; passing over),18 because on that day the deity passed over our people when he smote the Egyptians with a plague.”19 Pseudo-Chrysostom similarly writes: . . . for Phasekh means “uJpevrbasi~ (hyperbasis; passing over),” when the Destroyer who struck the firstborn passed over the houses of the Hebrews.20 Philo translates Phasekh as diabathvria (diabateria), meaning “the crossingfestival.”21 Similarly, Origen,22 Gregory of Nazianzus,23 and other Christian writers render it diabasi~ (diabasis),24 meaning “passage.”25 The Vulgate gives the Latin form transitus (passing over).26 In classical Greek diabathvria (diabateria) are offerings made before crossing a boundary, and also “before crossing a swollen river.”27 The sacrifice, accordingly, was performed to assure one’s safe passage or crossing. F. H. Colson, meanwhile, argues: Philo consistently uses diabathvria or diabasi~ = pavsca ·Paskha; Phasekh‚, and several times, e.g. Leg. All. iii. 94, allegorizes it as in §147, shewing that he traces the name not to the passing over of the Israelites by the destroying angel (Ex. xii. 23 and 27), but to the crossing of Israel itself from Egypt, the type of the body, and no doubt also the crossing of the Red Sea.28 F. H. Colson’s understanding is not quite complete. Philo also equates diabathvria (diabateria) directly with the pavsca (Paskha) of the 14th and the events of the death angel, indicating that all of the events associated with the Exodus migration out of Egypt were included.29 Even Jerome, who wrote the Vulgate version of the Bible, applies the Latin word transitus to both the passing over of the destroyer and to the passing through of the Suph Sea (Red Sea) GEL, 1968, pp. 1860f. Jos., Antiq., 2:14:6. Ps.–Chrysostom, 1:4. Also see the Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 424f; Gaudentius, Tract., 2:25; Maximus, Serm., 54:1. 21 Philo, Spec., 2:27. 22 Origen, Pas., 1:18, 22, 2:17, 4:18, 22, as well as “uJpevrbasi~ (hyperbasis; passing over)” in 45:14, 47:33. 23 Gregory Naz., Orat., 45:10. 24 E.g., Eusebius, Pas., 1–3, 7; Didymus, 5:88; Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 424f; CBTEL, 7, p. 734. 25 GEL, 1968, p. 390, “crossing over, passage.” 26 HLD, p. 1891. Cf., Ambrose, Epist., 1:10, Exp. Luc., 10:34, Sac., 1:4:12; Pas. Proclam., Exsult, 4; Jerome, Com. Matt., 4, on 26:2; Augustine, Tract., 55:1, on 13:1–5. 27 Plutarch, Luc., 24; cf., Philo, Spec., 2:27 §147. 28 Colson, Philo, vii, p. 394, n. a. 29 Philo, Moses, 2:41f, Spec., 2:27f. 18 19 20

What are Phasekh and Unleavened Bread?

145

by the Israelites.30 Escaping the death angel was in fact part of their safe passage. The sacrifice of the Phasekh flock animal by the Israelites was meant to assure a safe journey for the followers of Yahweh both through the land of Egypt and through the Suph Sea (Sea of Termination) 31 at the time of the Exodus. To jsp (phasekh), therefore, means to skip or pass over, or to pass around something, showing mercy and sparing it. For this reason it is simply called “Passover” in English. The Aramaic Targum Onqelos (fifth century C.E.) supports this when it renders “jsp jbz (zebakh Phasekh; sacrifice of the Phasekh)” as “syj jbyd (diybakh khiys; sacrifice of mercy).”32 Likewise, the LXX at Exodus, 12:13, where the Hebrew has, “I will phasekh over you,” renders phasekh as I will “skepavsw (skepaso; cover over)” you.33 Isaiah, 31:5, indicates the same sense when it notes that Yahweh will defend and deliver Jerusalem, “jwsp (phasukh; passing over), and saving it.” The LXX of this verse translates the form jwsp (phasukh) as peripoihvsetai (peripoiesetai), meaning to “keep safe.”34 In Scriptures the name “Phasekh” is applied to three different aspects of the festival: • In both the Old and New Testaments, Phasekh is the name of the lamb that is sacrificed, roasted, and eaten.35 • It is the name of the festival day upon which the lamb is sacrificed.36 • The name is also applied to the entire seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread.37 The reinstitution of the Phasekh sacrifice after the revolt at Mount Sinai, when the Israelites built the golden calf, was meant to look back at the parable type that the original sacrifice performed in Egypt represented, which pointed to the coming death of the messiah. Yahushua the messiah is the “lamb” of Jerome, Com. Matt., 4, on 26:2. The Hebrew name πws μy (Yam Suph; Sea of Suph) is found in the Greek sources (LXX, Exod., 13:18, 13:8; Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1; and many others) as ejruqra;n qavlassan (eruthran thalassan; Red Sea). Many modern day translators assume that the name Yam Suph was Egyptian and equate it with an Egyptian word that signifies a seaweed resembling wool, hence it has been popular to call it the sea of reeds or weeds (e.g., DOTB, pp. 785f; DB, p. 556; NBD, pp. 1077f). Nevertheless, the word is not Egyptian. The ancient Egyptians never even referred to this body of water by that name. It is Hebrew and means “to snatch away, i.e. terminate:—consume, have an end, perish . . . to come to an end . . . a termination:—conclusion, end, hinder part” (SEC, Heb. #5486, 5487, 5490). The Suph Sea was the sea that formed the border of the ancient frontier of Egypt proper; it was at the end of the land (VT, 15, pp. 395–398). It was also the sea in which Pharaoh and his Egyptian army perished—an event that terminated the Exodus experience. Accordingly, some understand Yam Suph to mean the “sea of extinction” or something quite similar, indicating “the primal significance of the miracle at the sea” (MBD, pp. 738f). 32 Targ. Onq., Exod., 12:27. 33 GEL, p. 732. 34 GEL, p. 630, “a keeping safe, preservation . . . a gaining possession of, acquisition, obtaining . . . a possession.” The term basically means to gain possession of something in order to keep it safe. 35 E.g., Exod., 12:6, 8, 11, 21, 27; Deut., 16:6; 2 Chron., 30:18, 35:13; Matt., 26:17–19; Mark, 14:12, 14, 16; Luke, 22:7, 8, 11, 13, 15; John, 18:28; 1 Cor., 5:7 (verb). 36 E.g., Exod., 34:25; Josh., 5:10; Luke , 2:41; John, 13:1. 37 E.g., Ezek., 45:21; Luke, 22:1. 30 31

146

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Yahweh who was sacrificed for our safe passage.38 The apostle Saul, for example, writes, “For also the messiah, our Phasekh, was sacrificed for us.”39

Unleavened Bread The Festival of Unleavened Bread was built around the consumption of unleavened bread. The Hebrew word for unleavened bread is hxm (matzah), a term meaning “sweetness (not soured).”40 Leavened bread (raç; seor), on the other hand, is made by retaining a piece of dough from a previous batch which has become yeast, i.e., fermented and turned acidic. This piece is mixed or hidden in the flour and kneaded along with it. When baked, the leavening, which has diffused itself throughout the dough, causes the bread to rise. In Scriptures, leavening implies corruption and sin.41 It represents malice and wickedness,42 false teaching,43 hypocrisy,44 and false doctrine and culpable ignorance.45 Conversely, unleavened bread represents incorruption and sinlessness. The unleavened bread of the Phasekh supper, to demonstrate, represents sincerity and truth.46 It also signifies the sinless body of Yahushua the messiah.47 In another place, in association with the time of Phasekh, Yahushua called himself “the bread of life,” “living bread,” and the “manna”48 bread that was sent “out of heaven” to the Israelites in the wilderness.49 Since the messiah has always been without sin,50 these statements make it clear that sinlessness is equated with the incorruption of unleavened bread.

The Story of Phasekh Our next effort in defining the Phasekh supper and the seven days of eating unleavened bread is to give an overall summary of the Exodus experience. This event was the first time in which a Phasekh animal was commanded to be sacrificed and eaten by the Israelites. On its primary level, the yearly observance of the Phasekh and seven days of eating unleavened bread is meant 38 Isa., 53:1–12; John, 1:29, 36; Acts, 8:32–36; 1 Pet., 1:18f; Rev., 5:6–6:1, 16, 7:9–17, 9:7–9, 21:14, 22f, 22:1–3. 39 1 Cor., 5:7. 40 SEC, Heb. #4682, “prop. sweetness; concr. sweet (i.e. not soured or bittered with yeast); spec. an unfermented cake or loaf.” 41 Gal., 5:7–10. 42 1 Cor., 5:6–8. 43 Matt., 16:6–12; Mark, 8:15. 44 Luke, 12:1. 45 Matt., 22:23, 29. 46 1 Cor., 5:8. 47 Matt., 26:19f, 26; Mark, 14:16f, 22; Luke, 22:13f, 19; 1 Cor., 11:23f. 48 Manna was unleavened bread. This detail is verified by the fact that manna, after being delivered in the morning from heaven, did not survive until the next morning, unless by divine intervention on the sixth day of the week—and then it would only last until the morning of the first day of the week—at which time it would rot and be unusable (Josh., 16:13–34). Also, only manna was available for bread during the Israelite 40-year sojourn in the wilderness (Josh., 16:35), yet during that time they continued to keep the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread (Josh., cf., Exod. 34:18–26; Num., 9:1–5). For example, the Israelites were given and continued to eat manna in the first few days of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread during their first year in the land of Kanaan (Josh., 5:10–12). 49 John, 6:4, 26–59. Manna was not allowed to be used once it fermented (Exod., 16:13–22). Therefore, it was always eaten as unleavened bread. 50 E.g., 1 John, 3:5; 1 Pet., 21f; Heb., 4:15.

What are Phasekh and Unleavened Bread?

147

to recall the Israelite Exodus out of Egypt.51 Therefore, it is a recollection of the parables that the Exodus represented (i.e., the death and resurrection of the messiah, the salvation of the first-born or elect of Israel brought about by the shedding of the messiah’s blood, the death and resurrection of the elect, and the establishment of the kingdom of Yahweh).52 The history is as follows: After the Israelites spent 400 years in servitude to the Egyptians,53 Yahweh sent his prophets Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh with the request to release the Israelites from bondage in order that they could go and serve Yahweh in the wilderness. To facilitate this endeavor, Moses revealed signs and plagues to Pharaoh in a series of attempts to persuade him to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. After suffering from each plague, Pharaoh would recant of his stubbornness and give permission. Moses would then pray to Yahweh to release Egypt from the plague. Just as quickly as the plague was relieved, Pharaoh would harden his bl (leb; inner self) and would once more refuse to allow Israel to leave the country.54 The 10th and last of these plagues occurred on the night of the Phasekh supper. Yahweh had ordered each household of the Israelites to bring in a perfect one-year-old male flock animal from among either their sheep or goats and separate it out on the 10th day of the moon of Abib (later called Nisan). Then at byn ha-arabim (within the periods of twilight), on the 14th day of Abib (Nisan), the animal was sacrificed and its blood placed on the door frames of each respective Israelite house. The animal was then roasted and eaten that night.55 The Israelites were commanded to be dressed for hasty travel, to remain inside their homes until morning, to eat their Phasekh with unleavened bread, and then ordered that at morning they must burn what remained of the sacrificed animal.56 Meanwhile, in the middle of the night, “the destroyer” or angel of death passed through Egypt killing all of the first-born in the land, from the first-born son of Pharaoh to the first-born of all the livestock. Nevertheless, this angel did not enter into the houses where the lamb’s blood was found upon the door post. The first-born of Israel had been saved by the blood of the Phasekh victim.57 The devastation to the Egyptian population, on the other hand, was so great that Pharaoh allowed the Israelites to leave the country, taking with them a great plunder.58 51 52

Exod., 12:17, 13:3–10. See our FSDY, 3, for the prophetic meanings of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened

Bread. 53 That the Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt see Gen., 15:13f; Acts, 7:6f; Jos., Antiq., 2:9:1, Wars, 5:9:4, Table, 2:4–6; Ps.-Clement, 1:34; etc. The 210-year chronology for the Egyptian sojourn of the Israelites, which is currently popular, is both late and spurious. It was first formalized by Demetrius, a second century B.C.E. Jewish chronographer, who wrote in the Greek language and flourished in Egypt. It was not totally accepted by Jewish chronologists until the second century C.E. For a full discussion of the correct figure of 400 years and the spurious number 210, see our text entitled Israelite Chronology (IC), the third volume in our series on Ancient World Chronology. 54 Exod., 5:1–10:29. 55 Exod., 11:1–12:28. 56 Exod., 12:8, 10f, 17, 22. 57 Exod., 11:4–7, 12:12f, 23, 29. 58 Exod., 12:30–36.

148

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The night of Phasekh did not end the trauma. On the 15th of Abib, the Israelites left Rameses and gathered themselves at a place called Succuth.59 From Succuth they marched through the eastern wilderness of Egypt toward the Suph (Termination)60 Sea, called by the Greeks the Red Sea,61 located on the edge of the Egyptian frontier.62 As they were leaving the populated regions of Egypt, the Egyptians were seen burying their dead.63 The Israelites continued marching day and night until they arrived at the Suph Sea, all the while continuing to bake and consume their supply of unleavened bread.64 During the Israelite march, Pharaoh once again hardened his leb (inner self) and repented of having let the Israelites go. In response, he mustered his chariots and warriors and pursued them.65 As the seventh day of unleavened bread arrived, while the Israelites were in the process of eating their festival meal and celebrating the high Sabbath of the last day of the festival, Pharaoh caught up with his prey.66 Using his well-trained and massive army, he cornered the Israelites at the mouth of a natural pocket formed by the sea and a mountain that terminated at its shore.67 It was at this point that Yahweh, within a pillar of cloud, moved in between Pharaoh’s army and the Israelites.68 At the same time, just after the arrival of Pharaoh’s army, a tremendous storm rose up. Under instructions from Yahweh, Moses next stretched out his hand over the sea with his staff and a pathway through the water opened. During the rest of that night, the Israelites followed Moses through the midst of the Suph Sea, escaping to the opposite shore.69 Shortly before dawn, as the last of the Israelites were escaping to the opposite shore, the Egyptian army, in hot pursuit, followed the Israelites into the sea. However, Yahweh and his cloud of glory still formed a barrier between the rear guard of the Israelites and the front lines of the Egyptians. Then, when all the Israelites had reached safety, Yahweh looked upon the Egyptians from his cloud, causing them great consternation. Suddenly, the 59 Num., 33:3–5; Exod., 12:37. Josephus notes that many years later the Persian leader King Cambyses built the Egyptian city of Babylon upon the previously deserted site of Succuth (Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1). Today the ruins of Egyptian Babylon are found in Fostat, located near Old Cairo. 60 See above n. 31. 61 In the LXX the Hebrew name “Suph” Sea is translated by the Greek name for this sea, the “ejruqra`~ (eruthras; Red)” Sea (e.g., at LXX Exod., 13:18, 15:4, 22, 23:31, and so forth). 62 Exod., 12:37–42, 13:17–14:1; Num., 33:3–7. When the Israelites crossed the Suph Sea they found themselves located in Etham, in the wilderness of Shur (Exod., 13:20, 15:22; Num., 33:6–8), the territory that bordered the front of Egypt (Gen., 25:18; 1 Sam., 15:7). 63 Num., 33:3f. 64 Exod., 12:34, 39, 13:18–14:2. 65 Exod., 14:3–9. 66 Exod., 14:5–12. For the evidence that the Israelites were eating their feast meal when Pharaoh arrived see FSDY, 3. 67 This detail is indicated by Exod., 14:3, “They are entangled in the land, the wilderness has shut them in.” Josephus explains that the Egyptians had, “confined them between inaccessible cliffs and the sea; for it was the sea in which terminated a mountain whose rugged face was destitute of tracks and prohibitive for retreat. Accordingly, occupying the pass where the mountain abuts upon the sea, they blocked the passage of the Hebrews, pitching their camp at its mouth, to prevent their escape to the plain” (Jos., Antiq., 2:15:3). And again he writes that the Israelites were, “hemmed in by mountains, sea, and enemy, and seeing nowhere from these any imaginable escape” (Jos., Antiq., 2:15:4). 68 Exod., 14:13–20. 69 Exod., 14:21f.

What are Phasekh and Unleavened Bread?

149

water, which had formed great walls on each side of the passageway through the sea, collapsed on top of the Egyptian army, who were now well inside the sea basin.70 All the Egyptians were destroyed; all the Israelites were saved.71 In the representation from the book of Exodus, the Phasekh sacrifice for Yahweh had assured safe conduct for the Israelites during their seven-day journey out of the land of Egypt (the Exodus). The association of a sacrifice made to assure a safe passage and the act of limping (passing over) at a funeral service were also both brought together in this Phasekh episode. Not only was there the death of the Phasekh victim, but the Israelites left Egypt in the midst of a great Egyptian funeral for their first-born. The result of these great events was the birth of the new and independent twelve-tribe nation of Israel, governed by the priests of Levi, and their submission to Yahweh.

Easter Versus Phasekh Today, many proclaiming themselves to be Christians are under the illusion that the Phasekh has nothing to do with them. Instead, they celebrate Easter. In reality, all ancient Christian assemblies celebrated a form of Phasekh (though opinions on just how to observe this festival varied greatly from assembly to assembly). The celebration of Easter as a Christian festival is in reality a perversion of Phasekh. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, characterizes this alteration of the Phasekh (Pasch) by the Roman assembly as follows: Not only was the significance of the Jewish feast changed by the Christians, but also the date. The Jewish method of fixing the date, the 14th day of Nisan, did not confine it to any one day; at a very early time Christians assigned their Pasch to the Sunday following the Jewish feast. . . In the beginning Christians depended on Jewish authorities to calculate the date of the Passover, and thus of Easter; but by the 3rd century some Christians started to determine Easter independently. . . Probably a night celebration was determined for this feast because Easter is the Christian Passover, the fulfillment of the Jewish Passover. The Jewish feast was always celebrated at night; it is natural that the Christian feast, which replaced it, would also be a nighttime feast.72 According to Bede (early eighth century C.E.), the English name Easter is derived from Eostre, or Ostâra, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring.73 Easter was originally a pagan religious day later modified and adopted as a substitute for Phasekh as part of an ongoing effort to Christianize pagans. There is no reference to Easter in the original Scriptures. The word Easter is found only 70 71 72 73

Exod., 14:23–28. Exod., 14:28–31. NCE, 5, pp. 7, 8, 9. Bede, Temp. Rat., 15.

150

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

once in the King James Version, at Acts, 12:4, but the original Greek word is pavsca (Paskha = Phasekh).74 Albert Barnes refers to the English substitution of Phasekh with “Easter” as an “unhappy translation.” He adds: The word Easter is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from Eostre, the goddess of Love, or the Venus of the North, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). As this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honor of the resurrection of the Messiah, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service books the term Easter is used frequently to translate the word Passover.75 The simple fact is, all ancient Christian assemblies did in truth observe some form of the Phasekh. The name Easter only came centuries later— incorporated into English from their contacts with the Germans and other pagan cultures. This fact is a matter of common knowledge. The New Bible Dictionary remarks: EASTER, a word used in the Germanic languages to denote the festival of the vernal equinox, and subsequently, with the coming of Christianity, to denote the anniversary of the resurrection of Christ (which in Gk. and Romance tongues is denoted by pascha, ‘Passover’, and its derivatives).76 Webster’s Dictionary comments: ME. ester, esterne; AS. eastre, in pl. eastron (akin to Ger. Ostern), spring, Easter; orig., name of pagan vernal festival almost coincident in date with the paschal festival of the church < Eastre, dawn goddess.77 The Encyclopaedia Britannica notes: EASTER, the annual festival observed throughout Christendom in commemoration of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The word Easter—AngloSaxon, Eastre, Eoster; German, Ostern—like the names of the days of the week, is a survival from the old Teutonic mythology. According to Bede (De Temp.

74 75 76 77

See Greek text in ILT. BN, p. 181, commentary on Acts, 12:4. NBD, p. 330. WNWD, p. 456, s.v. Easter.

What are Phasekh and Unleavened Bread?

151

Rat., c. xv) it is derived from Eostre, or Ostâra, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, to whom the month, answering to our April—thence called Eostur-monath— was dedicated. This month, Bede informs us, was the same as the “Mensis Paschalis,” when “the old festival was observed with the gladness of a new solemnity.”78 According to Alexander Hislop, the Germanic goddess Easter (Eostre) originates with the Eastern pagan goddess Astarte: Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country ·England‚. The name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain, along with the Druids, “the priests of the groves.”79 This evidence demonstrates that certain late English Christian groups deliberately altered the name Phasekh to Easter in order to guise a pagan celebration as Christian, justifying their act by claiming they were giving the pagan festival a new solemnity. Because of their merging of this pagan celebration with a scriptural doctrine, the pagan fertility cult practices of giving colored Easter eggs, the association of rabbits, and the observance of sunrise services all eventually found their way into the Phasekh observance.80 The connection of Easter with eggs is an excellent example. The Syrian deity Astarte (called Ishtar by the Assyrians and Babylonians, Venus by the Latins, and Aphrodite by the Greeks)81 was the goddess of fertility. According to the ancient myth-teller Hyginus: Into the Euphrates River an egg of wonderful size is said to have fallen, which the fish rolled to the bank. Doves sat on it, and when it was heated, it hatched Venus (Astarte), who later was called the Syrian Goddess.82 The Druids bore an egg as the sacred emblem of their order.83 The Egyptians and Greeks used eggs in their religious rites, hanging them up in their temples for mystic purposes.84 Ptah, the Egyptian deity believed to have created all other deities and the world, is described as the being who turns the solar and lunar eggs on a potter’s wheel—the sun and moon likewise being 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

EB, 1898, vii, p. 613, s.v. EASTER. Also see EB, 1910, viii, p. 828, s.v. EASTER. TTB, p. 103. AAO, pp. 253–259, 305–310; TTB, pp. 103–113. See Sanchoniatho in Eusebius, P.E., 1:10; MAR, 5, p. 19. Hyginus, 197. MRD, p. 208. MCAE, 3, p. 20; Pausanias, 3:16:1. MAR, 12, pp. 144f.

152

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

manifestations of deities.85 Therefore, the connection between the spring fertility goddess Astarte (Ishtar = Eastre = Easter) and the egg of Astarte, as well as the notion that eggs are somehow connected in pagan thought with the deities, has produced the Easter egg. The fertility reputation of rabbits resulted in the Easter bunny. The worship of Astarte (Venus), the goddess of the morning, and her husband, the sun deity Baal, developed into Easter sunrise service. What do these things have to do with Yahweh’s sacred festival days? Yahweh warns us not to celebrate the customs of the nations and the traditions of men.86 These celebrations are “your khagi” and “your moadi;” they are not his. Even the perversions of Yahweh’s festivals as practiced by the Israelites were condemned by Yahweh. My nephesh hates your new moons (months) and YOUR MOADI. They are a burden upon me. I am tired of bearing (them).87 I hate, I reject YOUR KHAGI (FESTIVALS), and I will not delight in YOUR FESTIVE ASSEMBLIES. For if you offer up to me burnt offerings, and your food offerings, I will not be pleased; and peace offerings of your fattened animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the sound of your songs, and the melody of your harps I will not hear.88 These statements do not mean that Yahweh was against the Phasekh and days of eating unleavened bread. To the contrary, Yahweh lists the Phasekh and Khag of Unleavened Bread among “THE MOADI OF YAHWEH” and refers to them as “MY MOAD.”89 It was not Yahweh’s festivals that were in question. Rather, it was man’s interpretations and practices that corrupted Yahweh’s festivals. We simply do not have any authority to make up our own festivals, regardless of how well-intentioned we assume ourselves to be.

Eucharist and Communion Another corruption of the Phasekh festival, which we shall only mention in passing, is the later form of the Eucharist, also called “Communion,” the Christian sacrament commemorating the messiah’s Last Supper. The Eucharist is called, “The Passover Meal of the New Covenant.”90 The term Eucharist means “thanksgiving.”91 Communion is the “fellowship” ceremony by which the Eucharist is shared.92 Jer., 10:1–3; Mark, 7:6–13; 1 Tim., 4:1–10; 2 Tim., 4:3f; Col., 2:8; Titus, 1:10–15; 1 Pet., 1:17f. Isa., 1:14. Amos, 5:21–23. Lev., 23:1–4, 37, 44. That yd[wm (moadi) in Lev., 23:2, means “my moad,” cf. LXX, loc. cit., “eJortaiv mou.” Moad is used here as a collective noun, like Torah (Law) when referring to a body of torath (laws). 90 NCE, 5, p. 595. 91 NCE, 5, p. 599. 92 NBD, pp. 245f. 86 87 88 89

What are Phasekh and Unleavened Bread?

153

The Christian Eucharist ceremony takes its lead from the Last Supper, where the messiah gave a blessing over the unleavened bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples. He then uttered the words, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken on behalf of you; do this in remembrance of me.”93 After dividing the bread, Yahushua took a cup of wine (though some would argue that it was only grape juice) and eujcaristhvsa~ (eucharistesas; gave thanks). He then offered his disciples the wine to share, saying, “Drink all of it.” He defined the cup of wine by saying, “This is my blood, that of the New Covenant, which is poured out concerning many,” and “as often as you drink, do this for the remembrance of me.”94 The mystery of the Eucharist, which was first revealed at the Last Supper, soon expanded from its original function as a part of the Phasekh supper and within a few decades was attached to regular services as well. Accordingly, every time that the Eucharist was offered, it became a type of the blessing and thanks given by Yahushua at his last Phasekh (i.e., the Last Supper before his death). In conjunction with this blessing and the giving of thanks, the sharing of bread and wine is performed in remembrance of the messiah’s death, which was required so that the New Covenant could be established. Even more to the issue at hand, the symbolism of these rites is directly connected with Phasekh, for the messiah was himself the Phasekh lamb that has been sacrificed for us.95 At Communion (fellowship, sharing), bread and wine are used to recall the unleavened bread and wine taken during the Last Supper.96 The Last Supper was the Phasekh meal eaten by Yahushua and his disciples just prior to the messiah being delivered up to the chief priests and subsequently suffering execution. This Eucharist ceremony is based upon a statement given by the apostle Saul to the Corinthians recounting the words of the messiah the night of his Last Supper, when he told his disciples to share in the bread and wine.97 The idea of Communion has degenerated to a point where the original concept of simulating Phasekh has now almost totally been forgotten. In many churches communion is taken once a week, in some cases daily, as well as on special occasions. The idea of partaking of the bread and wine every week, and not just during the time of Phasekh, arose because of a loose interpretation of 1 Corinthians, 11:26, which reads, “For as often as you may eat this bread, and may drink this cup, the death of the sovereign you announce until he has come.” Because Saul made no specific command concerning the frequency of the reception of this bread and wine, many found in the term “often” an implication of a weekly service, if not daily.98 As a result, instead of understanding this passage to mean that every time you observe the festival of Phasekh, and thereby partake of the unleavened 93 94 95 96 97 98

1 Cor., 11:23f; Luke, 22:19; Matt., 26:26; Mark, 14:22. Matt., 26:27f; Mark, 14:23f; Luke, 22:20; 1 Cor., 11:25. 1 Cor., 5:6–8; cf., above n. 38. NCE, 4, pp. 37–41. 1 Cor., 11:25–27; cf., Matt., 26:26–30; Mark, 14:22–26; Luke, 22:19–20; NCE, 5, p. 595. NCE, 4, pp. 37f.

154

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

bread and wine, you announce the death of the messiah, many Christian assemblies derived the meaning that they can partake of the bread and wine anytime they wish and announce the same purpose. As we shall demonstrate with the remainder of our study, this interpretation is not in holding with the intent of the Scriptures.

Conclusion The Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread is not properly a Jewish festival. Neither is it Easter nor the Eucharist at Communion. Rather, it is a khag belonging to Yahweh, given to us by a tqj (khoquth; statute) from Yahweh, commanding us to celebrate it during its appointed time of the year. While the Israelites were in Egypt, and later under the Torah (Law), its celebration was meant to be a foreshadowing of coming events, including the death and resurrection of the messiah. Since the death and resurrection of the messiah, the questions now stand, “Are we to continue this annual celebration or is it a relic of the past?” and, “If we are to continue this practice, how and when do we correctly observe it?” Examining the evidence which decides these issues is the purpose of our study.

Chapter X

The Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost)

n important part of the celebration of Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread was the day on which the high priest waved the rm[ (omer) of freshly cut grain in front of the alter of Yahweh as an offering. This event occurred on the first day of the 50-day count to the tw[bç gj (Khag Shabuath; Festival of Weeks). As a result, for the Jews, and after them the Christians, the events associated with the 50 days of the Festival of Weeks (also called Pentecost) were regarded as an important facet of the Phasekh celebration. The divergent opinions over exactly which day the omer wave offering took place proved to be the source of much debate among the various Jewish religious factions. For this reason, no discussion of the Phasekh and seven days of unleavened bread can be complete without addressing the issues surrounding the day of the omer wave offering, the 50-day period, and celebration of the Khag of Shabuath (Festival of Weeks; Pentecost). In our present chapter we shall examine the scriptural commands and statutes regarding Pentecost. This investigation will allow us later on to examine the different interpretations used by the various Jewish and Christian schools and, in our following volume, analyze their merits.

Pentecost

This 50-day period is in Hebrew called μwy μyçmh (ha-massim yom; the 50 days),1 a phrase translated into Greek as penthvkonta hJmevra~ (pentekonta hemeras; the 50 days).2 The thanksgiving harvest festival of the 50th day, meanwhile, is referred to as the tw[bçh gj (Khag ha-Shabuath; Festival of the Weeks),3 Aramaic ay[wbçd agj (Khagga di-Shebuaya), because one must count seven full weeks (49 days) from waving the omer offering.4 The next day after the seventh week (i.e., the 50th day) is a sacred convocation, a high Sabbath, and a festival.5 It is also called the Festival of Harvest and the Festival of Firstfruits.6 The khag of the 50th day, accordingly, is in Greek named penthkosth; (pentecoste), meaning “50th,”7

Lev., 23:16. LXX Lev., 23:16. Deut., 16:16; 2 Chron., 8:13; cf., Exod., 34:22, t[bç gj; Deut., 16:10, tw[bç gj. B. Men., 65a. Lev., 23:15–21; Num., 28:6; Deut., 16:9. Exod., 23:16; Num., 28:26. The Greek word penthkostov~ (pentecostos) means “fiftieth” and in the NT it is used to refer to “the fiftieth day” of the Festival of Weeks (GEL, p. 620; SEC, Gk. #4005). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

155

156

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

“Pentecost” in English, taking “its name from the number of the intervening days.”8 The Jewish priest Josephus, for example, on several occasions calls this festival “Pentecost (penthkosth; ; pentecoste),”9 as does Philo,10 Tobit,11 and 2 Maccabees.12 The Khag of Weeks is listed as one of Yahweh’s three moadim (appointed times) to be celebrated during the year.13 It is specifically referred to in the Torah as a “μl[ tqj (khoquth olam; world-age lasting statute).”14 The first written command to observe the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost) is found in the marriage covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai.15 The fact that it is mentioned with no explanation as to how one was to celebrate it points to the fact that its tenets were already well-established. As we have already demonstrated with our previous discussion of the seven days of unleavened bread, the original covenant at Mount Sinai was a written codification of the commandments and age-lasting statutes already required in the verbal agreement of the Abrahamic Covenants.16 In support of this pre-Exodus requirement, the ancient Jewish book of Jubilees claims that not only did Isaak, Ishmael, and their father Abraham celebrate this festival but so did Noah and his sons before them and Jacob after them.17 Even present-day scholars acknowledge that the Festival of Weeks bears the signs of a pre-Exodus agricultural festival.18

Three Aspects Under the handwritten Torah there are three aspects to this important scriptural festival: • The waving of an omer offering on the first day. • The festal period lasting 50 days. • The high Sabbath, sacred convocation, and wave offering on the 50th and last day. Both the first and last day of these 50 days are marked by a hpwnt (tenuphah; consecrated wave offering).19 The difference between the two wave offerings is that the first consisted of an omer of freshly cut grain while the last Jos., Wars, 2:3:1. Jos., Wars, 1:13:3, 6:5:3, Antiq., 3:10:6, 13:8:4, 14:13:4, 17:10:2. Philo, Cont., 8 §21, Decal., 30 §160, Spec., 2:30 §176. Tob., 2:1. 2 Macc., 12:31f. 2 Chron., 8:13; Lev., 23:1–4, 9–21. Lev., 23:21; cf., Deut., 4:12–14; Mal., 4:4. Jer., 5:24, also indicates that this period is by statute. Jeremiah tells us that Yahweh keeps for us “the twqj (khoquth; statute) of the weeks of the harvest.” 15 Exod., 23:14–17, being part of the covenant found in Exod., 20:1–23:32. 16 See above Chaps. IV, VI, VIII. 17 Jub., 6:17–22, 16:13, 22:1–4, 44:1–4. 18 E.g. NCE, 2, p. 105. 19 Lev., 23:15, 17. The Hebrew word hpwnt (tenuphah) means, “a brandishing (in threat); by impl. tumult; spec. the official undulation of sacrificial offerings:—offering, shaking, wave (offering)” (SEC, Heb. #8573); “waving, shaking . . . bread for consecration (in wave-offering)” (CHAL, p. 392). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

The Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost)

157

was represented by two loaves of freshly baked bread, each loaf made with two-tenth parts of an ephah of leavened flour.20 Day of the Omer Wave Offering Under the Torah, on the first day of the 50 days an rm[ (omer), or “sheaf,” wave offering is required. An rm[ (omer) is a dry measure or gathering of “newly cut grain,”21 as in “a heap.”22 An omer equals about four pints and is calculated as one-tenth of a Hebrew ephah.23 This wave offering of newly cut grain is a gift to Yahweh of the firstfruits of the land from each year’s harvest. The offering occurs in the spring and is directly connected with the Promised Land. This offering is described in detail by the book of Leviticus. When you come into the land (of Promise) which I am giving to you, and have reaped its harvest, and have brought in this omer, the beginning of your harvest, to the priest, then he shall wave this omer before Yahweh for your acceptance. On the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.24 As we shall see, what is meant by the phrase “on the day after the Sabbath” proves to be a point of serious contention among the various sects of Judaism. Connected with the omer wave offering was also a burnt offering of a perfect lamb as well as a food and drink offering.25 Under the guidance of this statute, no one could harvest or eat any of the new year’s crop until the offering had been made by the high priest at the altar. And you shall not eat bread, and roasted grain, and new grain until the self-same day; this until you have brought the offering of your eloahi. It is an olam statute for your generations in all your dwellings.26 Philo, the first century C.E. Alexandrian Jewish priest who belonged to the Pharisee sect, had a great deal to say about the omer wave offering. To begin with, he uses the Greek term eJorth;n (heorten; festival) to describe the type of day for this offering. We must keep in mind that the Greek term eJorth;n (heorten) has a much broader connotation than the Hebrew term khag (festival).27 It Lev., 23:10, 15, 17; Deut., 16:9. Also see below n. 23. CHAL, p. 277, “(newly) cut ears of grain (not sheaves; the stalks were cut off right under the ears.” 22 SEC, Heb. #6014, 6016. 23 That an omer is about four pints, see NBD, p. 1323. One omer equals one-tenth of an ephah (Exod., 16:36). One-tenth portion of flour also equals one-tenth of an ephah (Num., 28:5). Therefore, one-tenth portion of flour equals one-tenth of an ephah. The two-tenths portion of flour in Lev., 23:17, as a result, equals two omer portions. 24 Lev., 23:9–11. 25 Lev., 23:12f. 26 Lev., 23:14. 27 Scriptures deal with three khag periods (Exod., 23:14–17, 34:18–23; Deut., 16:16; 2 Chron., 8:13): First, “the Phasekh shall be to you a khag of seven days” (Ezek., 45:21); the same period is at other times defined as keeping “the Khag of Unleavened Bread seven days”(2 Chron., 30:21; Ezra, 6:22). Second, there is the 50th day called the “Khag of Weeks” (Pentecost) (Deut., 16:9f, cf., 2 Chron., 8:13, and Lev., 23:15–21), though the entire 50-day period is often treated as an observance. 20 21

158

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

includes any celebration, banquet, sacrifice, or time of offering.28 Yet Scriptures never specifically refer to the day of the omer wave offering as a khag, sacred convocation, or high Sabbath. Philo, on the other hand, includes under his definition of an heorten every day, the Sabbath day, and the day of the new moon.29 Therefore, for Philo’s purpose, a “eJorth;n (heorten; festival)” simply means a special observance. Philo continues by noting that the fifth of the ten Jewish eJortaiv (heortai; festivals) or special observations “is the offering of the first ears, the sacred dravgma (dragma; handful),”30 dragma being his Greek translation of the Hebrew word omer.31 In another place, he refers to this day as a special heorten for the “hand-grip of corn.”32 Philo adds definition for dating this event when he writes that, “within the festival (of Unleavened Bread),” which he calls a “springtime festival,”33 there is “another eJorth/` (heorte; festival).” He then describes the omer wave offering in the following way: This (festival) is called the dravgma (dragma; Handful), a name given to it from the ceremony which consists And third, “the Khag of Tabernacles, seven days” (Lev., 23:34, 39, 41; Num., 29:12; Deut., 16:13, 31:10, cf., Neh., 7:73–8:18; 1 Kings, 8:2, 65, cf., 2 Chron., 5:3, 87:8f; Neh., 8:18). The only festival period that is specifically subdivided into individual khagi by the Torah is the seven-day Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread. On these occasions, the Phasekh of the 14th is called “a khag” (Exod., 12:14, 34:6) and the 15th, the first day of the remaining seven days, is made to be “a khag” (Num., 28:17; Lev., 23:6). The seventh and last day of the seven days of eating unleavened bread is also individually called “a khag to Yahweh” (Exod., 13:6). By implication, these details show that every day of that seven-day festival is a khag. We must also be careful to notice that in the often disputed verses found in Num., 28:17, and Lev., 23:6, it does not reference the 15th as the beginning of “a khag of seven days,” as often assumed and as we find, for example, with the Khag of Tabernacles (e.g. Lev., 23:34, 39, 41; Num., 29:12; Deut., 16:13). The phrasing used in these passages is importantly different. What they actually provide is a mere closing statement about the entire period of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread, i.e., “you shall eat unleavened bread seven days.” This phrasing was deliberate, for both passages begin with the statement that Phasekh was on the 14th (Lev., 23:5; Num., 28:16), and on the 14th one was required to eat unleavened bread (Exod., 12:18). The late Samaritans give as the seven moadim the Phasekh, the seventh day of unleavened bread, the Festival of Weeks, the Memorial of blowing Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, the Festival of Tabernacles, and the eighth day following the seven-day Festival of Tabernacles (SHDL, pp. 165–168, 178; BCal, p. 6). Philo, meanwhile, gives ten eJortaiv (heortai; festivals): each day, each Sabbath, each new moon, Phasekh, the Handful wave offering, the Festival of Weeks, the sacred first day of the seventh moon, the fast of the tenth day of the seventh moon, and the Festival of Booths (Philo, Spec., 2:11). The inclusion of every day, the Sabbath day, and day of the new moons by Philo’s use of the term eJorth;n (heorten) proves that he goes well beyond the idea of a khag. 28 The Greek word eJorth;n (heorten) means “a feast or festival, holiday” but in general is used to mean “holiday-making, amusement, pastime” (GEL, p. 277). For example, the “family jbz (zebakh; slaughter or sacrifice)” used by Jonathan as an excuse for David’s absence at King Saul’s dinner on the second day of the month (1 Sam., 20:24–29, esp. v. 29) is in the Greek text of the LXX also literally translated as the “family qusiva (thusia; sacrifice).” Yet in the Greek works of Josephus, more oriented toward a Greek speaking, pagan audience, the same thought is referred to as an eJorth;n (heorten; festival) (Jos., Antiq., 6:11:9). 29 Philo, Spec., 2:11. For his discussion of each of these celebrations see Philo, Spec., 2:12–14, every day, 2:15–16, the weekly Sabbath day, 2:26, the new moons. 30 Philo, Spec., 2:11 §41. 31 The Greek term drav g ma (dragma) means, “as much as one can grasp, a handful, truss of corn . . . uncut corn” (GEL, p. 211). The LXX also uses dravgma (dragma) as a translation of the Hebrew term omer (e.g. LXX Lev., 23:12, 15). 32 Philo, Som., 2:11 §75. 33 Philo, Spec., 2:28 §160.

The Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost)

159

in bringing it to the altar as a firstfruit, both of the land which has been given to the nation to dwell in and of the whole earth, so that it serves that purpose both to the nation in particular and for the whole human family in general.34 Philo remarks that in the first century C.E. the “handful (= omer) thus offered was of barley.” He continues: The Torah ordained that the firstfruit offerings should be made of barley, a species of grain regarded as holding the second place in value as food. For wheat holds the first place and as the firstfruit of this has greater distinction, the Torah postponed it to a more suitable season in the future.35 As we shall see below, wheat, holding the first place in value as food, was the primary firstfruit offering for the last day of the 50-day festival; wheat being a New Testament symbol for the righteous who will be harvested by Yahweh.36 Philo further notes that this omer cereal offering can only come from the sacred land (i.e., the Promised Land), and must be a gift fit for the deity alone.37 He then adds what he believed to be the higher meaning of this offering. While defining the symbolism of these “firstfruits of your reaping,” he writes that they are “not of the land but of ourselves, that we may mow and reap ourselves, by consecrating every nourishing, excellent and worthy growth.”38 The first century Pharisee and Jewish priest Josephus also describes the grain used in his day as barley and the time of this offering as during the days of unleavened bread. At that time, he writes: . . . our people partake of the crops which they have reaped and which have not been touched until then, and esteeming it right first to do homage to the deity, to whom they owe the abundance of these gifts, they offer to him the firstfruits of the barley in the following wise. After parching and crushing the little sheaf of ears and purifying the barley for grinding, they bring to the altar an assarona (= omer)39 for the deity, and, having flung a handful thereof on the altar they 34 Philo, Spec., 2:29 §162. Philo further argues that this sacrifice was required only from the Israelites living on the sacred land because “the nation of Judah is to the whole inhabited world what a priest is to the State” (Philo, Spec., 2:29 §163). 35 Philo, Spec., 2:29 §175. 36 Matt., 3:11–22; Luke, 3:15–17. Also see Matt., 13:24–30, 36–41, esp. v. 25, 29, 30; and Luke, 22:31f. 37 Philo, Som., 2:11 §76. 38 Philo, Som., 2:11 §77. 39 Jos., Antiq., 3:1:6, with MT Exod., 16:16; and Jos., Antiq., 3:9:4, with MT Num., 15:4, and MT Exod., 16:36. An assarona = an omer = one-tenth part of an ephah.

160

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh leave the rest for the use of the priests. Thereafter all are permitted, publicly or individually, to begin to harvest.40

The 50 Days Scriptures provide a specific method for counting the 50 days for the Festival of Weeks. We find this method first mentioned in the book of Leviticus. And you shall number for yourself from the day after the Sabbath, from the day you bring in the omer of the wave offering, they shall be seven complete Sabbaths, until the day after the seventh Sabbath. You shall number 50 days.41 Similarly, the book of Deuteronomy states: You shall number for yourself seven weeks. From the sickle beginning to cut on the hmq (qamah; growing stalks of grain)42 you shall begin to number seven weeks.43 Josephus comments on these instructions: When the seventh week following this sacrifice has elapsed—these are the 49 days of the “Weeks” . . .44 Philo, meanwhile, writes: The Festival of the Handful, which has all these grounds of precedence (privileges), indicated in the Torah, is also in fact anticipatory of another greater festival. For it is from it that the day of Pentecost is reckoned, by counting seven sevens, which are then crowned with the sacred number by the monad, which is an incorporeal image of the deity, who it resembles because it also stands alone.45 Philo considered seven the number of completion and full perfection.46 Seven sevens, accordingly, were an expression of complete perfection, crowned with the 50th day.47 Jos., Antiq., 3:10:5. Lev., 23:15–16. The Hebrew term hmq (qamah) means, “something that rises, i.e. a stalk of grain” (SEC, Heb. #7054); “standing grain” (CHAL, p. 319). 43 Deut., 16:9. 44 Jos., Antiq., 3:10:6. 45 Philo, Spec., 2:30 §176f. 46 Philo, Spec., 2:15 §58. 47 For example, Philo writes of these 50 days, “by counting seven sevens, which are then CROWNED with the sacred number by the monad” (Philo, Spec., 2:30 §176f). Similarly, he sees the eighth day after the seven days of the Festival of Tabernacles as a day that crowns (Philo, Spec., 2:33 §211). 40 41 42

The Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost)

161

Just how one is to utilize the count of seven complete Sabbaths became a matter of much dispute among the various Jewish factions. We shall examine their different approaches in detail in a later chapter. The 50th Day The 50th and last day of the celebration was the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost). It was the greatest day of the 50-day period, being designated a high Sabbath and sacred convocation. Leviticus, for example, states: And you shall make a proclamation on this same day, a sacred yarqm (miqrai; gatherings for reading, convocation) it is to you. You shall not do any laborious work. It is a olam statute in all your dwellings in your generations.48 Similarly, Numbers states: And on the day of the firstfruits, as you offer a new food offering to Yahweh, in your weeks a sacred yarqm (miqrai; gatherings for reading, convocation) shall be for you, you shall not do any laborious work.49 The 50th day was also a khag. In Exodus the command was given to observe it as the “Khag of the harvest, the firstfruits of your labor of what you sow in the field.”50 Likewise, Deuteronomy states: And you shall perform the Khag of Weeks to Yahweh your eloahi, according to the measure of the free-will offering of your hand, which you shall give, accordingly as Yahweh your eloahi has blessed you.51 Under the Torah, another type of hpwnt (tenuphah; consecrated wave offering) of food, along with other sacrifices, was made. The book of Exodus specifically names wheat as the firstfruits. And you shall observe for yourself the Khag of Weeks, the firstfruits of the wheat harvest.52 The ceremony is described in Leviticus: And you shall bring near a new food offering to Yahweh; you shall bring in bread out of your dwellings for a wave offering, two (loaves); they shall be of two-tenth parts of flour; they shall be baked with leavening, firstfruits to Yahweh.53 48 49 50 51 52 53

Lev., 23:21. Num., 28:26. Exod., 23:16. Deut., 16:10. Exod., 34:22. Lev., 23:16f.

162

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Along with these two loaves were provided seven perfect year-old lambs, one bullock, and two rams for burnt offerings, with a food offering, a drink offering, and a fire offering of sweet fragrances to Yahweh.54 Besides these, there was one he-goat for a sin offering and two one-year-old lambs for a peace offering.55 The priest was also required to wave these offerings.56 The Pharisee priest named Philo labels “the Festival of Sevens or Weeks” as the seventh of his ten eJortaiv (heortai; festivals) or observances of the Jews, seven for him being the perfect number.57 He describes this festival as follows: The festival which is held when the number 50 is reached has acquired the title of “first-products.” On it is the custom to bring two leavened loaves of wheaten bread for a sample offering of that kind of grain as the best form of food. One explanation of the name, “Festival of First-products,” is that the first produce of the young wheat and the earliest fruit to appear is brought as a sample offering before the year’s harvest comes to be used by men.58 Philo notes that the offering takes the form of loaves instead of wheaten meal.59 Wheat is used because all other crops are second in ranking as food.60 The offering itself was given as a thanksgiving.61 Josephus, meanwhile, writes: Pentecost—thus the Jews call a festival which occurs seven weeks after (Phasekh), and takes its name from the number of intervening days.62 He describes the festival as follows: When the seventh week following this sacrifice has elapsed—these are the 49 days of the “Weeks”—on the Pentecost day, which the Hebrews call “Asartha, (Closing Assembly),”63 the word denoting “50th,” they present to the deity bread of two assarons (omer Lev., 23:18. Lev., 23:19. Lev., 23:20. Philo, Spec., 2:11 §41. Philo, Spec., 2:30 §179. Philo, Spec., 2:30 §186. Philo, Spec., 2:30 §181. Philo, Spec., 2:30 §182. Jos., Wars, 2:3:1. The Greek name ajsarqa; (Asartha) is from the Aramaic form atrx[ (Atsartha) (B. Pes., 42b) a form of the Hebrew name trx[ (Atsarth) (Hag., 2:4) meaning, “an assembly, espec. on a festival or holiday” (SEC, Heb. #6116), “festive assembly” (CHAL, pp. 281f). It is derived from the word rx[ (atsar), “to inclose; by anal. to hold back; also to maintain, rule, assemble” (SEC, Heb. #6113). J. J. B. Segal argues that an atsarth is “a formal reunion at the shrine,” serving as a tempus clausum or ending assembly that closes or places a seal on the festival period (THP, pp. 208–213). Thackeray refers to it as “closing (festival)” (Thackeray, Jos., iv, p. 439, n. d), as does JE, 9, p. 592. This concept also agrees with Philo’s interpretation that the eighth day of the Festival of Tabernacles and the 50th day of the Festival of Weeks act as a “crown” on those festivals (Philo, 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

The Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost)

163

portions)64 of flour of wheat made with leaven and, as a sacrifice, two lambs. These are by ordinance to be offered to the deity, but are made up into a repast for the priests, and it is not permitted to leave any portion of them over for the next day.65 The name ajsarqa; (Asartha), Hebrew trx[ (Atsarth; Closing Assembly), is used to describe the day ending a festival period. For example, the last day of the seven days of unleavened bread as well as the last day of the Festival of Tabernacles are both referred to as an Atsarth.66

Other Requirements There were three other requirements attached to the Festival of Weeks: (1) appearing and being worthy, (2) rejoicing, and (3) remembering. • The first requirement was that all males should appear before Yahweh at the festival.67 The Festival of Weeks, therefore, was under the Torah of Moses an annual pilgrimage festival to the Tabernacle (Temple) of Yahweh. When the males appeared they were not to be “μqyr (ryqam; unworthy).”68 Each was to provide a gift from his own hand, “according to the blessing of Yahweh your eloahi which he has given to you.”69 • The second requirement was to make the Festival of Weeks a time of rejoicing for everyone: And you shall REJOICE before Yahweh your eloahi, you and your son, and your daughter, and your male servant and your female servant, and the Levite who is inside your gates, and the resident alien, and the orphan and the widow who are in your midst, in the place which Yahweh your eloahi shall choose to cause his name there to dwell.70 • Third, the Israelites were to “remember” during this festival that their families had once been slaves in Egypt.71 The connection with their Spec., 2:30 §176f, 2:33 §211). The Hebrew name trx[ (Atsarth) is often utilized as a substitute for “Weeks” by the Talmudists in reference to this festival (JE, 9, pp. 592, 593). 64 One assarona = one omer = one-tenth part of an ephah, see above ns. 23 & 39. Therefore, two assarons of flour equal two omer portions. 65 Jos., Antiq., 3:10:6. 66 Deut., 16:8; Lev., 23:36. 67 Deut., 16:16f. A requirement for all three festivals (cf., Exod., 23:14–17, 34:20, 23). 68 The Hebrew term μqyr (ryqam) means, “emptily; fig. (obj.) ineffectually, (subj.) undeservedly” (SEC, Heb. #7387). With this understanding in mind for all three festivals (Deut., 16:16; Exod., 23:14-17, 34:20–23), Saul warns Christians not to drink the cup or eat the bread of Phasekh “unworthily,” and those that did shall be “guilty of the body and blood of the sovereign” and a cause of “judgment to himself” (1 Cor., 11:26–29). 69 Herein is established the principle that the more Yahweh gives to you the more that is required from you (Luke, 12:48). 70 Deut., 16:11. 71 Deut., 16:12. In Scriptures, Egypt is used as a parable for our present world. The ultimate slavery is being a bondman to sin (John, 8:34–36) and being in bondage to fear (Rom., 8:15), especially the fear of death (Heb., 2:15), and being in bondage of corruption (Rom., 8:21) and to

164

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh former status as slaves in Egypt, and the accompanying knowledge that Yahweh had subsequently gained their freedom for them, once more speaks of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and couples the Festival of Weeks to it. The 50 days, as we shall demonstrate in a later chapter,72 represent the period during which the Israelites were led out of Egypt by Yahweh until they had reached Mount Sinai, at which time they were given the Torah of Moses and agreed to the Old Covenant.73

Dependent on Phasekh The date for the Festival of Weeks is totally dependent upon the date for the omer wave offering. At the same time, the omer wave offering is totally dependent upon the timing of Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread. This circumstance makes the 50 days of the Festival of Weeks an integral and inseparable part of the week of Phasekh. What is revealed, as J. B. Segal stresses, is that Pentecost is “subordinate to” and an “appendage of” the Festival of Phasekh.74 J. Van Goudoever similarly comments, “the Feast of Weeks is not an independent festival, but depends upon the Passover season.”75 In the Jewish work entitled Pesikta, Pentecost is referred to as the “trx[ (Atsarth; Closing Assembly) of Phasekh.”76 The connection between Phasekh and Pentecost is demonstrated in the following ways: • First, these two festivals and their high Sabbaths are joined together as part of the celebrations coming after “the return of the year,” i.e., beginning with the first moon, the month of Abib, in the first half of the year.77 The Festival of Tabernacles and the remaining high Sabbaths, on the other hand, all come in the seventh moon, being the month of Tishri, at the “going out of the year”—i.e., in the second half of the year.78 • Second, in the various lists of the festivals, the Festival of Weeks is rendered second in time after the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread.79 One passage in Exodus, to demonstrate, follows a regulation the elements of the world (Gal., 4:3). According to Scriptures, the truth from Yahweh’s word will set you free (John, 8:31f). Freedom is to be a part of the New Covenant (Gal., 5:1, cf., 4:21–30) and being set free from sin, becoming righteous (justified), and receiving eternal life (Rom., 6:18–23, cf., 6:6–12). The parable of finding freedom from slavery in Egypt, therefore, is the escape from the present world with its sin, corruption, fear, and death and, in turn, the finding of freedom by attaining eternal life without sin. 72 See below Chap. XVI, pp. 256ff. 73 NBD, p. 964; NCE, 11, p. 109; BCal, pp. 131, 139–144, 186–190; ACC, 2, p. 1160; JE, 9, p. 592. 74 THP, p. 129, “it [the Festival of Weeks] occurs at a fixed interval of time after the Passover and it is subordinate to it”; pp. 180, 235, “it is an appendage to the Passover”; p. 198, ”no more than an appendage of the Passover; and so it remained throughout its history in normative Israelite religion.” 75 BCal, p. 4. 76 Pesik., 30:193. 77 1 Kings, 20:26; 2 Chron., 36:10; cf., Exod., 12:2, 13:4, 23:15, 34:18; Deut., 16:1. And see NBD, p. 178. The Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Weeks properly fall between the vernal equinox and the summer solstice in the first quarter of the year. 78 E.g., Exod., 23:16. These festivals are the Day of Trumpets on Tishri 1, the Day of Atonement on Tishri 10, the Festival of Tabernacles from Tishri 15 to 21, and the Last Great Day on Tishri 22 (see Lev., 23:23–43). 79 Exod., 23:14–17, 34:18–22; Lev., 23:1–44; Num., 28:11–29:39; Deut., 16:1–15; 2 Chron., 8:13.

The Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost)

165

dealing with the Phasekh meal with a command to bring the first of the firstfruits to the house of Yahweh.80 Yet in the detailed explanation found in Leviticus 23, after describing Phasekh and the seven days of eating unleavened bread, and unlike the method used for all of the other khagi and high Sabbath days mentioned in that same chapter, there is no statement pinpointing exactly when to begin the seven weeks to Pentecost. All that is said is that the omer wave offering shall be provided from ”the beginning of your harvest” and waved by the priest “on the day after the Sabbath.”81 When one adds to this report the statement that no one was to eat from the new year’s crop until after the omer was waved before the altar of Yahweh,82 there can be little doubt that the beginning crop of the year that was indicated was the spring barley corn.83 The Sabbath used as a basis for this counting, on the other hand, is not specifically identified or dated. • Third, definition is added to our problem from the story found in the book of Joshua, which tells of the Israelite invasion of the land of Kanaan by Joshua the son of Nun. The omer wave offering was not commanded to begin until the Israelites entered the land of Kanaan (the Promised Land).84 Up until that time they had for 40 years been dwelling in the wilderness and consuming manna, a “bread from heaven” provided to them by Yahweh.85 The passage in question from Joshua reports the conversion from manna to grain breads just after the Israelites crossed the Jordan river and invaded the land of Kanaan. These events occurred over the first three days of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread. Joshua reports: Abib 14. “And the sons of Israel camped at Gilgal and they prepared the Phasekh on the 14th day of the moon at arab (twilight), on the plains of Jericho.”86 Abib 15. “And they ate from the rwb[ (abur; stored grain)87 of the land trjmm (ma-mokhorath; from the Exod., 34:25f. Lev., 23:10f. Lev., 23:14. Exod., 34:26, similarly states, “You shall bring the first of the firstfruits of your ground to the house of Yahweh your eloahi.” 83 As stated by Jos., Antiq., 3:10:5; Philo, Spec., 2:29 §175. 84 Lev., 23:9f. 85 Exod., 16:4–35; Num., 11:4–9; Deut., 8:1–18; Josh., 5:10–12; Neh., 9:20f; Ps., 78:21–25; John, 6:31–58. 86 Josh., 5:10. 87 The early Hebrew word rwb[ (abur), when used for grain, is only found in Scriptures at Josh., 5:11 and 12. It has been popular in recent decades to dismiss the early rendering of rwb[ (abur) as “old corn” and to interpret it by the much later usage found among the Pharisees and in the Aramaic language as “produce” in general (e.g. ADB, 3, p. 740). This has been a mistake. The word was correctly understood by earlier translators to mean, “passed, i.e. kept over; used only of stored grain:—old corn.” (SEC, Heb. #5669), “Old corn or produce” (YAC, p. 203); SRB and KJV, “old corn.” The term rwb[ (abur) is a form of rb[ (abur), meaning, “passed on . . . passed away . . . passed a limit . . . passed away, disappeared” (HEL, pp. 185f), “prop. crossed, i.e. (abstr.) transit . . . to cross over” (SEC, Heb., #5668, 5674), and many times expresses the idea to “pass through or by” 80 81 82

166

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh day after)88 the Phasekh, unleavened bread and roasted grain on this same day.”89 Abib 16. “And the manna ceased trjmm (ma-mokhorath; from the day after) they had eaten from rwb[ (abur; stored grain) of the land; and there was no more manna to the sons of Israel, but they ate from the tawbt (tebuath; produce)90 of the land of Kanaan in that year.”91

The above evidence proves that the “stored grain,” that is, grain stored over from the previous year’s crop,92 was consumed by the Israelites on Abib 14 and 15. On the other hand, since the sons of Israel began to eat “from the tawbt (tebuath; produce) of the land” grown “in that year” on the 16th of Abib, it demonstrates that the omer wave offering had been made on that same date. The very fact that the manna, symbolic of the old bread, ceased on the (cf., Num., 22:26; Josh., 4:1, 11; 2 Sam., 15:24, 17:16; Prov., 10:25; Lam., 3:44; Amos, 7:8, 8:2; Nah., 1:15). It is clear, therefore, that the two references in Josh., 5:11f, were to the previous year’s crop that had passed over into the next year. That this grain was from the previous year’s crop is further indicated by the statement in Josh., 5:12, which states that, after the manna had ceased, “they ate tawbtm (ma-tebuath; from the produce) of the land of Kanaan in that year.” Josephus notes that, at the time they overthrew the city of Jericho, “they reaped the corn of the Kanaanites, now at its prime, and took any other booty they could. For it was also at that time that the supply of manna ceased which had served them for 40 years” (Jos., Antiq., 5:1:4). Those who accept the Pharisaic view, on the other hand, translate and understand the term rwb[ (abur) from Josh., 5:11f, by the much later Aramaic sense of their form arwb[ (abura). In this form it generally means the “produce of the ground” or “grain,” including grain coming directly out of the field (HEL, p. 186; CHAL, p. 262). The LXX, for example, uses the rather innocuous term sivtou (sitou), meaning “corn, grain, comprehending both wheat (purov~) and barley (kriqhv),” either “at its ripening” or “public distribution of corn in Rome” (GEL, p. 730; GEL, 1968, p. 1602). Only in the latter sense does it imply that it came from storage. The Greek term sivtou (sitou), meanwhile, is also used to translate such sundry terms as ˆgd (dagan; grain) (Gen., 27:28, 37; Num., 18:12, 27; Deut., 7:13, 12:17, 14:23, 18:4); rbç (sheber; kernels of grain) (Gen., 42:26, 43:2, 44:2); and hfj (khittah; wheat) (Judg., 6:11; 1 Chron., 21:23; 2 Chron., 2:10), thereby diluting the meaning behind rwb[ (abur). This broader understanding is inappropriate. If the reference in Joshua had been to grain standing in the field, the word hmq (qamah; standing grain) would have been used. hmq (qamah) means, “standing corn, especially in the ear” (HEL, p. 229); “something that rises, i.e. a stalk of grain:—(standing) corn, grownup, stalk” (SEC, Heb. #7054); “standing grain” (CHAL, p. 319). In fact, the word hmq (qamah) is used in Deut., 16:9, as a direct reference to the cutting of the omer wave offering. Also the term ˆgd (dagan; grain) could have been used. But the ancient word rwb[ (abur) holds a much more specific meaning, one that goes beyond the idea of grain in general. Rather, it refers to grain that has “passed by” the year in which it was grown, therefore “stored or old grain.” 88 The Hebrew term trjmm (ma-mokhorath), the initial m (ma), a form of ˆm (min), meaning, “from . . . from out of . . . of . . . by . . . because of . . . besides . . . among” (HEL, pp. 137, 147), and trjm (mokhorath) meaning, “the morrow or (adv.) tomorrow:—morrow, next day” (SEC, Heb. #4283); “the following day . . . adv. on the next day” (CHAL, p. 191); “to-morrow . . . tbçh trjmm the day after the sabbath” (HEL, p. 143). trjm (mokhorath) is translated in the LXX as ejpauvrion (epaurion) (CS, 1, p. 508), which also means, “on the next day” (ILT, Lex., p. 38), “occurring on the succeeding day, i.e. . . . to-morrow:—day following, morrow, next day (after)” (SEC, Gk. #1887), “on the morrow” (GEL, 1968, p. 612). That trjmm (ma-mokhorath) means “the day after” is proven beyond any doubt by the parallelism found in 2 Sam., 11:12f, and by the context of Lev., 7:15–18, 19:5–7. 89 Josh., 5:11 90 The term tawbt (tebuath) means, “income, i.e. produce (lit. or fig.):—fruit, gain, increase, revenue” (SEC, Heb. #8393); “produce, yield” (CHAL, p. 386). 91 Josh., 5:12. 92 See above n. 87.

The Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost)

167

16th verifies that it was on this day in that particular year that the omer wave offering took place and the new grain from the field began to be harvested and eaten. Yet even if one were to translate rwb[ (abur) as “produce” in general, as has been popular,93 thereby placing the omer wave offering on the 15th, one important piece of evidence is created: the omer wave offering was made after the Phasekh of the 14th and within the seven days of unleavened bread. The Sabbath after which the omer of the firstfruits of the beginning harvest was to be waved, therefore, cannot be the first Sabbath day of a new year, for by the 14th of Abib there had already been at least two weekly Sabbaths since the new year began. Whether one uses the Aristocratic method, which counts the 14th as the Phasekh high Sabbath, or the Hasidic method, which makes the 15th the Phasekh high Sabbath, we can be sure of one more thing: the 50-day count to Pentecost must begin sometime after the Phasekh of the 14th and after a Sabbath ending within the seven days of unleavened bread. As a result, as J. Van Goudoever notes, “in Israelite tradition there is a close relation between the keeping of the Sabbath and the counting of the 50 days.”94

Conclusion From the evidence we have gleaned so far, several important facts about the Festival of Weeks have emerged. To begin with, it is an appendage to Phasekh, coming 50 days after a Sabbath day falling within the week of unleavened bread. Next, there are three aspects to this festival under the handwritten Torah: (1) the omer wave offering of the first day, falling after the Sabbath that occurs within the seven days of unleavened bread, (2) the count of 49 days (seven complete Sabbaths), and (3) the Festival of Weeks and the pilgrimage coming on the 50th day, itself falling after a Sabbath day. All males were commanded to appear before Yahweh during the festival of the 50th day. They were to appear worthy, to have a rejoicing attitude, and to hold in remembrance the history that their families had once been slaves in Egypt. 93 94

See above n. 87. BCal, p. 17.

Section I Different Jewish Schools

Aristocratic System A

Month of Abib First Day (High Sabbath)

Seventh Day (High Sabbath)

Phasekh Meal with Unleavened Bread

Sacrifice of Phasekh

Six Days of Eating Unleavened Bread (Deut., 16:8)

Phasekh

Seven-Day Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread Seven Days of Unleavened Bread

Legend 24 Hours

Dark

Chart C

Sunset

170

Hasidic System B

Month of Abib Preparation

First Day (High Sabbath)

Seventh Day (High Sabbath)

Phasekh Meal

Sacrifice of Phasekh (afternoon of the 14th)

Phasekh

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Seven-Day Khag of Unleavened Bread Eight Days of Unleavened Bread

Legend 24 Hours

Dark

Afternoon

Chart D

Sunset

171

Neo-Aristocratic System C Using Both a Legal and Common Day

Start of the Legal Day Start of the Common Day

First Day (High Sabbath)

Month of Abib

Seventh Day (High Sabbath)

Phasekh Meal

Sacrifice of Phasekh Feast of Phasekh Unleavened Bread

Seven-Day Khag of Unleavened Bread Eight Days of Unleavened Bread

Legend 24 Hours

Dark

Chart E

Sunset

172

Introduction: Section I

ifferent Jewish practices with reference to the Khag of Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread and the Khag of Shabuath (Pentecost) become overtly apparent in the mid-second century B.C.E. During this period a great dispute was already under way among the Jews, not just over exactly how the nation of Judaea should observe these festivals but over the approach to religion itself. This debate was fought between the two leading factions of Judaism: the Hasidic and the Aristocratic schools.

The Jewish Factions From the political and religious turmoil of that period, two major religious parties rose above the others to gain political and social dominance in Judaea—from the Aristocratic school came the Sadducees—supporters of the Levitical priesthood of Tsadoq (Zadok)—and from the Hasidic school came the Pharisees (who later evolved into the Talmudists). Each school held to very different ideas about the Phasekh celebration. The essence of their disagreement centered upon (1) the exact time of the day on the 14th of the moon of Abib (also called Nisan)1 that the Phasekh lamb was to be slaughtered, (2) on which day, the 14th or 15th of Abib/Nisan, one was to eat the Phasekh supper, and (3) which days represent the seven days of unleavened bread: the 14th through 20th or the 15th through 21st days of the first moon. According to the school of the Pharisees—an offshoot of the early Hasidim,2 from which also descended the Essenes, Zealots, and others—the lamb is to be slaughtered in the afternoon of the 14th and then eaten after the sun has gone down, during the first part of the 15th (the ancient legal Hebrew day beginning at sunset).3 The seven days of unleavened bread extended from the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. The Sadducees, being supporters of the system used by the old Zadok priesthood, were largely made up of aristocratic priests and their families. They were established among both the Jews in Judaea and the people in Samaria (the Samaritans). The Sadducees held to the Aristocratic view that the lamb was to be sacrificed at twilight, just after sunset and before dark, on the 14th, and then eaten that same night (still being the 14th). Their practice was suppressed as a state observance in Judaea by the Pharisees in the first half of 1 That the Hebrew moon (month) previously named Abib was, after the Babylonian exile period, called Nisan, see HBC, pp. 33–40; NBD, p. 937. 2 Hebrew μydysj (Khasidim; the “pious” ones); EBD, p. 465; NBD, p. 505, “loyal ones . . . saints”; EJ, 7, p. 1383, ”pietists.” 3 “Sunset is the moment when the entire sun disappears below the horizon” (EJ, 5, p. 1376). For the legal day beginning at sunset see below Chap. XIII, pp. 213ff, p. 213, n. 21.

173

174

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

the first century C.E. At the same time, this system was utilized by Yahushua the messiah and his disciples and continued for many years among the early Christian assemblies.4 Centuries later, the Sadducean view of when to sacrifice the lamb and the Pharisaic idea of when to hold the Phasekh supper and seven days of unleavened bread were combined to form a third interpretation, one which was adopted by the Karaites and neo-Samaritans. According to this third method, there is a common day, which ends at dark, and a legal day, which ends at sunset. The Phasekh lamb is sacrificed during the last part of the common day of the 14th (i.e., between sunset and dark) and then eaten on the night of the legal day of the 15th. Under this view, the sacrifice of the Phasekh lamb actually takes place at the beginning of the legal reckoning of the 15th day of the first moon. All subsequent views on just how to keep the Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread, including those advocated by different Christian groups, are ultimately premised upon at least one or a combination of these understandings.

Byn ha-Arabim The heart of the Jewish debate centered upon two different understandings of a statement, three times repeated in the Pentateuch, that the Phasekh lamb was to be sacrificed in the time period called “μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim),”5 after which, at night, the Phasekh supper was to be eaten. These words are traditionally translated to mean “between the evenings” or “between the two evenings,” but are more precisely defined as the time “between (among) the arab periods.”6 The word arab literally means, “the intermixings of light and dark.”7 What this intermixing of light and dark exactly refers to is a matter of much controversy. One period of br[ (arab; intermixing of light and dark) is the time when the sun disc has gone down and the sunlight left at sunset mixes together with darkness. Light fades, forming the dusk or twilight of evening. Though a few would argue that this arab is merely a point in time at sunset, most apply the term to the entire period from sunset to dark. Most would also agree that this one arab is at least connected with the period following sunset. What precisely are these two or more periods of arab and what is the time “between” or “among” them? This question is the source of the controversy, both in ancient times as well as today. MÔClintock and Strong, for example, observe: 4 For a detailed discussion of the Aristocratic view of the early assemblies following Yahushua the messiah see below Chaps. XVII–XIX and FSDY, 2. 5 Exod., 12:6; Lev., 23:5; Num., 9:3–5. 6 μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim) is derived from the following: (1) ˆyb (byn): “interval, midst . . . between, among, within” (HEL, p. 33; SEC, Heb. #996, 997); (2) h (ha): “def. art. oJ, hJ, toJ the . . . demon. pron. this” (HEL, p. 64); and (3) br[ (arab), plural μybr[ (arabim): “to braid, i.e. intermix,” “the idea of covering with a texture,” “to grow dusky at sundown:—be darkened,” “to commingle,” “dusk,” (SEC, Heb. #6148, 6150–6151, 6153); “TO SET, as the sun . . . to do at evening . . . evening” (GHCL, pp. 651, 652); “became dark . . . intermixed with . . . evening,” (HEL, p. 201); “evening (sunset)” (CHAL, p. 282); “a raven (from its dusky hue)” (SEC, Heb. #6158). We should add, ravens in the Middle East are often dark grey in color. For the reason that their color is a mixing together of both light and dark they are called arab. 7 See above n. 6.

Introduction: Section I

175

The precise meaning of the phrase μybr[h ˆyb between the two evenings, which is used with reference to the time when the paschal animal is to be slain (Exod. xii, 6; Lev. xxiii, 5; Numb. ix, 3, 5), as well as in connection with the offering of the evening sacrifice (Exod. xxix, 39, 41; Numb. xxviii, 4), and elsewhere (Exod. xvi, 12; xxx, 8), is greatly disputed.8 Generally, the phrase μybr[h ˆyb (between the two evenings) in Exodus, 12:6 (cf., Exodus, 16:12; Leviticus, 23:5; Numbers, 9:3, 5, 11) has been accorded several variant renderings. William Smith, in his Dictionary of the Bible, comments: Its precise meaning is doubtful. The Karaites and Samaritans, with whom Aben Ezra (on Ex. xii. 6) agrees, consider it ·byn ha-arabim‚ as the interval between sunset and dark. This appears to be in accordance with Deut. xvi. 6, where the paschal lamb is commanded to be slain “at the going down of the sun.” But the Pharisees and Rabbinists held that the first evening commenced when the sun began to decline (deivlh prwi?a), and that the second evening began with the setting of the sun (deivlh ojyiva). . . . A third notion has been held by Jarchi and Kimchi, that the two evenings are the time immediately before and immediately after sunset, so that the point of time at which the sun sets divides them.9 The New Jerusalem Bible remarks: Lit. ‘between the two evenings’, i.e. either between sunset and darkness (Samaritans) or between afternoon and sunset (Pharisees and Talmud).10

One Correct View There can only be one correct system for the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread. Yet, when all of the clutter is removed, behind every interpretation found among the Jews there has been one of three basic understandings of the expression “μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim).” For simplification purposes, this study shall utilize the following labels to identify each Jewish system. System A: The first view is that of the Aristocratic school, represented by the aristocratic priests, Sadducees, and early Samaritans (see Chart C). The day is counted from sunset to sunset. The time of arab, also called byn ha-arabim, being the time when the Phasekh lamb was sacrificed, is counted as the 8 9 10

CBTEL, 7, p. 735. DBC, 2, p. 714, n. k. NJB, p. 95, n. c.

176

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

period of twilight lying between sunset and dark. In this system the Phasekh lamb was anciently sacrificed just after sunset, which was the very beginning of the 14th day of the moon of Abib, a month-name later identified by the Judahites returning from their Babylonian exile with Nisan (March/April).11 The Phasekh supper is eaten at dark, after the evening’s twilight, on the 14th day of the moon of Abib. The seven days of eating unleavened bread also begin with sunset, at the very beginning of the 14th of Abib, and continue only until the sunset which marks the very end of the 20th of Abib and the very beginning of the 21st of Abib. The 14th of Abib and the 20th of Abib are both sabbathons (high Sabbaths). System B: The second school is represented by the Hasidic groups like the Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots (see Chart D). The day is counted from sunset-to-sunset. There are two periods of arab. One form of this system counts the first arab as lasting from the ninth hour (3 P.M.) until sunset, being the last part of a day, while the second arab is represented by twilight after sunset, being the first part of the next day. The Phasekh lamb was sacrificed at the ninth hour, calculating that this point in time was the byn ha-arabim on the afternoon of the 14th of Abib. The second form of this system calculates the first arab from noon until the ninth hour (3 P.M.) and the second arab from the ninth hour until sunset. Still another variant has the second arab continue until dark. Regardless of whichever form it takes, the basic tenet of the Hasidim is that there is an arab that ends the day and the time of byn ha-arabim is in the afternoon before sunset. According to System B, the Phasekh lamb is sacrificed during the afternoon of the 14th of Abib and the Phasekh supper is eaten just after the beginning of dark on the 15th day of the moon of Abib. The seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread lasts from just after sunset at the beginning of the 15th of Abib until sunset at the end of the 21st day of Abib. The 15th and the 21st are high Sabbaths. This system originated among the ancient Hasidim and was later made popular by the Pharisees and their spiritual descendants the Talmudists. System C: The third school, represented by such groups as the Karaite Jews and neo-Samaritans, was an amalgamation of the Aristocratic and Hasidic opinions (see Chart E). The day is counted in two ways. There is a legal day, which extends from sunset to sunset, and a common day, which extends from dark until dark. Arab and byn ha-arabim represent the period of twilight between sunset and dark and is the period that overlaps the legal day with the common day. Under this system, the 14th of Abib, the day on which the Phasekh lamb is to be sacrificed, is counted as a common day (from dark to dark). The lamb is sacrificed at arab (twilight) at the end of the 14th of Abib (also being the first part of the legal day of the 15th). The Phasekh supper is eaten just after dark on the legal day of the 15th. The seven days of unleavened bread are counted from the end of the 14th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. The 15th and the 21st, legal reckoning, are high Sabbaths. 11

See above n. 1.

Introduction: Section I

177

These three Jewish schools of thought have in turn been manipulated into several arrangements, each intended to explain just how and when the Phasekh was to be sacrificed and eaten, and on which days the high Sabbaths should fall. At the same time, Yahweh does not change.12 Obviously, there can only be one original and correct usage of the expression byn ha-arabim and only one correct practice of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread. It will be the object of this study to find out which system was the original and intended construct of Scriptures.

The Pentecost Debate The dispute among the Jews with regard to the day of Pentecost centered upon their interpretation of Leviticus, 23:11, which commands that the omer offering should be waved “on the day after the Sabbath.” The day of Pentecost was calculated as the 50th day from this point. The meaning of the word Sabbath as found in this verse became the source of much contention. Four interpretations arose: • The Aristocratic view held that the Sabbath referred to in Leviticus, 23:11, was the weekly Sabbath. The omer wave offering, therefore, always occurs on that first day of the week which falls just after the festival day of Phasekh. The 50th day starts from this point. Pentecost day likewise always falls on the first day of the week. • The quasi-Aristocratic view also argued that the Sabbath referred to is the weekly Sabbath. Yet in this variation, the omer wave offering occurs on the first day of the week falling just after the end of the full seven days of unleavened bread. Pentecost is 50 days later and always on the first day of the week. • The Hasidim saw the Sabbath of Leviticus, 23:11, quite differently. They understood this Sabbath as referring to the high Sabbath festival day of Phasekh, which for the Hasidic Jews is Abib 15. The omer wave offering, therefore, always occurs on the 16th of Abib (Nisan), the day after Phasekh, no matter which day of the week that might be. Pentecost always falls on the same day of the week on the 50th day from that point. • The quasi-Hasidic view also believed that the Sabbath referred to is a high Sabbath festival day. Yet unlike their counterparts, they believed it was the sabbathon on the last day of the seven days of unleavened bread. For the Hasidim this date is Abib 22. The omer wave offering, therefore, always occurs on Abib 23, regardless of which day of the week it falls. Pentecost always falls on the same day of the week on the 50th day from that point. Pentecost leaves us with the same dilemma presented by Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread. There can only be one original and correct usage. 12

Mal., 3:6; Heb., 1:10–12, 13:8.

178

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Conclusion Discovering just when the knowledge of the original forms of Phasekh, the seven days of unleavened bread, and Pentecost was lost and how so many variant views came into existence is clearly part of the purpose of this section of our research. Several other questions must also be addressed: • What was the historical and cultural context that helped develop these different views? • Who were the spiritual fathers of these different views? • What was the reasoning used to support their respective positions? We shall begin our search for the one correct view of how to celebrate the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Pentecost by examining the historical and cultural context that gave birth to the differing opinions. We shall also examine when and why the advocates of the Hasidic views were able to politically suppress the Aristocratic understandings. This background shall be followed with the evidence documenting the practices and reasonings used by the Hasidic (System B) and Aristocratic (System A) schools. We shall also examine a late compromise which combined the Hasidic interpretation of the seven days of unleavened bread with the Aristocratic view of byn ha-arabim (System C). Finally, we shall examine the various views advocated by the ancient Jews for counting the days to Pentecost.

Chapter XI

Historical and Cultural Background

ow did such radically different views for the expression μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim), the Phasekh supper, and the seven days of unleavened bread come into existence among the Jews? To fully understand this dispute we must begin with an examination of the historical and cultural context wherein the division of views took root in Judaism.

The Dark Period We preface our examination with one premise. Few are able to challenge the fact that as late as the sixth to mid-fifth century B.C.E. knowledge of the correct system for the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread was certainly known. We are assured of this assumption based on the fact that there still existed at that time a number of important prophets and other men of Yahweh. What followed them was a dark period. To demonstrate, it was during the fifth and sixth centuries B.C.E. that the prophets of Yahweh named Haggai and Zechariah prospered (fl. 520/519 B.C.E.).1 Also living at this time was the famous scribe, priest, and prophet of Yahweh named Ezra (who died shortly after 456/455 B.C.E.).2 Ezra is identified by the Targum of the Minor Prophets as the author of Malachi,3 the last book of the Old Testament; and in 2 Esdras we are told that it was Ezra who restored and edited the books of the Old Testament, which had been damaged during the previous period of the Babylonian exile.4 Nehemiah, of the book of Nehemiah fame, was even governor of Judaea during this period (456–444 B.C.E.).5 Next, it is the precise meaning of the biblical report that serves as the source for the later dispute. Therefore, to begin our task, we are forced to seek the assistance of non-biblical sources in order to discover the different Jewish opinions about the festival and to uncover just when variant views came into existence. Unfortunately, in this endeavor we cannot find any extra-biblical report defining exactly how the term byn ha-arabim was understood or how Phasekh and the days of unleavened bread were kept until the mention by a writer from the mid-third century B.C.E. This evidence comes from a Jewish priest named Aristobulus, who is cited by a much 1 2 3 4 5

In the second year of King Darius of Persia (Ezra, 4:24–6:22). That Ezra died shortly after 456/455 B.C.E. see SJC, chap. xi; cf., Jos., Antiq., 11:5:5. Codex Reuchlinianus of the book of Malachi, 1:1 (TMP, p. 229, n. 2). 2 Esd., 14:19–48; Clement, Strom., 1:22. SJC, chap. xi; cf., Neh., 5:14, 13:6.

179

180

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

later Christian author, Anatolius.6 It is with this kind of information that we must proceed. Records become more available after the Hasmonaeans (Maccabeans) came to power in mid-second century B.C.E. Yet by this time the dispute among the Jews was already in full swing. Therefore, we must look to the historical and cultural events that transpired between the days of Ezra until the rise of the Hasmonaeans for clues as to why during the dark period there arose two fundamentally different approaches for keeping the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread.

Historical Setting The defining historical moment for the Phasekh debate came in 332 B.C.E., when Judaea was conquered by Alexander the Great. At that time, the Jewish nation became an ally and vassal state of the Greek Empire.7 Personal recognition of Alexander the Great’s divine right to rule by Jaddua,8 the Jewish high priest, certainly played an important role in the way in which the Jewish population favorably accepted Hellenic (Greek) domination. After the death of Alexander the Great, his empire was divided among his four generals. Among these, Ptolemy Soter and his heirs ruled Egypt while Seleucus and his descendants governed Syria. In 320 B.C.E. Ptolemy Soter of Egypt brought Judaea under direct Greek-Egyptian domination. Friendly relations between the two nations continued for years. Indeed, there arose a considerable Jewish community, concentrated in the eastern sector of Alexandria, Egypt. These people possessed a large number of places of worship located all over that city.9 At the request of the Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus (284/283–247/246 B.C.E.), the first Greek translation of the Pentateuch (the LXX) was produced,10 which was especially suited for the great number of Greek-speaking Jews living in Egypt. During this period, Hellenic culture dominated the world and many Judaeans began admiring Greek sponsored ideas, not only those of a political nature but religious and philosophical concepts as well. In the fourth century B.C.E., the Greek philosopher Isocrates noted, “The designation Hellene seems no longer to be ethnic, but is a disposition.” It had become, as Phillip Sigal points out, “a way of thinking, a complex of ideas, a modifier of a substantive.”11 Caught up in this new, massively overpowering civilization, “Judaism survived by virtue of its adaption to the environment.”12 The result was “a hellenization of Judaism,”13 perceived not as an apostasy but as acculturation.14 Martin Hengel concludes: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Cited by Anatolius, 3–4. Jos., Antiq., 11:8:3–7. Jos., Antiq., 11:8:3–6. Philo, Gaius, 20. Aristeas, 1–322; Jos., Antiq., 12:2:6–15; Aristobulus, fr. 3:2. ECJ, 1.1, p. 148. ECJ, 1.1, p. 153. ECJ, 1.1, p. 155. ECJ, 1.1, pp. 155, 181.

Historical and Cultural Background

181

From about the middle of the third century B.C. all Judaism must really be designated “Hellenistic Judaism” in the strict sense.15 A major political change took place in the winter of 199/198 B.C.E., when Antiochus III (Antiochus the Great), the Greek king of Syria, stripped Judaea from the Ptolemies of Egypt.16 At first, relations between the Judaeans and their Greek overlords remained friendly. In fact, many of the Judaeans during that period so admired Greek culture that they wanted to Hellenize. The desire to attach themselves to Greek culture went to the highest level of the Jewish government and religious thinking. It is explained by the fact that the high priest of Jerusalem was also the head of the Judaean state.17 The leading priests were even the directors of the Gerousia (Great Council), which later became the Sanhedrin. Their duties, therefore, were as much political as religious. The well-known Jewish historian Emile Schürer writes: As a result, political issues and interests radically affected their whole attitude. But the more these took precedence, the more those of religion fell behind. This seems to have been particularly true in the Hellenistic period, the reason being that political interests were linked to the interests of Greek culture. Whoever wished to achieve something politically in the world of that time had to be on a more or less friendly footing with Hellenism. So Hellenism gained increasing ground even among the leading priests in Jerusalem. And in a corresponding measure the latter became estranged from Jewish religious interests.18 We are told, for example, that the sons of the high priest Simeon II (225/224–206/205 B.C.E.), Joshua Jason, and Onias IV (Onias Menelaus), as well as a large number of the Jewish priests and citizens, turned away from their Jewish faith and actually favored “the glory of the Greeks best of all.”19 These Hellenizing Jews went so far as to build a Greek gymnasium in Jerusalem and even concealed the circumcision of their private parts in order to appear as Greeks when unclothed, giving up whatever national customs they had and imitating the practices of foreign nations.20 Greek personal JH, 1, p. 104. Jos., Antiq., 12:3:3f. Jos., Antiq., 12:3:3 §135, quoting Polybius, states, “Scopas, the general of Ptolemy, set out for the upper country (northern Palestine) and during the winter subdued the Jewish nation.” Livy, Urbe, 33:19:8, remarks that in the summer previous to the consul year for 197 B.C.E., i.e., in 198 B.C.E., Antiochus III “had transferred all the cities which are situated in Coele Syria from the power of Ptolemy to his own dominion.” Also see JQR, 37, pp. 1–16; HCJ, pp. 75f, 435f, n. 101; cf., Polybius, 16:18. 17 Hecataeus of Abdera speaks of the government of the Judaeans during this period, reporting that the Judaeans had no king, “but the people’s representation is given to that priest who excels over the others in his understanding and lofty qualities. Him they call the High Priest” (Diodorus, 40:3:5). 18 HJP, 2, p. 412; cf., JH, 1, pp. 47–57. 19 2 Macc., 4:13–15. 20 1 Macc., 1:11–15; Jos., Antiq., 12:5:2. 15 16

182

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

names likewise became popular, even among the Jewish high priests, e.g., Jason and Menelaus. The schism created among the priests formed three different approaches to Judaism. • One group consisted of the extremists among the priests and the general population. These Jews enjoyed Hellenism so much that they wished to Hellenize Judaea—Greek culture, religion, politics, and all. For them, the Temple of Yahweh should become the Temple of Zeus. • Another group of priests, supported by the Jewish masses, scribes, and many of the non-priestly scholars, were the liberals. They appreciated Greek philosophical and religious methods and even some aspects of Greek culture. At the same time, they did not desire to give up their Jewish identity or the ideals of Judaism. These more liberal elements were willing to incorporate certain parts of Greek culture and learning, which were interpreted to be modern and advantageous to Judaism. Yet they were opposed to any complete surrender to Hellenization or paganism. This group utilized oral laws (traditions) and interpretations espoused by their scholars to bridge the gap between the regulations of the ancient Torah and their modern circumstance. These Jews formed the Hasidim (pious ones). • Finally, there were the conservative Jews. These were Jews, especially from among the priestly aristocracy of the Levites and their allies, who wished to hold on to their political and religious status. Though they were also affected by Hellenism, they desired no change in the priestly order and held vigorously to their priestly prerogatives. They also realized that for them to remain in political power it required a continuance of a strict observance of the letter of the Torah. It was the Torah that gave them privilege. As a result, any acceptance of the notion that the Torah could be reinterpreted or updated threatened their position.

Political Turmoil The disturbances and cultural upheavals during the fourth through second centuries B.C.E. resulted in divided loyalties and conflicting claims to authority among the Jewish people of Judaea. Many, such as the more stoic Hasidim, preferred to remain neutral. In the ensuing feud between the high priests Joshua Jason and Onias IV (Onias Menelaus) over the leadership of Judaea, relations between the Greeks of Syria and the average Jewish citizen rapidly deteriorated. The Judaean government now fell into turmoil and civil war. Onias Menelaus and his allies, the Tobiads, were forced to withdraw from Jerusalem by Jason and his allies. Onias Menelaus then went to Antiochus IV (Antiochus Epiphanes) of Syria, while that Greek king was on his second expedition against Egypt (169/168 B.C.E.). When he arrived, Onias Menelaus informed the king that his Jewish faction wished to abandon their country’s laws, as well as their way of life as prescribed by these laws, and wanted

Historical and Cultural Background

183

“to follow the king’s laws and adopt the Hellenic way of life.”21 Jason had also favored Hellenization but Onias Menelaus had convinced the king that Jason was part of a rebellion. Further, Onias Menelaus differed in that he wanted full Hellenization immediately. Antiochus IV, panic-stricken from the circumstance of having to leave Egypt by a Roman threat of intervention, suffering from embarrassment, and believing that the commotion in Jerusalem was in fact a revolt by the Judaeans, returned from Egypt and struck Jerusalem.22 He took the city in late February or early March of 168 B.C.E. Onias Menelaus was returned to power and the Hellenization process was in full swing.23 In an effort to more rapidly force the Jewish nation inside the bounds of full Greek culture, Antiochus IV made a subsequent and violent attack on the city of Jerusalem in the month of Khisleu (Nov./Dec.) of the 145th Jewish Seleucid year (167/166 B.C.E.). At this time Antiochus IV ushered in a period of abject terror for the Judaeans.24 Strong anti-Greek and anti-Syrian sentiment subsequently took root. The tide toward friendly Jewish relations with their Hellenic rulers and culture had now turned. The Greeks of Syria and the Hellenizing Jews made every effort to completely Hellenize Judaea, punishing anyone who opposed them. They shed innocent blood on every side of the Temple; they drove the Jewish inhabitants out of Jerusalem, replacing them with strangers favoring the Greek culture; they forbade circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath day; and “many of the Israelites consented to his (the Greek king’s) religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the Sabbath.” 25 This policy of forced Hellenization resulted in a revolt by the more conservative Jewish elements. It was one thing to borrow and draw upon Greek thoughts, perceptions, and ideas and incorporate them into Judaism. Yet it was quite another thing to have Judaism itself destroyed and wholesale Hellenization forced upon the Jewish people. Yet, even though Greek culture itself subsequently came to be held in disdain by many of the Jews of Judaea, those innovations of Judaism which had gradually been adopted over many previous decades due to the strong influence of the Greeks were no longer seen as Greek. They were by many Jews now considered to be part of their Jewish thought and religion. It was at the time of this forced Hellenization that the line of Hasmonaean priests (the Maccabees) revolted and came to power. These conservative priests freed the city of Jerusalem from the Greek-Syrian yoke during the latter part of the 148th Jewish Seleucid year (164/163 B.C.E.).26 Yet even here it was not a complete rejection of everything Hellenistic. As Phillip Sigal concludes, “The Maccabee revolt was designed, not against hellenism, but against paganism superimposed upon Judaism.”27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Jos., Antiq., 12:5:1–2. 2 Macc., 5:11–26; 1 Macc., 1:16–40; Jos., Antiq., 12:5:2–3. 2 Macc., 5:22f. Jos., Antiq., 12:5:4; 1 Macc., 1:29–54. 1 Macc., 1:29–4:40; Jos., Antiq., 12:5:4–12:7:5; 2 Macc., 5:24–7:42; 4 Macc., 4:24–18:23. Jos., Antiq., 12:7:6; 1 Macc., 4:41–58. ECJ, 1.1, p. 161.

184

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The Hasidim, meanwhile, did not support either the Hasmonaeans or the revolt against the Greeks.28 They only wished to be left alone in peace to practice their religion. But the atrocities committed by the Greeks against many innocent, law-abiding Jews forced them to flee the persecution and in 167/166 B.C.E. they joined themselves to the Hasmonaean cause.29 The Greek king, Antiochus V, felt that the Zadok (Tsadoq) family of Levite priests was the cause of the Judaean revolts against their Syrian-Greek overlords. He settled politically with the Hasmonaeans and decided to change the family from which the high priest that governed the country was derived. As a result, Antiochus V killed the high priest Onias IV (Onias Menelaus) and gave his position to the Hellenizing Jew named Alcimus Jakeimos, a descendant of Aaron, the brother of Moses, whose line had rights to the office of high priest but was not of the same family as Onias IV.30 With the death of Onias IV in 162/161 B.C.E., the last of the Zadok line of high priests had governed Judaea. With him also ended the power of the Zadok priests who wished to Hellenize the Jews. Those conservative priests who supported the claim of the Zadok line to the priesthood but represented the older more conservative school of Jewish thought, were subsequently called Zadoki (Tsadoqi, Sadducees).31 The priests and others who were supporters of the Zadok line but held to the Hasidic interpretations were subsequently called Essenes.32 Meanwhile, those Hasidim who largely came from the ranks of the scribes and other scholars and were unfriendly toward the Zadok line broke from the Essenes and became known as the Pharisees.33 These three factions— Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees—became the three great religious parties of Judaea during the years following the Hasmonaean revolt. A short time later, after the death of Antiochus IV and his son Antiochus V, Greek rulership fell into the hands of Demetrius II (161 B.C.E.). During his reign, an agent of the Greek king made a proposal of peace to the Judaeans. In response, many of the Hasidim left the Hasmonaean camp. They “were the first among the children of Israel that sought peace from them (the Greeks)” and they even accepted the leadership of Alcimus (a Hellenizing Jew put into power by the Greeks) as high priest.34 These Hasidim were subsequently betrayed by the Greeks and murdered. The actions of the Hasidim demonstrated that they were not in fellowship with the conservative Jews (the Hasmonaeans and the anti-Hellenizing NBD, p. 505. 1 Macc., 2:42f. Jos., Antiq., 12:9:7, 20:10:3; 1 Macc., 7:14. HJP, 2, pp. 405–413; JE, 10, p. 630; EJ, 14, pp. 620ff; ADB, 4, p. 349; MDB, pp. 784f; EBD, p. 902; CBTEL, 9, p. 240. John Dam., 16, notes that the Sadducees were derived “from a priest named Sadok.” The derivation of μyqwdx (Tsadoqim), ˆyqwdx (Tsadoqin), and yqwdx (Tsadoqi)—i.e., Sadducees—from the proper name qwdx (Tsadoq, Zadok) finds its parallel in the name of the first Jewish Karaites, who called themselves μyynn[ (Ananyim), i.e., from their founder nn[ (Anan), so that ynn[ (Anani), a follower of Anan, is an exact parallel to yqwdx (Tsadoqi, Tsadoqqi, Zadoki, Zaddoki, etc.), a follower of Zadok (Tsadoq) (CBTEL, 9, p. 234). 32 HJP, 2, pp. 413, 586f; SCO, p. 22; MDB, p. 263; EBD, pp. 351, 465; NBD, p. 505. 33 HJP, 2, pp. 397–401, 413; ADB, 4, p. 349; SCO, pp. 23f; MDB, pp. 680f; EBD, pp. 465, 824; NBD, pp. 505, 981. Hippolytus (Ref. Her., 9:24) reports that the Pharisees were a sect of the Essenes. 34 1 Macc., 7:12–18; Jos., Antiq., 12:10:1–3, 6. 28 29 30 31

Historical and Cultural Background

185

branch of Zadok priests who were later called the Sadducees). They instead felt content to live in peace with the Greeks and the Hellenizing Jews like Alcimus. After their betrayal, the Hasidim were driven back into the Hasmonaean camp, shortly thereafter to reform into two major camps: the Pharisees and the Essenes. Under the Hasmonaeans, the phil-Hellenic elements of the Aristocratic and Hasidic Jews were purged from the government.35 The anti-Greek Sadducees became the favorite party of the Hasmonaeans—this despite the fact that the Hasmonaeans held the high priestship and were not themselves from the Zadok line. The Hasmonaean rulers, nevertheless, permitted the Sadducees to maintain official authority over the Judaeans.36 The point that cannot be missed is the fact that most of the Hasidim, before the Hasmonaean purge of the phil-Hellenic elements, were quite at home with Greek domination. This reveals their previous relationship with Greek culture before many Hasidim became actively anti-Greek and before they were divided into different rival factions (Pharisee, Essene, etc.).

Greek and Other Cultural Influence The major influence on the religious thought of the early Hasidim and the people of Judaea in general came from Greek (Hellenic) culture, ideas from the pagan nations among whom many Jews had lived, and from the utilization of traditions—the latter being an innovation meant to build a fence around the Torah and make Judaism more Jewish. Scriptures were weighed against the philosophies of Plato and Greek thoughts and were analyzed and seen through the biased attitude of the Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, and Egyptians. Jews even argued that famous Greek writers, like Plato and Pythagoras, had borrowed from the Torah to build their Greek ideas.37 This contention, of course, made the use of these ideas much more palatable. Pharisaic writers, like Philo, not only built premises for Jewish concepts based upon Greek philosophical approaches but felt free to liberally quote and openly borrow ideas from the Hellenic writers.38 Though this branch of Judaism accepted new ideas, perceptions, and innovations from outside sources, they also resisted any overt change in what they perceived to be the practice of Judaism. Circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and numerous rituals and customs had to be maintained. Their first line of defense became Jewish traditions which had been built up over decades. Strict compliance with these traditions not only protected one’s observance of the laws and statutes found in the Torah but in their eyes made one more pious. Far less contemplation was given to what Scriptures had said within the context of the time of Moses and the other prophets of a bygone era. What occurred was the merging of Greek and other pagan thoughts with Jewish MDB, p. 785; HJP, 2, p. 413. MDB, p. 785. E.g., Aristob. Alex., frags. 3 & 4. The Christian writer Hippolytus continues this argument (Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:22). 38 See OTP, 2, pp. 821–830; and for a list of Philo’s use of Plato and Pythagoras see the Index of J. W. Earp in Colson, Philo, x, pp. 469–471, 473. 35 36 37

186

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

religious culture. To demonstrate, the influence of the Babylonians and Persians (with whom many of the Judahites lived during the Babylonian exile period and after), as well as of the Egyptians, especially of Alexandria (with whom many Jews of the Greek period also lived), cannot be over emphasized. The Jews admit, for instance, that they obtained the Babylonian names for their months during their Babylonian exile.39 They also learned the concept of a 24-hour day (12 hours in a day and 12 hours in the night) from the Babylonians.40 Therefore, pagan cultures even helped shape the way that the Jews looked at time. The further paganization of the Jews who had returned from their Babylonian exile to Judaea began fairly early on. For example, intermarriage with pagan women was rampant when Ezra came to Judaea in the mid-fifth century B.C.E.41 Sabbath breaking was also a serious problem in those years, prompting the Judaean governor, Nehemiah, to forcibly contend with it.42 Greek settlements and contact with Hellenic culture were already well-established years prior to the conquest of that region by Alexander the Great.43 There can be little doubt that many of the traditions which later became the oral laws promoted by the Hasidim were developed out of the personal feelings of some of the spiritual leaders of the Judaeans in the days between Ezra and the arrival of Alexander the Great. These oral laws were an attempt to counteract some of the pagan influences on the Jewish population in order to make the people more pious.44 Then, with the advent of Alexander the Great, the flood gates of Hellenization were opened. The Jewish Encyclopedia candidly admits that such things as the “philosophical or theological speculation” about an immortal soul began during post-exilic times (i.e., after 538 B.C.E.).45 In another place this encyclopedia reports, “Only through the contact of the Jews with Persian and Greek thought did the idea of a disembodied soul, having its own individuality, take root in Judaism.” 46 The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics similarly states, “The Greeks thought of the soul as naturally immortal. This idea was BORROWED by the Alexandrian-Jewish writers.” 47 In James Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible we find this statement: The Jews came under the influence of the great Babylonian myth-cycles, in which the struggle between right and wrong was expressed as one between God and various supernatural enemies such as dragons and giants. To this period must be attributed also 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

J. R.Sh., 1:1. DB, p. 255. Ezra, 9:1–10:44; Neh., 13:23–31; Jos., Antiq., 11:5:3f. Neh., 13:15–22. HCJ, pp. 40f. CBTEL, 9, p. 235. JE, 6, pp. 564f. JE, 11, p. 479. ERE, 11, p. 843.

Historical and Cultural Background

187

the development of the idea of Sheol, until it included the places for the punishment of evil spirits and evil men.48 Shailer Mathews adds: The influence of the Babylonian myth-cycle was great, but there is also to be seen the influence of the Greek impulse to pictorial expressions. No nation ever came into close contact with Greek thought and life without sharing in their incentive to aesthetic expression.49 Josephus notes that the Pharisees, who were the most liberal of the Jewish schools, were “a sect having points of resemblance to that which the Greeks call the Stoic school,” 50 and, like their Greek philosophical counterparts, they “attribute everything to Fate and the deity.” 51 Every yuchvn (psukhen; soul),52 they maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment.53 The Pharisees also believed, like the Greeks, that upon death the souls of the pious went to heaven. They also believed that these souls would later return to earth to inhabit new bodies.54 The Jewish Essenes, who like the Pharisees are derived from the Hasidim, are described as following “a way of life taught to the Greeks by Pythagoras,”55 that is, an ascetic life of self-denial and purification. Like the Greeks, they believed in an immortal soul and Fate.56 Josephus adds: Sharing the belief of the sons of Greece, they maintain that for virtuous souls there is reserved an abode beyond the ocean, a place which is not oppressed by rain or snow or heat, but is refreshed by the ever gentle breath of the west wind coming in from the ocean; while they relegate base souls to a murky and tempestuous dungeon, big with neverending punishments.57 DTB, p. 236. Ibid. Jos., Life, 1:2. Jos., Wars, 2:8:14. The term yuchvn (psukhen) is used by Greek writing Jews for the Hebrew term çpn (nephesh), a “breathing creature” or “life” (SEC, Heb. #5315), and is generally translated into English as “soul” or “life.” Also see above Chap. VII, p. 107, n. 97; Intro to Part II, p. 133, n. 2. 53 Jos., Wars, 2:8:14. 54 Jos., Wars, 3:8:5. 55 Jos., Antiq., 15:10:4; cf., Jos., Wars, 2:8:2–13. Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:22, claims that the Greeks received their philosophy from the Jews. 56 Jos., Wars, 2:8:11, Antiq., 13:5:9, 18:1:5. 57 Jos., Wars, 2:8:11; cf., Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:22. 48 49 50 51 52

188

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Fate, eternal punishment in the underworld, immortal souls, a stoic or Pythagorean lifestyle, and afterlife concepts holding that the pious go to heaven or to an isle of bliss upon death—these ideas are Greek and pagan, not Yahwehist. The Jewish Encyclopedia, for example, freely admits that the pagan doctrine of an immortal soul entered into Jewish thought via the Greeks: The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from FROM CONTACT WITH GREEK THOUGHT and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principle exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name “Minos” (comp. “Minotaurus”), and the Egyptian “Rhadamanthys” (“Ra of Ament,” “Ruler of Hades”; Naville, “La Litanie du Soleil,” 1875, p. 13) with others, sufficiently prove.58 The application of Greek constructs, philosophical approaches, and world ideas to scriptural issues helped develop new expressions of Judaism. These innovations were then placed within the context of an adherence to the traditions of the Jewish fathers for a more pious approach to Scriptures. It was a way of looking at the world and Scriptures through the colored glasses of the then modern Greek world. Emile Schürer expresses this merging of Greek and Jewish ideas in another way. With regard to Josephus’ declarations that the Hasidic schools were Stoic and Pythagorean, he notes, “we have at least to deal with a strongly Hellenized presentation of Jewish views.” He continues: But it is in effect only the garb that is borrowed from Greece. The substance itself is authentically Jewish.59 Emile Schürer’s view of a core of Jewish substance is true. The issues considered were not Greek; they were derived from the Old Testament. Nevertheless, in the period prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the Greek garb covering the early Hasidic views did in fact create several important differences when compared with the garb worn by the more conservative Jews of the Aristocratic schools. To demonstrate, the methods used by the conservative Sadducees, being derived from the old Levitical and aristocratic families of the priesthood, were never compared with any of the Greek philosophies. Instead, as Josephus states, they “do away with Fate altogether.” He adds: As for the persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of these.60 58 59 60

JE, 6, pp. 564f. HJP, 2, p. 393. Jos., Wars, 2:8:14.

Historical and Cultural Background

189

The conservative Sadducees followed the Old Testament tenets of a mortal nephesh (soul),61 believing that the “soul perishes along with the body.” 62 Their method was to reject everything alien, whether from the Greeks or any other pagan source, and then interpret only from what was allowed within Scriptures. They were not always accurate in their interpretations, but they were strong in their opposition to those ideas drawn from foreign cultures. The charge made against the Hasmonaeans, the allies of the Sadducees, by the later Hasidic factions (Pharisees, Essenes, etc.), that they socially flirted with Hellenization, does not mean that there was a change in the religious stand of the Sadducees. The important point is that the subsequent hatred by most of the Jews of Judaea against the Greeks, which ensued after the attempted forced Hellenization of Judaea in 167 B.C.E., does not remove the previous centuries of peaceful exchange of ideas with the Greeks. Indeed, this strong Greek influence continued for centuries, even in the Jewish schools of Alexandria, Egypt.

The Hasidim One of the most important historical and cultural developments in Judaism during the Hellenic period was the formation of the Hasidim during the late third century B.C.E. From them are derived the Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, and others, including the later Rabbinists and Talmudists, who are their spiritual descendants.63 The name Hasidim means “pious, devout” ones.64 These early Hasidim must not be confused with the German mystics of the 12th– 13th centuries C.E. or with the modern Hasidic movement, founded in 18th century Poland by Israel ben Eliezer.65 Very little is known of the origins of the early Hasidim themselves. The book of 1 Maccabees makes the first reference to the existence of the ΔAsidai`oi (Hasidaioi) as a body of religious people. Their appearance is placed in 167 B.C.E., just before the rise of the Hasmonaeans (Maccabees).66 They are described as being “voluntarily devoted unto the law.”67 As demonstrated by the Mishnah,68 the real historical and spiritual father of the Hasidim and their liberal brand of Judaism, with its reliance on oral laws, was Simeon II (also called Simeon the Just), the son of Onias II.69 He is the first proto-rabbi known by name.70 Simeon II (225/224–206/205 B.C.E.) Ezek., 18:4, 20; Lev., 23:30; Ps., 22:28f; Eccles., 9:2–5. Also see above n. 52. Jos., Antiq., 18:1:4. NBD, pp. 505, 981; MDB, pp. 263, 680, 785, 980; EBD, pp. 351, 465, 824. See above Intro.: Sect. I, p. 173, n. 2. EBD, p. 465. 1 Macc., 2:42, 7:13; 2 Macc., 14:6. 1 Macc., 2:42. Ab., 1:2. Also see JSMIA, pp. 348ff; HCJ, pp. 79ff, 437, n. 111; NBD, p. 46. Jos., Antiq., 12:4:10; B. Yom., 69a; schol. Meg. Taan.; Tosef. Sot., 13:6–8; J. Yom., 43c; B. Yom., 39a, b; B. Men., 109b. Some hold to the possibility that this Simeon the Just could also be Simeon I (e.g., TNTB, p. 140; Danby, Mishnah, p. 446, n. 6). Yet there is no event in the time of Simeon I that would account for the breakup of the Great Synagogue, a political body to which the high priest was automatically considered a leading member. On the other hand, about the time of the death of Onias II, the father of Simeon II, hostilities and civil war broke out among the Jews over their leadership (Jos., Antiq., 12:4:10–12:5:1). This civil war would have been a direct cause for the disbandment of the Great Synagogue. 70 ECJ, 1.2, p. 19. 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

190

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

was of the Zadok line of high priests, a line that had been ruling in Judaea ever since a remnant of the Judahites returned from their Babylonian exile to that country in 538 B.C.E.71 It is also believed that the subsequent leader of the Hasidim was Onias III (205/204–181/180 B.C.E.), the son of Simeon II.72 It is politically interesting that Simeon II—the person to whom the Pharisees, who were so strongly against Greek culture, admit owing so much—was from the Zadok line of high priests and from a family who thought so highly of Greek culture. The pro-Seleucid Gerousia, which welcomed Antiochus III, the Greek king of Syria, into Jerusalem in 198 B.C.E., was headed by Simeon II.73 It was Simeon II and his family of Levitical priests who not only favored Hellenistic culture but wanted to bring Judaism in line with the philosophies and views of the modern world of their own time. It further points to the fact that the early Hasidim, prior to the Hasmonaean revolt, were attempting to reach a form of piety through Greek-like methods, which explains why they were Stoic and ascetic in their approach. In the mythical account of the origin of the oral laws used by the Pharisees, the Mishnah makes the claim that they were first received by Moses, who in turn gave them to Joshua, the son of Nun. Then, from Joshua these oral laws were supposedly committed to the elders, from the elders to the prophets, and finally, from the prophets to the Great Synagogue.74 The Great Synagogue consisted of 120 elders, including many prophets, beginning with those who came up from their Babylonian exile with Ezra in the mid-fifth century B.C.E.75 This august body broke up in 227/226 B.C.E. upon the outbreak of hostilities at the death of Onias II, the father of Simeon II. The Great Synagogue pronounced as its doctrine, “Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.” 76 Simeon II “was of the remnants of the Great Synagogue.” 77 By their writings, Moses and many of the other prophets of Yahweh clearly prove that they did not adhere to the oral regulations later espoused by the Hasidim (later to become the Pharisees, Essenes, etc.). It is also impossible that the conservative scribe Ezra or any of the other prophets of Yahweh associated with him held to any of these oral laws. The greatest proof against the belief that any of these men of Yahweh adhered to the oral laws of the Hasidim is 71 Simeon II (the Just) was the son of Onias II (Jos., Antiq., 12:4:10), the son of Simeon I (the Just) (Jos., Antiq., 12:4:1, 12:2:5), the son of Onias I (Jos., Antiq., 12:2:5), the son of Jaddua (Jos., Antiq., 11:8:7), the son of Jonathan (Johanan) (Jos., Antiq., 11:7:2; Neh., 12:10, cf., 12:22f), the son of Joiada (Jos., Antiq., 11:7:1, 2; Neh., 12:22, cf., 12:10f), the son of Eliashib (Jos., Antiq., 11:7:1; Neh., 12:10), the son of Joiakim (Jos., Antiq., 11:5:5; Neh., 12:10), the son of Yahushua, the high priest of Yahweh at Jerusalem after the return of the Judahites from their Babylonian exile (Jos., Antiq., 11:5:1; Neh., 12:10). All of the above performed as the high priest at Jerusalem. Yahushua was the son of Jozadak, the son of Seraiah—Seraiah being of the Zadok line and the last high priest of the first Temple of Yahweh before it was destroyed by the Babylonians (2 Kings, 25:18; 1 Chron., 6:14; Jer., 52:24–27; Ezra, 3:2, 8, 5:2, 10:18; Neh., 12:1f, 8–11; Hag., 1:1, 12, 14, 2:2, 4; Zech., 6:11; Jos., Antiq., 10:8:5, 6:11:3–10, 20:10:2). 72 NBD, p. 505; SCO, p. 20. 73 ECJ, 1.1, p. 151 74 Ab., 1:1f. 75 Danby, Mishnah, p. 446, n. 5. 76 Ab., 1:1. 77 Ab., 1:1f.

Historical and Cultural Background

191

the strong condemnation of the “traditions of the fathers” by the prophets and by Yahushua the messiah himself.78 On the other hand, some 230 years after Ezra and the formation of the Great Synagogue, and over 100 years after the conquest of Judaea by Alexander the Great, we arrive at the last period of the Great Synagogue. A different climate now prevailed. The divisions among religious leaders at that time and their favorable attitude toward Greek philosophy and culture offered the fertile ground upon which new ideas could grow. Phillip Sigal speaks of the third century B.C.E., the era which gave rise to Simeon II, as the period of the origination of the oral law. It was the age of the sofrim or hakhamim (sages) who interpreted biblical literature and applied it to everyday use. Here we may have the origin of the so-called “oral torah,” material which was not written in coherent essay or book form nor even collected as groups of sayings in order not to have the interpretation compete with the source-text.79 Therefore, the specific mention of Simeon II as the recipient of the oral laws from the Great Synagogue is of utmost importance. He had in fact jointly served as high priest with his father during the last years of the Great Synagogue and would certainly have been part of that body. Jewish legend has this priest accompanied by the incarnate deity into the Holy of Holies.80 In this way the Pharisees made their founder both priest and prophet. After the death of Onias II, the Great Synagogue broke up and Simeon II led the “remnant” of that group.81 Here the truthfulness of the history of the oral laws takes its beginning. The Jewish book entitled Ecclesiasticus (c.200 B.C.E.) reflects the orthodoxy of the Hasidim.82 This text speaks grandiloquently of Simeon II, noting that he had fortified and done many other great repairs and services to the Temple in Jerusalem.83 Such comments point to Simeon II as the founder of a new religious movement. Further, Joshua ben Sirach, the author of Ecclesiasticus, as The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary notes, was “open to Hellenistic influences.” This text continues: His hymn in praise of the heroes of the past is clearly indebted to Hellenistic encomiastic historiography and to the educational and social concerns served in that tradition. . . . The author may therefore have 78 Jer., 10:1–8; Matt., 15:1–14, 16:6, 23:1–3, 13–39; Mark, 7:1–13, 8:15; Luke, 12:1; Gal., 1:11–17, cf., Acts, 23:6; Titus, 1:12–15. 79 ECJ, 1.1, p. 151. 80 Lev. Rab., 21:12. 81 Ab., 1:2. 82 NBD, p. 46; EBD, p. 954. Joshua ben Sirach was a scribe and sage who worked in an academy located at Jerusalem. In the Hebrew version of Ecclus., 51:129, a blessing is given on the “sons of Zadok.” This favorable attitude toward the house of Zadok (Tsadoq) reflects the fact that Joshua was on the Essene side of the Hasidic spectrum. 83 Ecclus., 50:1–18.

192

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh been indebted in his reflections TO STOIC CONCEPTIONS of an all-embracing world law.84

What follows the naming of Simeon II in the Mishnah is a long list of the names of individuals who passed down in succession the oral laws until they were given to the famous Pharisee scribe and leader Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, the compiler of the Mishnah itself.85 The Mishnah is nothing less than the written codification of the oral laws as they came down and were modified through the hands of the Pharisaic branch of the Hasidim. What is often overlooked is the fact that the sons of Simeon II, namely, Joshua Jason and Onias IV (Onias Menelaus), wanted to abandon Judaism altogether because they loved “the glory of the Greeks best of all.” 86 Also of interest is the fact that the third name in the list of those passing on the oral traditions was Jose ben Joezer,87 whose uncle was Alcimus (162/161–159/158 B.C.E.), the great Hellenizing Jewish high priest in the days of Antiochus V and Demetrius II.88 Greek influence in the household of Simeon II, therefore, must have been great. Accordingly, there can be little doubt that the “traditions of the fathers,” so adored as the mainstay of Pharisaic oral law, were in fact accumulated and derived from one division of Jewish leadership during the last period of the Great Synagogue—a body whose precepts were intended to “make a fence around the Torah.” 89 This motto became the living creed of the Pharisees. Some of these traditions were even gathered from the Jews who came out of Babylonia. Others were added by subsequent generations.90 At the same time, the more anti-Hellenic and conservative branch of the priests (the Sadducees) were certainly right in their claim that the oral laws were never given by Moses and transmitted down by the prophets to the Great Synagogue. What is most important for our concerns is the fact that the oral laws and interpretations rendered by the scribes were considered by the Pharisees not just equal to but superior to the Torah.91 This self-aggrandizing claim gradually moved the early Hasidim and their offshoots the Pharisees, Essenes, and others, away from the strict guidelines of the Old Testament and the early traditions of the Levitical priests. At the same time, they used Greek philosophical methods as a vehicle to more strictly observe the Torah. As Emile Schürer points out: EBD, p. 955. Ab., 1:2–2:1. 2 Macc., 4:13–15. Ab., 1:4. 1 Macc., 7:4–22; Danby, Mishnah, p. 446, n. 7. Ab., 1:1. CBTEL, 9, p. 235. In the B. Erub., 21b (cf., J. Ber., 1:5, 3b) we read this warning from the sages, “My son. Be more heedful of the words of the sofrim (scribes) than of those of the written Torah. For the words of the Torah contain positive and negative injunctions (for the transgression of which there is no death penalty) but whoever transgresses the words of the scribes incurs the penalty of death.” Sanh., 11:3, states, “Greater stringency applies to (the observance of) the words of the scribes than to (the observance of) the words of the (written) Torah.” Cf., Ab., 1:1; TNTB, p. 140; Danby, Mishnah, pp. xvii, 446, n. 2; EJ, 15, p. 81. 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Historical and Cultural Background

193

The tendency of the Hasidim towards strict observance of the Torah gained more and more influence. And with it, their claims also mounted. He alone was a true Israelite who observed the law in accordance with the interpretation given by the Torah scholars. But the more pressing these demands became, the more decisively did the aristocracy reject them. It therefore appears that it was the religious revival itself of the Maccabaean period that led to a consolidation of the parties.92 It can therefore be concluded that the high priest Simeon II (225–206 B.C.E.) and the people he gathered around him, particularly from the class of scribes and scholars, not only founded the group that later became the Hasidim (pious ones) but were the originators and gatherers of the initial traditions (oral laws) later followed by the Pharisees. As the decades passed, the Pharisees moved these traditions from cultic practice among certain segments of the population to commanded ordinances. A long list of rabbinical schools then continued to update these oral laws.93 It was the Hasidim, guided by the scribes who filled their ranks, who not only brought into effect many new principles with regard to the Torah in order to “build a fence around the Torah” but also borrowed and incorporated many thoughts, premises, and interpretations used by the Greeks and other pagan societies. Among these practices were stoicism, the unutterable sacred name doctrine, and adherence to oral traditions—all in the name of becoming more pious by more strictly observing the Torah. For example, it was no longer appropriate to just observe the Sabbath day, which began at sunset. According to the oral laws, one must begin observing the Sabbath day on Friday afternoon, during the few hours before sunset.94 The theory went that if one should work right up to the time of the Sabbath he “might” err and work beyond sunset and break the Sabbath. By addressing such scriptural issues in this stoic fashion, the Hasidim believed it made them more pious. It should be especially noted that the Hasidic book of Jubilees, composed between 161 and 140 B.C.E.,95 concludes with instructions and a discussion on how to observe the Phasekh and the order of the Jubilee years.96 There can be little doubt that this text was produced to provide some kind of written authority for the Hasidic observance, authority which is lacking in any oral tradition. The book of Jubilees is in fact the earliest known record of this Hasidic interpretation and method of Phasekh observance. HJP, 2, pp. 412f. See, for example, the long list of contributing rabbis mentioned in Ab., 1:4–3:3. The commentaries found in the Mishnah and the Talmud are replete with references to various rabbis and their opposing views up to and including those from the time of the second revolt in 135 C.E. 94 HUCA, 54, p. 128; DR, 13; B. R.Sh., 9a. Also see the discussion in SJC, chap. xvi. 95 OTP, 2, pp. 43–45; THS, p. 283. 96 Jub., 49:1–50:13. 92 93

194

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Conclusion From the days of Alexander the Great (332 B.C.E.) until the Hasmonaean revolt (167 B.C.E.) a great deal of Greek philosophy, thought, and ideas had entered Judaism, especially into the ranks of the scribes and priests who formed the Hasidic movement. These foreign ideas had become so strongly incorporated into the culture and religion of Judaism that, by the mid-second century B.C.E., they were no longer viewed by the Hasidim as alien but, somehow, had become completely Jewish. It would be unrealistic and naive to believe that Greek dominance of Judaea, during the centuries after the conquest of Judaea by Alexander the Great, had no effect on the religious, philosophical, and cultural views of the various Jewish sects of that period. As we proceed with our examination of the origin of the views held in Systems A, B, and C, it will be of great assistance if we keep in mind the context of this historical and cultural background from which the opposing Jewish schools sprang.

Chapter XII

Sadducees Versus Pharisees

ith the proper historical and cultural context in hand, we shall now turn our attention toward the two leading Jewish religious parties: the Sadducees and the Pharisees. These two religious groups held opposing interpretations for μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim; between the evenings), for the day on which the Phasekh was eaten, and for the seven days of unleavened bread. The Sadducees reflected the Aristocratic view while the Pharisees carried on the Hasidic tradition. In the 143rd Jewish Seleucid year (169/168 B.C.E., Nisan or spring reckoning) the Greek king of Syria, Antiochus IV, began his suppression of Judaea in an attempt to Hellenize the country. As part of this attempt, Antiochus IV forbade the Jews by threat of death from observing their national customs and sacred days.1 This forced Hellenization policy pushed different groups into hiding and resulted in the Maccabean (Hasmonaean)2 revolt, which began in the winter of 167/166 B.C.E. In 164 B.C.E. this revolt led to the subsequent defeat of the Syrians holding on to Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter the existence of the Sadducees and Pharisees is formally acknowledged by the records. In the centuries following 70 C.E., the year when the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem was destroyed and the power of the Sadducees disappeared, the Mishnah and Tosefta represented most of the disputes between the Pharisees and Sadducees (especially the Boethusian branch) as mere concerns over interpretations of the laws of ritual purity, with only a few disagreements on civil and Sabbath laws.3 This presentation does not reflect the reality of the period prior to 70 C.E. During these earlier years the Sadducees remained a viable force and their differences with the Hasidim spread into every aspect of religious doctrine. At the core of this ongoing dispute was the struggle for political power and the issue over who had the right to interpret Scriptures. The separation between Sadducees and Pharisees (who later became the Talmudists) stems back to the basic doctrines and philosophies of each group. Our effort in this chapter is twofold. First we shall examine the philosophy of religion for each group to determine how they arrived at their respective positions. Second, we shall examine the political struggle between the Sadducees and Pharisees and demonstrate how the Pharisees suppressed the Aristocratic views, including their understanding of how to observe the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Pentecost. 1 2 3

1 Macc., 1:20–64; 2 Macc., 6:22–7:42; Jos., Antiq., 12:5:4f. Variantly spelled Hasmonean. PSSP, pp. 231–234.

195

196

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The Sadducees

The Sadducees—Hebrew yqwdx (Tsadoqi), μyqwdx (Tsadoqim), i.e., Zadokites; Greek Saddoukai`oi (Saddukaioi)—were the conservative descendants, supporters, and sympathizers of the family of qwdx (Zadok, Tsadoq), a Levitical high priest living in the days of King David. Zadok was appointed the first high priest over the newly built Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem in the days of King Solomon (963/962–924/923 B.C.E.).4 From Zadok descended all of the subsequent high priests of the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem until the Hasmonaeans usurped that position in the second century B.C.E.5 The conservative Sadducees advocated the Aristocratic Phasekh practice (System A). Members of the conservative line of Levitical priests first appeared under the name “Sadducees” shortly after the death of Onias IV (162/161 B.C.E.), the last high priest of the Zadok line.6 J. Bradley Chance comments: It was probably at this time, in order to distinguish themselves from the Hasidim, that the Zadokites and their non-priestly aristocratic allies began to be recognized by the appellation Sadducees.7 There seems little doubt that they received their title because of their support for the right of the Zadok family to control the Temple and to hold on to their traditional role as chief priests. Therefore, though not all Jewish priests of this period were Sadducees, “nearly all Sadducees, however, appear to have been priests, especially of the most powerful priestly families.”8 Eerdmans Bible Dictionary reports: The Sadducees did, indeed, FAVOR THE PRIESTS and accord them an elevated role in their interpretation of the law. By the time of Jesus they included the families who supplied the high priests, as well as other wealthy aristocrats of Jerusalem. Most members of the Sanhedrin, the central judicial authority of Jewish people, were Sadducees. . . . The Sadducees accepted only the written Torah and rejected all ‘oral 4 1 Kings, 4:1–4; cf., 2 Sam., 8:17, 15:24–37; 1 Chron., 6:1–59. John Dam., 16, notes that the name Sadducees meant “the most just” and that they were derived “from a priest named Sadok.” qwdx (Zadok, Tsadoq) in Hebrew means “just” (SEC, Heb. #6659); “was righteous, equitable . . . acted justly . . . was in the right . . . justified, cleared, himself or another.” (HEL, p. 218). Also see above Chap. XI, p. 184, n. 31. 5 The high priesthood continued in the Levitical family of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, until the time of Eli, a descendant from Ithamar, the son of Aaron (Lev., 10:1f, 12, cf., 1 Kings, 2:27 with 2 Sam., 8:17; 1 Chron., 24:3). The conspiracy of Abiathar, the fourth in descent from Eli, led King Solomon to depose him (1 Kings, 1:7, 2:26f). The office thus returned to the house of Eleazar in the line of Zadok. It continued in that line until political intrigues in the time of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes led to the deposition of Onias III. Thereafter the position of high priest became the patronage of the ruling power. The last high priest of the Zadok line was Onias IV (Onias Menelaus), who was executed in the year 162/161 B.C.E., Nisan reckoning. 6 For the history of Onias IV (Onias Menelaus) see Jos., Antiq., 12:5:1–12:9:7, 20:10:3; cf., 2 Macc., 4:23–13:8; Meg. Taan., 11. 7 MDB, p. 785. 8 NBD, p. 1124.

Sadducees Versus Pharisees

197

Torah,’ i.e. the traditional interpretations of the Torah accepted by the Pharisees that became the central importance in rabbinic Judaism. . . . The Sadducees represented in these ways a conservatism that limited both the acceptance of religious ideas not represented in the old sources and the interpretation of every aspect of life by reference to religion, which is precisely what the Pharisees most sought.9 The Encyclopaedia Judaica comments: The Sadducees were the conservative priestly group, holding to THE OLDER DOCTRINES, and cherishing the highest regard for the sacrificial cult of the Temple.10 Emile Schürer, when comparing the conservative Sadducees with the liberal Hasidic (Pharisaic) system of oral laws, similarly concludes: In this rejection of the Pharisaic legal tradition, the Sadducees represented an OLDER VIEWPOINT: they stood by the written Torah. For them, none of the subsequent development was binding. Their religious outlook was similarly VERY CONSERVATIVE.11 In the first historical event to which they were associated, the Sadducees were connected with events during the prostas-ship (protector of the state) of the Hasmonaean high priest Jonathan (145/144–142/141 B.C.E.).12 Though these supporters of the Zadok line would not have been happy that a Hasmonaean (Hasmonean) was holding the post of high priest, “they did work well with the Hasmonean leadership and thereby were able to maintain real political power through their control of the Sanhedrin.”13 From the time of the priest-rulers John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I, and Alexander Jannaeus, the Hasmonaeans depended upon the Sadducean religious party, which controlled the courts and local government.14 Alexander Jannaeus even warred for six years against the Pharisees.15 J. Bradley Chance adds: Save for the exceptional period of the reign of Queen Alexandra (76–67 B.C.E.) when the Pharisees were given a prominent voice in the Sanhedrin, the Sadducees were the favorite party of the Hasmonean rulers and were permitted to maintain official authority over the Jews.16 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

EBD, p. 902. EJ, 14, p. 621. HJP, 2, p. 411, cf., p. 413. Jos., Antiq., 13:5:9, in context with 13:5:1–8. MDB, p. 785. HJP, 2, pp. 401f, 413. Jos., Antiq., 13:13:5 §376, cf., 13:15:5. HJP, 2, p. 401; MDB, p. 681. MDB, p. 785.

198

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Already suffering a setback by the pro-Pharisee position of Queen Alexandra,17 the power of the Sadducees began to wane further when they opposed Herod the Great’s move toward the throne of Judaea. With the backing of full Roman recognition, Herod was able to seize power in Jerusalem in early 36 B.C.E.18 During the years of his drive for power, Herod rewarded those who supported him, including the Pharisees. He also assassinated those from the Pharisees, as well as the majority of the Sanhedrin and those from the Hasmonaean family, who opposed him.19 The minority party of the Sadducees was able to continue in positions of power during the reign of Herod because they had learned their lesson and had aligned themselves with Herod and the ruling authorities. Further, Herod still resented the majority of the Pharisees.20 It was Herod the Great and the Romans who subsequently appointed the high priest and favored the loyalty of the Sadducees. In turn, the high priestship during the Herodian period was predominantly represented by the Boethusian branch of the Sadducees.21 Nevertheless, the Sadducees were soon dealt two more severe blows: First, the Romans ousted the family of Herod the Great from power over Jerusalem in 6 C.E.22 Though the Sadducees continued as high priests, civil and religious power gradually shifted toward the Pharisees, who enjoyed the support of the masses. This power shift is reflected in the changing composition of the Sanhedrin, which held control over the civil affairs of Judaea, and with the membership of the priesthood. In the days of the Hasmonaeans, the Sanhedrin and the priesthood were both dominated by the aristocratic Sadducees. During the Herodian period, on the other hand, the Pharisees began to share seats with them in the august body of the Sanhedrin; and in the last decades of the Temple a number of priests (though not the chief priests) were Pharisees.23 Second, the authority of the Sadducees collapsed in 70 C.E. when the Romans destroyed the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem.24 With the absence of the Temple, there was no longer any need for the Levitical priesthood, as required by the Torah of Moses. History played its strange hand and the Pharisees actually profited from the fall of the Jewish state.25

Sadducean Philosophical Approach The philosophical approach of the Sadducees was conservative. The antiHellenic Sadducees became allies with the Hasidim (Pharisees, Essenes) during the Jewish revolt against the Greek rulers of Syria. Yet these Sadducees “did not feel comfortable with the movement of the Hasidim, for this group For her pro-Pharisee position see Jos., Wars, 1:5:1–4, Antiq., 13:15:5–13:16:6. SJC, chaps. xvi–xx. Jos., Wars, 1:18:1–5, Antiq., 14:9:1–5, 14:16:2–15:3:7. SHDL, p. 61. For the evidence of the Boethusian Sadducees and their high priests during the Herodian period see below Chap. XV, pp. 236f, 240f. 22 Jos., Wars, 2:7:3–2:8:1, Antiq., 17:13:1–18:1:1, 18:2:1. 23 HJP, 2, pp. 213, 235, 405, & n. 7 on p. 405. 24 HJP, 2, pp. 402, 414; EJ, 14, p. 622; EBD, p. 902; NBD, p. 1124; CBTEL, 9, p. 241; DB, p. 579. 25 HJP, 2, pp. 402, 414. 17 18 19 20 21

Sadducees Versus Pharisees

199

refused to look only to the Zadokites for religious guidance and for proper interpretation of the Torah.” 26 The issue of who had the right to interpret Scriptures—the aristocratic priests or the middle-class scribes—was at the heart of the disagreements between these two major Jewish factions.27 Further, the Levitical Sadducees were expecting a messiah to come from the ranks of the Levites, while the Pharisees sought the messiah from the seed of David.28 These political realities became the source of much resentment on both sides. The authority of the Sadducees to be the rulers, judges, priests, and high priest in the theocracy came by means of the Torah. Therefore, they insisted upon a strict observance of the letter of the Torah because they knew that it required a literal interpretation for them to stay in power.29 The reinterpretative methods used by the rabbis, on the other hand, were a direct threat. For the Sadducees, the real problem with the oral laws was that most were not even inferred by Scriptures. They were simply the inventions and traditions of men. Yet the Aristocratic Sadducees went even further. They also believed that if a doctrine or religious practice could not be explicitly found in the Torah it should not be followed at all. Josippon (953 C.E.) notes that both the early Sadducees and their Aristocratic brothers, the Samaritans, did not observe any tradition or exposition save the Torah of Moses.30 For instance, the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the dead.31 Their reasoning held that, even if one were to argue that the resurrection is inferred, it was not directly taught by the Torah.32 As a result, all oral traditions and laws were condemned and the teachings of the Pharisees were ridiculed as “heresies.” As Nathan Ausubel notes: The Sadducees were implacably opposed to the “alien” beliefs expressed by the Pharisees. They denounced them as being in violation of the teachings of Moses, for nowhere in the Torah, they averred— and correctly so—was there any authority for them.33 Josephus also writes: The Sadducees hold that life perishes along with the body. They own no observance of any sort apart from the Torah; in fact, they reckon it a virtue to dispute MDB, p. 785. SHDL, pp. 57f. SHDL, pp. 58–62. SHDL, pp. 56f, “They dared not go beyond the four corners of the Pentateuch if they did not wish to risk losing their position. It was only because they kept rigorously to the old traditions that they maintained their position as the secular judges, invested with the full authority of deciding the Law. They were also protected by the ministrations in the Temple, for the whole service lay in their hands, and this, of course, gave them the additional authoritative position in the life of the commonwealth, which could not be disputed by any layman.” 30 Josippon, 4:6. 31 That the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection see Luke, 20:27–40; Mark, 12:18–27; Matt., 22:23–33; Jos., Antiq., 18:1:4, Wars, 2:8:14; B. Sanh., 90b. 32 CBTEL, 9, p. 236. 33 BJK, p. 385. 26 27 28 29

200

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh with the teachers of the path of wisdom that they pursue. There are but few men to whom this doctrine has been made known, but these are men of the highest standing.34

This school, as a result, carried on the understandings of Scriptures passed down through the ancient Levitical Zadok priesthood. MÔClintock and Strong state: The Sadducees were the aristocratic and conservative priestly party, WHO CLUNG TO THEIR ANCIENT PREROGATIVES AND RESISTED EVERY INNOVATION which the ever-shifting circumstances of the commonwealth demanded.35 The doctrines of the Sadducees, as a result, reflected the ancient traditions and order of the Levitical priesthood as opposed to the “alien” innovations of the Pharisees. This fact suggests that the Sadducees also observed a more ancient form of the practices used by the priests for the celebration of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread (System A). At the same time, Josephus notes that the Pharisees were “affectionate to each other and cultivate harmonious relations with the community,” while the Sadducees, despite the antiquity of their practices, suffered from being argumentative and “are, even among themselves, rather boorish in their behavior, and in their intercourse with their peers are as rude as to aliens.”36 The Hasidim gave the opinion that these priests were “haughty.”37 Eusebius states that they were “cruel in their judgments beyond all the Jews.”38 An allusion to the Sadducees of the Hasmonaean period is found in the work entitled Psalms of the Pharisees (also called the Psalms of Solomon).39 In this text the aristocratic priests are labeled as “sinners,” who are severe in judgment, yet themselves full of sin, lust, and hypocrisy; they are men pleasers and full of evil desires.40 Their aristocratic, arrogant, and boorish manner of life left them unpopular among the general populace. This fault was exacerbated by their continual slide into petty self-interest. For that reason, as time progressed, their power and popularity faded while the star of the more liberal Pharisees became brighter.

The Pharisees System B originated among the early Hasidim but became dominant as a religious practice because of the political power of their spiritual descendants, the Jos., Antiq., 18:1:4. CBTEL, 9, p. 235. Jos., Wars, 2:8:14. B. Shab., 62b. Eusebius, H.E., 2:23:21. JE, 10, p. 632; OTP, 2, p. 642. The text has been attributed by some to the Pharisees and by others to the Essenes, but in either case it would be a Hasidic view. 40 Cf., Ps. Sol., 1:1–8, 4:1–10, 8:8. 34 35 36 37 38 39

Sadducees Versus Pharisees

201

Pharisees.41 From Pharisaism derived what is now called Orthodox Judaism.42 Their conflict with the Sadducees was in force from the time of the Hasmonaean revolt. J. Bradley Chance writes: The group later known as the PHARISEES was the spiritual descendant of the Hasidim and, hence, the perpetual conflict between the Pharisees and Sadducees finds its roots in the nascent period of these groups.43 Other divisions of the Hasidim never became more than minority parties and never carried the same political clout. They developed into such groups as the Essenes, Qumran Covenanteers, and Therapeutae.44 The Zealots (also called the Sicarii)45 were the fourth major Jewish philosophy in existence during the first century C.E.46 They were classed by Hippolytus as a branch of the Essenes.47 The last Zealot stronghold, Masada, fell in May of 73 C.E.48 Josephus writes of them: This school agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees, except that they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable.49 Hippolytus interestingly also classes the Pharisees as an Essene sect.50 Since the Pharisees were derived from the Hasidim, this association indicates that those referred to as Hasidim by the Pharisees of the first century C.E. were by others called Essenes. The name “Pharisee” is derived from çrp (pharis), i.e., “to separate” from others.51 The Jewish scribes (lawyers), who were teachers of Jewish law, “belonged mainly to the party of the Pharisees, but as a body were distinct from them.” 52 Emile Schürer notes: 41 HJP, 2, pp. 397–401, 413; ADB, 4, p. 349; SCO, pp. 23f; MDB, pp. 680f; EBD, pp. 465, 824; NBD, pp. 505, 981; CBTEL, 9, p. 73. 42 CBTEL, 8, p. 70, “To state the doctrines and statutes of the Pharisees is to give a history of orthodox Judaism; since Pharisaism was after the return from the Babylonian captivity, and is to the present day, the national faith of the orthodox Jews, developing itself with and adapting itself to the ever-shifting circumstances of the nation.” 43 MDB, p. 785. 44 HJP, 2, pp. 413, 562–597; SCO, p. 22; MDB, p. 263; EBD, pp. 351, 465; NBD, pp. 505, 981; CBTEL, 8, p. 73. 45 Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:21, “being denominated (by some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii.” 46 The Zealot movement, though originally not designated under that name (MDB, p. 1082; JQR, 60, p. 187), was founded by Judas of Galilee, with the assistance of a Pharisee named Saddok, in 6 C.E. when they led a revolt against the Romans at the time of the Roman registration of property for taxes (Acts, 5:37; Jos., Wars, 2:8:1, 2:17:8f, Antiq., 18:1:6, 20:5:2). They became a religious party with the revolt against Rome in 66 C.E. Menahem, the son of this Judas, held Masada during the war against Rome (Jos., War, 2:17:8f). It was Eleazar, the son of Yair and descendant of Judas of Galilee, who led the Sicarii (Zealots) at Masada before its final fall (Jos., Wars, 2:17:9, 7:8:1). Also see HJP, 1, pp. 381f, & n. 129, 2, pp. 598–606; EJ, 16, pp. 947–950; JE, 12, pp. 639– 643. 47 Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:21. 48 Jos., Wars, 7:8:1–7:9:2. 49 Jos., Antiq., 18:1:6. 50 Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:23. 51 SEC, Heb. #6567; HJP, 2, pp. 396–398; PSSP, pp. 220f; NBD, p. 981; MDB, p. 680; EBD, pp. 823f. John Dam., 15, states that the name Pharisee “is interpreted as meaning ‘those who are set apart’.” 52 NBD, p. 1151; cf. Acts, 23:9.

202

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh From the priestly circles emerged the Sadducean party, and from those of the Torah scholars came the party of the Pharisees, the lay experts in religious matters.53

The evidence that the Sadducees were largely from the priestly ranks also reinforces the fact that, unlike their Hasidic brothers, the Pharisees drew their support largely from the Jewish scribes and scholars who had come to reject aristocratic Zadok authority.54 In their anti-Zadok conviction the Pharisees differed from the other Hasidic groups. For example, the Qumran Covenanteers, whose views on many religious issues parallel that of the Pharisees, opposed the Hasmonaean line of priests and supported the Zadok line.55 Yet for the Pharisees, the Zadok priesthood had become discredited through the apostasy of some of its leaders, especially when they attempted to forcibly Hellenize Judaea in the mid-second century B.C.E. Originally the Pharisees were small in number. As time progressed they became the most politically and religiously dominant force in Judaism. The Pharisee movement had grown out of the Hasidic belief system constructed by earlier phil-Hellenic priests, like Simeon II and his son Onias III, whose family also represented the Hellenizing branch of the priestly families. Therefore, the Pharisees, like the early Hasidim, accepted Hellenic philosophical approaches to religious issues but resented complete Hellenization as paganizing. The Pharisees, along with the Sadducees, are first mentioned as a viable religious group in the time of the Hasmonaean leader Jonathan. The events fall within the time frame from Jonathan’s confirmation as high priest and his placement as prostas (protector of the state) by Demetrius II in the 167th Jewish Seleucid year (145/144 B.C.E.) until Jonathan’s death in the 170th Jewish Seleucid year (142/141 B.C.E.).56 Josephus writes: Now at this time there were three schools of thought among the Jews, which held different opinions concerning human affairs; the first being that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes.57 The appearance of both the Pharisees and the Essenes at this time (145–142 B.C.E.) reflects the disintegration of the Hasidim into rival factions shortly after the outbreak of the Hasmonaean revolt against Antiochus IV in the winter of 167/166 B.C.E. After the Hasmonaean victory against the Greek rulers of Syria, the Pharisees, by gaining the support of the masses, gradually rose to power. They were finally given the right to religiously rule Judaea during the reign of Queen Alexandra of Judaea (76/75–68/67 B.C.E.).58 A faction of the Pharisees HJP, 2, p. 388. HJP, 2, p. 413, “A largely lay section of the Hasidim followed their principles to their conclusion and became ‘Pharisees’.” 55 For the support of the Zadok line of priests at Qumran see CR, 5, cf., 1, 6, 9; MR, 1; LF, 3. 56 See 1 Macc. 11:18–13:41; Jos., Antiq., 13:4:9–13:6:7. 57 Jos., Antiq., 13:5:9. 58 Jos., Antiq., 13:15:5–13:16:5; Wars, 1:5:1f. 53 54

Sadducees Versus Pharisees

203

(Pollion and his disciple Samaias, and most of their disciples) later openly supported Herod the Great against the Hasmonaeans and the Sadducees.59 The Essenes were also held in favor by Herod.60 Then, after the demise of Archelaus as king of Judaea in 6 C.E., the Pharisees, with the support of the masses, became the chief religious power over their country.61

Pharisaic Philosophical Approach The Pharisees were the “strictest sect” in the Jewish religion.62 They believed in the traditions of their Hasidic forefathers, called the halakoth or oral laws. To be a Pharisee was to be “instructed according to the exactness of the ancestral (oral) law,”63 and they would pride themselves on “the exact interpretation of the (oral) law of their fathers.”64 The oral laws were provided by the scribes and later formed the regulations of the Mishnah. These traditions of their fathers were designed to “build a fence around the Torah,” i.e., to protect the laws and commandments of Scriptures. The Pharisees gave these oral laws equal authority with the Scriptures, and in practice made the oral laws greater than scriptural law.65 The Mishnah, for example, states: Greater stringency applies to (the observance of) the words of the scribes than to (the observance of) the words of the (written) Torah. If (for example) a man said, “There is no obligation to wear phylacteries,” so that he transgresses the words of the Torah, he is not culpable; (but if he said), “There should be in them five partitions,” so that he adds to the words of the Scribes, he is culpable.66 Contrary to the Sadducean position, the Pharisees believed that the rabbis had the power through interpretation and traditions to alter the laws of Scriptures to fit newer circumstances. Whereas the Sadducees were the conservatives, the Pharisees placed an emphasis “on doctrinal and legal renewal and readaptation by means of biblical exegesis.”67 Josephus writes: . . . the Pharisees had passed on to the people CERTAIN REGULATIONS HANDED DOWN BY FORMER GENERATIONS AND NOT RECORDED IN THE LAWS OF MOSES, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold that only those regulations should be considered valid which are Jos., Antiq., 14:9:4, 15:1:1, 15:10:4. Jos., Antiq., 15:10:4f. See below pp. 204–208. Acts, 26:5. Acts, 22:3. Jos., Antiq., 17:2:4; cf., Jos., Life, 38, “the sect of the Pharisees, who have the reputation of being unrivaled experts in their country’s laws”; Jos., Wars, 2:8:14, “the Pharisees who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws.” 65 Ab., 1:1–5; TNTB, p. 149; MDB, p. 681; SNY, chap. xiii. 66 Sanh., 11:3. 67 HJP, 2, p. 413, & n. 41. 59 60 61 62 63 64

204

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh written down and that those traditions which had been handed down by the fathers need not be observed.68 The book by MÔClintock and Strong notes: . . . the Pharisees, were the liberals, the representatives of the people —their principle being so to develop and MODIFY THE MOSAIC LAW AS TO ADAPT IT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TIME, and to make the people at large realize that they were “a people of priests, a holy nation.”69

The very mood of the Hasidic/Pharisaic movement, therefore, was “innovation in religion” in order to adapt it to the new age in which they lived. The Hasidim who formed the Pharisees, as James Brooks notes, “were middleclass ‘laymen’ who were committed to obeying the Law as it was interpreted by the SCRIBES. The scribes were scholars who were primarily concerned with interpreting and applying the written Law to everyday affairs. The purpose of this was to make the Mosaic Law relevant to changing situations.” 70 The Pharisees believed that, because of the presumed antiquity of these oral laws, it gave their scholars the right to govern. As J. Neusner points out, the Pharisee branch of the Hasidim “claimed the right to rule all the Jews by virtue of their possessing the ‘Oral Torah’ of Moses. . . . In their own setting, however, the Pharisees were much like any other Hellenistic philosophical school or sect.”71 With their newly found power emerging in the mid-first century B.C.E., the Pharisees began to bring these traditions (oral laws) to bear on the Jewish state.

Sadducees Versus Pharisees The liberal interpretations of the Pharisees (unlike the more narrow and conservative views of the Sadducees) were well-received by the masses. Eventually, this acceptance gave them political power far exceeding that of the Sadducees, despite Sadducean control of the Temple. As a result, after Herodian power over Jerusalem had been set aside, whenever a difference arose over issues that could be controlled outside the Temple, the Sadducees were forced to give way to the Pharisees. Josephus, himself a Pharisee, for example, writes in some detail of “the school of Sadducees, who hold opinions opposed to those of the Pharisees.” He explains: And concerning these matters the two parties came to have controversies and serious differences, the Sadducees having the confidence of the wealthy alone but no following among the populace, while the Pharisees have the support of the masses.72 68 69 70 71 72

Jos., Antiq., 13:10:6. CBTEL, 9, p. 235. MDB, p. 681. FPP, p. 11; HJP, 2, p. 389, n. 20. Jos., Antiq., 13:10:6.

Sadducees Versus Pharisees

205

Josephus adds that in his time (in the latter half of the first century C.E.) the Sadducees had surrendered all but the Temple to the Pharisees: They (the Sadducees) accomplish practically nothing, however, for whenever they assume some office, THOUGH THEY SUBMIT UNWILLINGLY AND PERFORCE, YET SUBMIT THEY DO TO THE FORMULAS OF THE PHARISEES, since otherwise the masses would not tolerate them.73 Sadducean fear of the Pharisees is expressed in a quote found in the Babylonian Talmud, where a Sadducee is reported to have told his son, “My son, although we are Sadducees, we are afraid of the Pharisees.”74 The wives of the Sadducees even followed the Pharisaic rulings with respect to the laws of menstruation.75 It is true that the Pharisaic religious party from the beginning of the first century C.E. gradually became the most important in Judaea by wielding the most political muscle. In the due course of time, one branch of the Pharisees, the Hillelic School, became the most dominant in all Judaism.76 Yet it is also true that those belonging to the party of the Pharisees represented only a small number of the overall Jewish population in Judaea. Josephus, for example, only counted “over 6,000” Pharisees in the time of Herod the Great.77 Most of the Jewish people of the first century C.E. and the following few centuries, though favoring the Pharisees among the parties contesting for power over the governing of the Jewish people, were not, strictly speaking, Pharisees. As Moshe Davis notes, “Evidently, ‘the multitude’ were the majority and they were not Pharisees.”78 The general population of Jews, for example, were much more in favor of magic, charms, and amulets. Erwin R. Goodenough describes this form of Judaism during this early period as follows: The picture we have got of this Judaism is that of a group still intensely loyal to Iao Sabaoth ·Yahu of hosts‚, a group which buried its dead and built its synagogues with a marked sense that it was a peculiar people in the eyes of God, but which accepted the best of paganism (including its most potent charms) as focusing in, finding its meaning in, the supreme Iao Sabaoth. In contrast to this, the Judaism of the rabbis was a Judaism which rejected all of the pagan religious world (all that it could), and said not, like Philo and these magicians, that the true supreme God of pagan formulation was best understood as Jos., Antiq., 18:1:4. B. Yom., 19b. B. Nidd., 33b. Ab., 1:12, 2:8; B. Erub., 13b; J. Ber., 1:7, 3b; and see comments in EJ, 4, pp. 740f. Also see ECJ, 1.2, pp. 20–25, 42, n. 71; EJ, 4, pp. 737–741. 77 Jos., Antiq., 17:2:4 §42. 78 IIRC, p. 78. 73 74 75 76

206

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh the God of the Jews, but that any approach to God except the rabbinical Jewish one was blasphemous. Theirs was the method of exclusion, not inclusion. The Judaism of the rabbis won out in the early Middle Ages, to such an extent that the rabbis made men forget that such a Judaism as here has come to light ever existed.79 Moshe Davis also writes: If there was any such thing, then, as an “orthodox Judaism,” it must have been that which is now almost unknown to us, the religion of the average “people of the land.”80

Long before the Hillelic branch of the Pharisees had gained a stranglehold on Judaism in general, the Pharisees underwent a long struggle against numerous other Jewish groups who did not follow their party line. Nevertheless, during the first century C.E., the power of the Pharisees was focused on the state level in Judaea and stretched out its hand as a guiding force to the numerous Jewish synagogues spread throughout the world. It was on this level that they had the support of the masses for controlling state and local religious functions. Any formal power that the Sadducees might have had, which would have enabled them to push aside the dominance of the Pharisees, began to perish in the early first century C.E., sometime after 6 C.E., when Judaea became a Roman province.81 With the power of the Herodian throne absent from Jerusalem, the authority of the Pharisees quickly increased. As Emile Schürer points out, “The price which the Sadducees had to pay to ensure their supremacy in this later period was admittedly a high one: in the performance of their official functions they had to accommodate themselves to popular Pharisaic views.”82 By the time of the messiah’s death in 30 C.E.,83 the Sadducees were under the domination of the Pharisees with regard to all public priestly services, such as the sacrifices in the court of the Temple and the date of Phasekh.84 It was at that time that the messiah referred to the Pharisees as sitting in “the seat of Moses.”85 Shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. the power of the JSGRP, 2, p. 295. IIRC, p. 81. Jos., Wars, 2:7:3–2:8:1, 2:9:1, Antiq., 17:13:1–3, 5. HJP, 2, p. 414. The date of the messiah’s death is derived from the fact that (1) he was murdered during the 10-year procuratorship of Pontius Pilate over Judaea (Jos., Antiq., 18:2:2, 18:4:2, 18:6:5), i.e., between the fall of 26 C.E. until the fall of 36 C.E., and (2) he was murdered on the fifth day of the week, being the 14th of Abib. The 14th of Abib in those years occurred on the fifth day of the week only in the year 30 C.E. For proof of the date of the messiah’s death see FSDY, 2, and also see CMHA. 84 For example, at the time of the messiah’s death in 30 C.E., it is clear that the high priests Annas and Caiaphas (Jos., Antiq., 18:2:2, 18:4:3; Matt., 26:57; John, 11:49, 18:13; Luke, 3:1–3; Acts, 4:6) were observing the Pharisaic customs of Phasekh (e.g., John, 2:13, 6:4, 18:28; and see FSDY, 3). 85 Matt., 23:1–3. 79 80 81 82 83

Sadducees Versus Pharisees

207

Sadducees over matters inside the Temple itself was also finally surrendered to the Pharisees. This detail is demonstrated by the victory of the Pharisees in the matter of the omer wave offering during the Pentecost season—a purely priestly function inside the Temple. A Talmudic Scholiast, for example, claims that the rule—namely, that from the eighth day of Nisan until the moad celebration of Phasekh all mourning was forbidden86—found in the Megillath Taanith (composed in 68 C.E.)87 marked the recent triumph of the Pharisees over the Sadducees in a controversy regarding the date of Pentecost.88 Elsewhere, after giving a general statement of the beliefs of the Pharisees, Josephus, who was writing in 93/94 C.E.,89 well after the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E., adds: Because of these views they (the Pharisees) are, as a matter of fact, extremely influential among the townsfolk; and all prayers (vows) AND SACRED RITES OF DIVINE WORSHIP are performed according to their exposition.90 This statement clearly demonstrates that the Aristocratic system, with regard to “sacred rites of divine worship,” which includes the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Pentecost, were suppressed by the Pharisees during the first century C.E. During the first twothirds of this century the Sadducees still controlled the Temple. Therefore, during the time of the messiah, even though there was a great dispute among the old priestly line and the upstart Pharisees, the Pharisees had gained the command of popular opinion and the Sadducees were forced to submit to the Meg. Taan., 1. MTS, pp. 3f, “the last event chronicled in our Megillah is one which took place on the 17th of Adar, 66 C.E.” The Talmud places its composition a few years before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. (MTS, pp. 3f, 112–115; B. R.Sh., 18b). The Pharisaic Zealots overthrew the Sadducee high priest in Nov. of 67 C.E., allowing for the first omer wave offering to be made according to the Pharisaic method in the spring of 68 C.E. The year 68 C.E. for the composition of the Megillath Taanith, therefore, is in full accord with these events. For the date of the Megillath Taanith and the date of the Pharisaic victory with regards to the issue of Pentecost see below Chap. XVI, pp. 254ff. 88 MTS, p. 75. Pentecost is severally called the Festival of t[bç (Shabuath), the Festival of Harvest, and the Festival of Firstfruits (Exod., 23:16, 34:22; Num., 28:26; Deut., 16:10; Lev., 23:5– 17; cf., LXX at Lev., 23:16, and Jos., Antiq., 3:1:6, Wars, 2:3:1). It was one of the three great khagi of Scriptures (Exod., 23:14–17; Deut., 16:16). Its date was determined by the instructions in Lev., 23:4–22, in relationship with the Phasekh. In Lev., 23:15f, we read, “And you shall number for you from the day after the Sabbath, from the day you bring in the wave sheaf offering, seven complete Sabbaths they shall be, until the day after the seventh Sabbath, you shall number 50 days.” Lev., 23:11, states that the sheaf was waved on the day after the Sabbath during the festival of Phasekh. Those of the Aristocratic schools understood this literally and for them the 50-day count begins on the day after the weekly Sabbath that falls during the seven days of unleavened bread and fulfills seven complete weeks. Therefore the festival always falls on the day after the seventh Sabbath, on the first day of the week. The Pharisees, however, interpreted “Sabbath” as the first day of Phasekh, which was also a “day of rest.” For them, the festival always falls on the 51st day from the first day of Phasekh (Sifra, Emor Perek, 12 §232:1–3; B. Men., 65a–66a; NBD, p. 964; EJ, 14, p. 1319). The early Christian assemblies, who followed System A, also counted Pentecost in the same manner as the Sadducees (ACC, 2, pp. 1157–1161; NBD, p. 964). 89 Jos., Antiq., 20:12:1 §267, “the thirteenth year of the reign of Domitian Caesar.” 90 Jos., Antiq., 18:1:3. 86 87

208

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

religious formulas of the Pharisees with regard to the observance of Phasekh and other sacred days.91 After the destruction of the Temple of Yahweh in 70 C.E., the Sadducees as a political and religious party ceased, leaving the innovative Pharisees in command.92 Pharisaic ability to adapt to new situations enabled them to survive the devastation of their country and centuries of persecution. Today, “Almost all forms of modern Judaism trace their lineage through the Pharisees.” 93 The survival of the sect of the Pharisees as the dominant religious party is the reason why all Orthodox Judaism today practices the System B Phasekh. Unfortunately, this fact has also led to the false assumption, held by many today, that System B was the only arrangement for the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread.

Conclusion The evidence so far demonstrates two fundamentally different approaches to the doctrinal issues of Scriptures. The Sadducees represented the conservative priests and their allies who saw it in their interest to abide by the letter of the Torah of Moses. Without a literal interpretation of the written Torah their very status as an aristocracy was jeopardized. The Pharisees, on the other hand, being the liberals, represented the scholars who were from the layman and scribe classes. It was in their interest to remain in favor with the Jewish masses. Their authority rested upon their claim that there existed an oral law handed down by the traditions of their fathers. This oral law permitted them to interpret the Torah of Moses in light of ever-changing circumstances and, at the same time, offer the people a structured way to piety. In the eyes of the Pharisees, the interpreters were not the arrogant and self-serving Zadok priests but their own pious rabbinical scholars. Toward the end of this struggle, the Sadducees fell under the control of the Pharisees and then into insignificance. 91 For this reason, during the time of the messiah, the national Jewish Phasekh practices were those of the Pharisees. 92 See above n. 24. 93 EBD, p. 824.

Chapter XIII

The Hasidic System (System B)

ince the first century C.E., the most prevalent and popular view for the observance of Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread has been System B—an interpretation first expressed by the ancient Hasidim. Our questions must be: • What is the ancient evidence of this interpretation? Also, just how and on what days did they keep the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread? • When did this Hasidic view of Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread first appear? • What issues created their interpretation and how did they derive their understanding of br[b (be-arab; in the mixing of light and dark [twilight]) and its cognate term μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim; between/among the mixings of light and dark [twilight])?

Hasidic Roots There is little doubt that the group who originated System B, the most enduring interpretation for Phasekh and of the expression “byn ha-arabim (between the mixings of light and dark [evenings]),” was the μydysj (Khasidim; Hasidim) of the early second century B.C.E., from whom the Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, and other Jewish groups, including the later Rabbinists and Talmudists, are spiritual descendants. The System B view, for example, is clearly manifested in the Hasidic work entitled the book of Jubilees,1 the earliest known Hebrew fragments of this text coming from the period around 100 B.C.E.2 Internal evidence dates the origin of Jubilees to “between 161–140 B.C.E.” 3 It was at this time, in the 150th Jewish Seleucid year (162/161 B.C.E.), that Judaean independence was recognized by the Greek Syrian king, Antiochus V. 4 The Hasidim are again mentioned in the 151st Seleucid year (161/160 B.C.E.), when some of them tried to make peace with Demetrius II, the Greek king of Syria, but were betrayed and murdered by him.5 The Hasidim, therefore, appear in Jewish history at a time of tremendous conflict and turmoil in Judaea. It was a period when the Greeks exerted heavy 1 2 3 4 5

Jub., 49:1–23. OTP, 2, p. 43; DSST, pp. 238–245. OTP, 2, pp. 43–45; THS, p. 283. 1 Macc., 6:20–63; Jos., Antiq., 12:9:3–7. 1 Macc., 7:1–18.

209

210

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

influence upon the Jews, when various attempts at Hellenization were made (both by Greeks and Jews), and a time of wars. The subsequent division among the early Hasidic groups into such parties as the Pharisees and Essenes (those retaining the name Hasidim)6 took place sometime between 160 and 145 B.C.E. Copies of Hasidic material, such as the book of Jubilees, were in turn retained and preserved by these new offshoots.

Hasidic Interpretation

Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon notes that the phrase μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim) is used to mark the space of time during which the paschal lamb was slain. It then adds: The Pharisees, however (see Joseph. Bellum Jud. vi. 9, § 3), and the Rabbinists, considered the time when the sun began to descend to be called the first evening.7 This text goes on to say that in Arabic this phrase is referred to as “little evening” or “when it begins to draw towards evening” and is equivalent to the Greek phrase “deivlh proi?a” (i.e., deile proia; early afternoon). It further adds that the Pharisees believed “the second evening to be the real sunset (Gr. deivlh ojyiva)” (i.e., deile opsia; late afternoon).8 Hasidic tradition defines the two periods of arab as “from the afternoon to the disappearing of the sun, the first evening being from the time when the sun begins to decline from its vertical or noontide point towards the west; and the second from its going down and vanishing out of sight.”9 This view merely reflects the strong influence of Greek culture upon the developing Hasidic schools after the conquest of Judaea by Alexander the Great. Eustathius, for example, in a note on the 17th book of the Odyssey, points out that it was the early Greeks who had designated deivlh proi?a (deile proia) as the evening that commenced immediately after noon and a second evening, called deivlh ojyiva (deile opsia), formed the latter part of the day.10 The conservative Jewish schools, as we shall later demonstrate, rejected this scheme as a foreign innovation. These two periods of arab are elsewhere defined by some of the Jewish Talmudists (the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees), by such scholars as Rashi and Kimchi, as ”the time immediately before and immediately after sunset, so that the point of time at which the sun sets divides them.”11 In his Lexicon, Kimchi states: 6 That Hasidim (Khasidim) was another name for the Essenes see above Chap. XI, p. 184, n. 32. Outstanding representatives of the Hasidim, also called “men of action,” were Khoni haMe’aggel, his grandsons Abba Hilkiah and Hanan ha-Nekhba (B. Taan., 23a), and Khanina ben Dosa, who lived at the end of the second Temple period and whom the Mishnah refers to as the last of the “men of action” (Sot., 9:15, while the J. Sot., 9:15, reading gives “Khasidim”). This evidence demonstrates that the Hasidim continued as a movement until at least the latter part of the first century C.E. 7 GHCL, p. 652, #6153, s.v. br[. 8 Ibid. 9 CBTEL, 7, p. 735. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

The Hasidic System (System B)

211

μybr[h ˆyb is from the time when the sun begins to incline towards the west, which is from the sixth hour ·= noon‚ and upward. It is called μybr[ because there are two evenings, for from the time that the sun begins to decline is one evening, and the other evening IS AFTER THE SUN HAS GONE DOWN, and it is the space between which is meant by between the two evenings.12 Rashi reports: From the sixth hour ·= noon‚ and upward is called between the two evenings (μybr[h ˆyb), because the sun begins to set for the evening. Hence it appears to me that the phrase between the two evenings denotes the hours between the evening of the day and the evening of the night. The evening of the day is from the beginning of the seventh hour ·= immediately after noontide‚, when the evening shadows begin to lengthen, while the evening of the night is at the beginning of the night.13 With this background of the varying Hasidic views we must now address the questions, “What scriptural issues caused these Hasidim (and later their spiritual descendants the Pharisees, Essenes, and others) to break from the earlier view held by the Aristocratic school with regard to the observance of the Phasekh?” And second, “How did their view of byn ha-arabim affect their construction of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread?”

Scriptural Issues for the Hasidim The advocates of System B believed that they had found a better understanding of just how they were to observe the Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread. Two passages served to be the catalyst for all their interpretations: Leviticus, 23:5–8, and Numbers, 28:16–25. In the first moon, on the 14th for the moon, μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim), is a Phasekh for Yahweh. AND ON THE 15TH DAY FOR THIS MOON IS A gj (khag; festival) OF UNLEAVENED BREAD FOR YAHWEH; SEVEN DAYS YOU SHALL EAT UNLEAVENED BREAD. On the first day is a sacred convocation for you, you shall not do any laborious work.14 And seven days you shall bring a fire offering near for Yahweh. And the seventh day is a sacred convocation, you shall not do any laborious work.15 HBL, p. 277, s.v. br[; CBTEL, 7, p. 735. Rashi, Com. Exod., 12:6; CBTEL, 7, p. 735. Lev., 16:31, 23:24, 26–32, 39, all demonstrate that sacred gatherings are also called sabbathon days (i.e., high Sabbaths). 15 Lev., 23:5–8. 12 13 14

212

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh And in the first moon, on the 14th day for the moon is a Phasekh for Yahweh, AND ON THE 15TH DAY FOR THIS MOON IS A KHAG. SEVEN DAYS UNLEAVENED BREAD SHALL BE EATEN. On the first day shall be a sacred convocation; you shall not do any laborious work.16 And you shall offer a fire offering, a burnt offering to Yahweh: two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven yearling lambs; perfect ones they shall be for you. And their food offering, flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for a bullock, and two tenth parts for a ram you shall prepare; one tenth part you shall prepare for the one lamb, and for the seven lambs; and one goat for the sin offering to atone for you. Besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for the continual burnt offering, you shall prepare these; in this way you shall prepare daily seven days, bread for a fire offering, a soothing fragrance for Yahweh; besides the continual burnt offering, it (the bread) shall be prepared and its drink offering. And on the seventh day shall be a sacred convocation for you; you shall not do any laborious work.17

In both cases the Phasekh is said to be the 14th day of the first moon, a day clearly designated as the time when the Phasekh lamb was sacrificed.18 The 14th is followed by the 15th, which is called “a Khag of Unleavened Bread for Yahweh.” This statement is in turn followed by the explanation, “seven days you shall eat unleavened bread.” Meanwhile, the Israelites were commanded to eat the Phasekh victim “this night” with “unleavened bread.”19 Since the 15th was “a Khag of Unleavened Bread for Yahweh,” the Hasidim reasoned that the 15th was also the night of the Phasekh supper. If the night of the 15th is the Phasekh supper, then the understanding of the conservative priests (the Aristocratic school), which held that twilight after sunset was byn ha-arabim and the period that began the day, came to be judged as incorrect. A new, or at least different, understanding of μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim) was sought for. The logic of those developing and continuing the Hasidic views of System B reasoned the data as follows: • The 15th was a Khag of Unleavened Bread. Therefore, the 15th must also have been the first day of the seven days of unleavened bread and a high Sabbath. • The evidence was unequivocal that the lamb was sacrificed on the 14th, yet the Phasekh lamb was also to be eaten with unleavened bread. 16 17 18 19

See above n. 14. Num., 28:16–25. Exod., 12:6. Exod., 12:8; Num., 9:11.

The Hasidic System (System B)

213

Therefore, they calculated that the Phasekh supper was on the 15th, the first day of the seven-day Khag of Unleavened Bread. • As a result of the above conclusions, the statement found in Exodus, 12:18, had to be addressed. It states, “In the first (moon), on the 14th day for the moon, br[b (be-arab; within twilight) you shall eat unleavened bread until the 21st day for the moon br[b (be-arab; within twilight).” Since the 15th day, and not the 14th, was determined to be the first day of unleavened bread, “within br[ (arab)” on the 21st day had to be explained as the period ending rather than beginning that day. In turn, the expression, “until the 21st day for the moon within br[,” as the outer limit for these seven days, meant that the word “until” was inclusive of the 21st day. • The Phasekh lamb was ordered to be eaten “on this night” immediately following the period called “μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim),” the time in which the Phasekh lamb was sacrificed.20 This circumstance brought into question the timing of “μybr[h ˆyb.” If the 15th was the Phasekh supper, byn ha-arabim could not be twilight during the first part of the 14th day, for in that case the phrase “on this night” would refer to the first part of the 14th day (the Hebrew day beginning at sunset).21 Further, it would have been impractical to sacrifice at twilight on the 14th and then wait over 24 hours to eat the lamb at night on the 15th. To prove that there were two periods of arab—one of which ends the day— those supporting the Hasidic view offered as proof Leviticus, 23:32. This passage is part of the discussion about the Day of Atonement, which takes place on the 10th day of the seventh moon.22 In this particular reference, according to the Hasidim, the following statement is made: It is a Sabbath of rest for you; and you shall humble your nephesh br[b çdjl h[çtb (be-teshuah la-khodesh be-arab), from arab until arab you shall keep your Sabbath. The phrase br[b çdjl h[çtb (be-teshuah la-khodesh be-arab) is read by the Hasidim to mean, “in the ninth of the moon at arab.” Therefore, it is argued that one begins to keep the Day of Atonement from the arab of the ninth until the end of the arab on the tenth day of the seventh moon (i.e., exclusive of the ninth and inclusive of the tenth). For those holding to the Hasidic view, this statement proves that there is a period of arab in the afternoon of the day. For the Hasidic interpretation to work there was yet one more problem to overcome. According to Scriptures, one must not sacrifice the Phasekh with Exod., 12:6–8. The Hebrew legal day, which was controlled by the moon phases, begins when the sun has set and the new moon became visible (see THP, p. 131, and n. 3; ADB, 4, pp. 765f; EWJ, pp. 15f, and n. 2, pp. 26f; HBC, pp. 9f). Those defiled and unclean had need to bathe and then at sunset, at the beginning of a new day, were once again declared clean (THP, p. 199, n. 6). Also see our discussion in FSDY, 2. 22 Lev., 16:29–34, 23:27–32, 25:9; Num., 29:7–11; Philo, Spec., 1:35 §186; Jos., Antiq., 3:10:2f. 20 21

214

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

leavened bread.23 Therefore, unleavened bread must be used from the 14th of Abib br[b (be-arab; within twilight), when the sacrifice took place, to the 21st day br[b (be-arab; within twilight).24 Yet there were only seven days of unleavened bread. To solve this dilemma, the advocates of the Hasidic view interpret the command to eat unleavened bread for only seven days as relevant only from the 15th through the 21st. Nevertheless, they remove leavening out of their houses before noon on the 14th, prior to the time of their sacrifice of the Phasekh.25 For this reason, they actually counted seven and one-fourth days of unleavened bread. The Pharisee priest Josephus counts it as a festival of “eight” days.26 Augustine similarly notes that these Jews (Pharisees) calculated Phasekh “from the 14th to the 21st day” of the moon of new corn (Abib), i.e., for eight days.27

Ancient Records There are a number of ancient records that demonstrate the Hasidic view. The Book of Jubilees The book of Jubilees, originally composed in Hebrew by the Hasidim in the late second century B.C.E.,28 gives us the earliest representation of the Hasidic argument. To date, the most complete version of this text is found in the Ethiopian edition. It reports: Remember the commandment which the sovereign commanded you concerning Phasekh, that you observe it in its time, on the 14th of the first moon, so that you might sacrifice it BEFORE IT BECOMES ARAB and so that you might eat it DURING THE NIGHT ON THE ARAB OF THE 15TH FROM THE TIME OF SUNSET. For on this night there was the beginning of the festival and there was the beginning of joy. You continued eating the Phasekh in Egypt and all of the powers of Mastema (Satan) were sent to kill all of the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the captive maidservant who was at the millstone and to the cattle.29 Let the children of Israel will be ones who come and observe Phasekh on its moad (appointed time), on the 14th of the first moon byn ha-arabim,30 from the third 23 Exod., 34:25, cf., 23:18. Accordingly, this was also the understanding in the Mishnah (Pes., 5:4; Makk., 3:2). 24 Exod., 12:18–20. 25 Pes., 1:4–6; B. Pes., 11b–12b, 21a; JE, 9, p. 550; CBTEL, 7, p. 737. 26 Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1. 27 Augustine, Epist., 55:9 §16. 28 OTP, 2, pp. 43–45. 29 Jub., 49:1f. This passage is taken from the Ethiopic text—the Latin is lacking at this point. 30 That the Ethiopic term used here is equivalent to byn ha-arabim see HBJ, p. 172, n. 8. The Latin gives ad vesperam, which is used in the Vulgate to translate byn ha-arabim (cf., Vulg. at Exod., 12:6; Num., 9:3, 5, 11; Lev., 23:5). It is emended by R. H. Charles to read ad vesperas (HBJ, p. 173, and n. 5). Also see below n. 36 regarding the parallel Greek term eJspevran (hesperan; twilight).

The Hasidic System (System B)

215

(part) of the day to the third (part) of the night, because two parts of the day are given for light and one third for arab.31 This is what the sovereign commanded you so that you might observe it IN THE TIME OF ARAB.32 In this text the Hasidic understanding of byn ha-arabim is defined. For Phasekh, the first arab is the last one-third of the fourteenth day (i.e., from the eighth until the twelfth hour of daylight). The last arab of byn ha-arabim begins at sunset and consists of the first one-third of the night (including twilight as part of night), i.e., from the first until the fourth hour of night. The lamb is slaughtered within the arab ending the fourteenth day and is eaten during the arab at the beginning of the fifteenth day. This evidence also demonstrates that the early Hasidim began their legal day at sunset and had two periods of arab. The arab at the end of the day consisted of one-third of the daylight, i.e., from the eighth hour until the fulfilling of the 12th hour at sunset. Following sunset was the arab of the night, which began the 24-hour day. The arab of the night consisted of one-third of the night, i.e., the four hours following sunset, the first through fourth hours of the night. Philo Philo, the mid-first century C.E. Jewish Pharisee and priest from Alexandria, Egypt,33 also expresses the Hasidic system when he writes: After the New Moon comes the fourth eJorth; (heorte; festival), called the diabathvria (diabateria; crossingfestival), which the Hebrews in their native tongue call Phasekh. In this festival many myriads of victims FROM NOON a[cri (akhri; TERMINATING AT)34 eJspevra~ (hesperas; TWILIGHT) are offered by the whole people, old and young alike, raised for that particular day to the dignity of the priesthood.35 The Greek word eJspevra (hespera), like the Latin term vespere, is properly a reference to the evening star, Venus. By extension it came also to refer to the time of the day when that evening star made its appearance—i.e., the period of twilight just after sunset and lasting until dark—as well as to the westernmost sky and lands.36 Philo uses this term to translate the Pharisaic idea of 31 At this point the Latin text uses the term in vespere and, as reflected in the Ethiopic text, should read for the Hebrew “arab.” 32 Jub., 49:10f; Latin and Ethiopic in HBJ, pp. 172 and 173. 33 Jerome, Lives, 11. 34 The term a[cri (akhri) is akin to the term a[kron (akhron), “through the idea of a terminus” and means, “(of time) until or (of place) up to:—as far as, for, in (-to), till, (even, un-) to, until, while” (SEC, Gk. #891); “Prep. with gen., even to, as far as . . . of Time, until, so long as” (GEL, 1968, p. 298) 35 Philo, Spec., 2:27 §145. 36 GEL, 1968, p. 697. The Greek word eJspevra~ (hesperas), “Lat. vespera, properly fem. of e{spero~ . . . evening, eventide, eve” . . . e{spero~ (hesperos), “of or at evening” . . . “esp. of the planet Venus . . . e{sp. qeov~ the god of darkness” (GEL, p. 318; GEL, 1968, p. 697; NGEL, p. 579). Macrobius, Saturn., 3:14f, “vespera follows” sunset. For the Greeks, eJspevra~ (hesperas) properly represents the

216

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

arab. The above statement from Philo shows that the victims were sacrificed from noon only up until the beginning of hesperas (twilight). Philo continues: The eJorth`w (heorteo; festival) BEGINS at the middle of the moon, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY, when the moon is full, a day purposely chosen because then there is no darkness, but everything is continuously lighted up as the sun shines from earliest dawn unto eJspevran (hesperan; TWILIGHT) and the moon (shines) from eJspevra~ (hesperas; TWILIGHT) terminating at period from sunset until the first hour of darkness at night. It is the time of Venus as the evening star as opposed to Venus as the morning star (e.g., see Aristotle, EN, 5:1:15; Homer, Iliad, 22:317f; cf., Horace, Odes, 2:9:10f). James Donnegan’s lexicon defines it this way, “Hesperus, (the planet Venus) when it sets after the sun; Lucifer, Fwsfovro~, when it rises before” (NGEL, p. 579). Leonard Whibley notes that the period of eJspevra (hespera) was part of the period associated with darkness as opposed to those Greek terms associated with daylight (CGS, p. 589, §626). To demonstrate further, the Greek writers make the evening star appear at the time of “fqimenoi~ (phthi-menois; waning)” of the day (Gk. Anth., 670). Oppian defines this period of hespera when he writes, “eJsperivh/sin o{tΔ hevlio~ zuga; klivnei (hesperiesin ot helios zuga klinei; the time of hespera, at which time the sun’s team laid down), when herdsmen command their herds what time they travel homeward to their folds, heavy of breast and swollen of udder” (Oppian, Cyneg., 1:138ff). The Greek idea was that the team that pulled the sun chariot across the sky during the day laid down to rest after the sun had been pulled beneath the horizon. According to Pliny, the day among all “the common people everywhere” extended “a luce ad tenebras (from dawn until the dark of night)” (Pliny, 2:79). Therefore, the evening star appeared during the waning part of the day (after sunset). Other markers demonstrating the Greek concept of the time of hesperas are as follows: In Acts, 4:3, this period is placed in context when we read that Keph (Peter) was placed in a holding cell “until the au[rion (aurion; morning breeze; SEC, Gk. #839), for it was already eJspevra (hespera),” in order that he might be brought before the rulers and elders at Jerusalem. Accordingly, he was placed in a holding cell after the government’s daily business hours. Homer, meanwhile, speaks of how some people “waited until hesperon should come; and as they made merry dark hesperos came upon them. Then they went, each man to his house” (Homer, Ody., 1:422f). This statement clearly connects the time of hesperon with the darkening of light after sunset. In another place Homer writes that some people were to “gather at hesperious beside the swift ship,” and then subsequent to that event notes, “Now the sun set and all the ways grew dark. Then she (the goddess) drew the swift ship to the sea” (Homer, Ody., 2:385–389). Therefore, the people gathered at twilight and only after it became dark did the ship set sail. Homer also notes that a man visited his fields and herdsmen and then afterward, when hesperios arrived, returned to the city (Homer, Ody., 15:503–505). Homer also writes that it was at the time of hesperios that the ram longs to return to the fold (Homer, Ody., 9:447–452). As any sheep rancher will advise, this occurs with sunset. He also reports the words of a man advising a stranger that, “The day is far spent, and soon you will find it colder potij (poti; toward) e{spera (hespera)” (Homer, Ody., 17:190f). In another place Homer reports that certain people “took supper, and waited until hesperon should come” (Homer, Ody. 4:785f). Men generally worked in the fields until the 11th hour (e.g., Matt., 20:1–13), after which they would return home to supper (cf., Ruth, 3:7). It would be fair to conclude that this also was the hour for supper among the Greeks. It is true that supper among the priests and upper class Jews was a little earlier, coming late in the afternoon, at various times between the ninth until the twelfth hours (EWJ, pp. 44f). Yet this principle was in part guided by the fact that the ninth hour (3 P.M.) was the hour of prayer (Jos., Antiq., 14:4:2; Acts, 3:1). Josephus notes that the Essenes had breakfast in the fifth hour (11 A.M.) and then returned to their labors until deivlh~ (deiles; afternoon), at which time they would have supper (Jos., Wars, 2:8:5). In either case, the supper mentioned in the Greek story took place at some point prior to the arrival of the hour of hespera. This detail places the Greek time for hespera later in the day than the Hasidic concept of an afternoon arab, despite the fact that the Hasidic writers used hesperon to identify an earlier period of arab. Hespera, therefore, is a reference to the time of a day connected with darkness, after supper, and when the Hesperus star appears, that is, the period of twilight after sunset.

The Hasidic System (System B)

217

dawn, while the stars give place to each other no shadow is cast upon their brightness.37 Notice that the moon shines from eJspevra~ (hesperas; twilight = arab) until the dawn on the 15th day. Since during the 14th to the 16th the moon makes its appearance before sunset, Philo has demonstrated that, in this case, by eJspevra~ (hesperas = arab) he means the twilight on both sides of sunset, including the time when the star Venus would make its appearance as the evening star. Philo also adds: Again, the festival is held for seven days to mark the precedence and honor which the number holds in the universe, indicating that nothing which tends to cheerfulness and public mirth and thankfulness to the deity should fail to be accompanied with memories of the sacred seven which he intended to be the source and fountain to men of all good things. TWO DAYS OUT OF THE SEVEN, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, ARE DECLARED SACRED. In this way he gave a natural precedence to the beginning and the end; but he also wished to create a harmony as on a musical instrument between the intermediates and the extremes. Perhaps too he wished to harmonize the festival with a past which adjoins the first day and a future which adjoins the last. These two, the first and the last, have each the other’s properties in addition to their own. The first is the beginning of the festival and the end of the preceding past, the seventh is the end of the festival and the beginning of the coming future. Thus, as I have said before, the whole life of the man of worth may be regarded as equivalent to a festival held by one who has expelled grief and fear and desire and the other passions and distempers of the soul. The bread is unleavened, EITHER38 because our forefathers, when under divine guidance they were starting on their migration, were so intensely hurried that they brought the lumps of dough unleavened, OR ELSE because at that season, namely, the springtime, when the festival is held, the fruit of the corn has not reached its perfection, for the fields are in the ear stage and not yet mature for harvest.39 Philo, Spec., 2:28 §155. Notice that Philo can only offer guesses as to why unleavened bread was used. The Jews were puzzled by this question. It was answered by the messiah and the disciples, who noted the unleavened bread represented the messiah’s body, truth, and sincerity (1 Cor., 5:8, 11:23f; Luke, 22:19; Matt., 26:26; Mark, 14:22); that is, unleavened bread represents the sinlessness of the messiah. 39 Philo, Spec., 2:28 §156f. 37 38

218

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh Philo further comments: With the diabathrivoi~ (diabateriois; crossing-festival) he (Moses) combines one in which the food consumed is of a different and unfamiliar kind, namely, unleavened bread, which also gives its name to the festival.40

Philo’s interpretations are in accordance with the opinion quoted by S. R. Driver, “that the sacrifice if offered before noon was not valid.”41 But those supporting the Hasidic view, when translating the Hebrew thought into Greek, also used the term eJspevra~ (hesperas) as a translation of their idea of the afternoon arab which ends the day. For example, in another text Philo writes: Why is the Phasekh sacrificed pro;~ eJspevran (pros hesperan; at twilight = byn ha-arabim)? 42 Perhaps because good things were about to befall at night. It was not the custom to offer a sacrifice in darkness, and for those who were about to experience good things at night it was not (proper) to prepare it before the ninth hour (about 3 P.M.). Therefore it was not at random but knowingly that the prophet set a time between the turning pro;~ eJspevran (pros hesperan; at twilight = byn ha-arabim).43 The Greek phrase pro;~ eJspevran (pros hesperan; at twilight) was used by those holding to the Hasidic view as a translation of the Hebrew μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim), by which term they meant the arab of the afternoon.44 This interpretation must not be confused with the proper Greek usage of hespera (twilight after sunset and early dark) or the Aristocratic usage (twilight after sunset). In this above instance from Philo, when we come to the idea of byn ha-arabim, he takes the standard Pharisaic line for the two periods of arab. He therefore refers to each arab as a time of eJspevran (twilight), and makes the first eJspevran (twilight) occur at the ninth hour (about 3 P.M.). This awkward usage of the Greek word eJspevran (the period of twilight and early dark after sunset) for mid-afternoon is unique to the Greek-speaking Hasidim and other adherents to Philo, Spec., 2:28 §150. BE, p. 90, n. 6; also cited in Colson, Philo, vii, p. 627. See Marcus, Philo, Sup. II, p. 20, n. d. The term pro;~ (pros), when used with eJspevran (hesperan) means “at” or “on the side of” the time of hesperan (GEL, 1968, pp. 697, 1496f). More exactly, this phrase refers to the beginning time of hesperan (= arab). The Greek phrase pro;~ eJspevran (pros hesperan) is used in the LXX as the equivalent of the Hebrew br[ t[l (la-ath arab; at the time of arab), cf., LXX at Gen., 8:11; 2 Kings (MT 2 Sam.), 11:2; Isa., 17:14; and the Hebrew μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim), cf., LXX at Exod., 12:6, 16:12; Num., 9:3, 11, 28:4, 8. 43 Philo, Exod., 1:11. J. B. Aucher renders this last line literally, “tempus mediocre ad vesperam vergens (the time between inclining toward vesperam)” (Marcus, Philo, Sup. II, p. 20, ns. d & h.). 44 See the LXX at Exod., 12:6, 16:12; Lev., 23:5; Num., 9:3. Interestingly, both the supporters of the Hasidic view and the Aristocratic view could look at the same words used in the LXX and come to entirely opposite understandings of what the word pros hesperan meant. For those of the Aristocratic school it meant twilight after sunset, while those of the Hasidic school interpreted it to mean the afternoon arab. 40 41 42

The Hasidic System (System B)

219

System B.45 With regard to Philo’s wording for the phrase “between the two evenings,” F. H. Colson, citing S. R. Driver on Exodus, 12:6, states, “For this ·phrase‚ the traditional interpretation adopted by the Pharisees and Talmudists was that the ‘first’ evening was when the heat of the sun begins to decrease, about 3 P.M., and the second evening began with sunset.”46 Josephus The Jewish Pharisee priest Josephus, writing around 93 C.E., also gives us the Hasidic-Pharisaic view about Phasekh. We begin with his discussion of the Phasekh that occurred at the Exodus: The deity, having revealed that by yet one more plague he would constrain the Egyptians to release the Hebrews, now bade Moses instruct the people to have ready a sacrifice, making preparations on the 10th of the moon Xanthicus (Abib/Nisan) over against the 14th day—this is the moon called by the Egyptians, Pharmuthi, by the Hebrews Nisan, and by the Macedonians termed Xanthicus—and then to lead off the Hebrews, taking all their possessions with them. He accordingly had the Hebrews ready betimes for departure, and ranging them in fraternities kept them assembled together; then when THE 14TH DAY was come the whole body, in readiness to start, sacrificed, purified the houses with the blood, using bunches of hyssop to sprinkle it, AND AFTER THE MEAL burnt the remnants of the meat as they neared freedom. Hence comes it that to this day we keep this sacrifice in the same customary manner, calling the festival Phasekh, which signifies ‘passing over,’ because on that day the deity passed over our people when he smote the Egyptians with plague. For on the selfsame night destruction visited the firstborn of Egypt, insomuch that multitudes of those whose dwellings surrounded the palace trooped to Pharaoh’s to urge him to let the Hebrews go.47 In another place Josephus writes: In the moon of Xanthicus, which with us is called Nisan (Abib) and begins the year, ON THE 14TH DAY BY LUNAR RECKONING, the sun being then in Aries, our lawgiver, seeing that in this moon we were delivered from bondage to the Egyptians, ordained 45 The Latin term vespere (vesparum; etc.), which has essentially the same meaning as the Greek term eJspevran (hesperan), was also used by the supporters of System B for the mid-afternoon arab. Also see above ns. 30 & 36. 46 Colson, Philo, vii, p. 627; BE, p. 90, n. 6. 47 Jos., Antiq., 2:14:6.

220

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh that we should year by year offer the same sacrifice which, as I have said, we offered then on departure from Egypt—the sacrifice called Phasekh. And so in fact we celebrate it by fraternities, nothing of the sacrificial victims being kept for the morning. ON THE 15TH THE PHASEKH IS FOLLOWED BY THE FESTIVAL OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, LASTING SEVEN DAYS, during which our people subsist on unleavened loaves and each day there are slaughtered two bulls, a ram, and seven lambs. These are all used for burnt offerings, a kid being further added as a sin-offering, which serves each day to regale the priests.48

Josephus reports that, during the first century C.E. (up until the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E.), at which time the Hasidic practice was the state religion, the hour for the Phasekh sacrifices was as follows: Accordingly, on the occasion of the festival called Phasekh, at which they sacrifice FROM THE NINTH TO THE ELEVENTH HOUR, and a little fraternity, as it were, gathers round each sacrifice, of not fewer than ten persons—feasting alone not being permitted—while the companies often included as many as twenty, the victims were counted and amounted to two hundred and fifty-five thousand six hundred; allowing an average of ten diners to each victim, we obtain a total of two million seven hundred thousand, all pure and sacred. For those afflicted with leprosy or gonorrhea, or menstruous women, or persons otherwise defiled were not permitted to partake of this sacrifice, nor yet any foreigners present for worship, and a large number of these assemble from abroad.49 Based upon these views, Josephus then concludes: Hence it is that, in memory of that time of scarcity, WE KEEP FOR EIGHT DAYS A FESTIVAL called the Festival of Unleavened Bread.50 Supporting the idea that Phasekh was counted as one day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread followed by seven more days, Josephus, in a discussion of Hezekiah’s celebration of the Phasekh festival, writes: 48 49 50

Jos., Antiq., 3:10:5. Jos., Wars, 6:9:3f §423ff. Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1.

The Hasidic System (System B)

221

Now, when the Festival of Unleavened Bread came round, they sacrificed the Phasekh, as it is called, but then they offered the other sacrifices for seven days.51 Josephus also notes that the entire eight-day Pharisaic observance (actually seven and one-quarter days) was called Phasekh. In the events of the year 65 B.C.E., he reports: But as this action took place at the time of observing the Festival of Unleavened Bread, WHICH WE CALL PHASEKH, the Jews of best repute left the country and fled to Egypt.52 Josephus also comments, “While the priests and Aristobulus (II) were being besieged, there happened to come round the festival called Phasekh, at which it is our custom to offer numerous sacrifices to the deity.”53 These numerous sacrifices refer to the entire festival period. Similarly, in his history of the death of King Herod the Great during the spring of 4 B.C.E., Josephus writes: At this time there came round the festival during which it is THE ANCESTRAL CUSTOM OF THE JEWS TO SERVE UNLEAVENED BREAD. IT IS CALLED PHASEKH, being a commemoration of their departure from Egypt. They celebrate it with gladness, and IT IS THEIR CUSTOM TO SLAUGHTER A GREATER NUMBER OF SACRIFICES AT THIS FESTIVAL than at any other, and an innumerable multitude of people come down from the country and even from abroad to worship the deity.54 In another book, while discussing the same event, he writes: And now THE FESTIVAL OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, WHICH THE JEWS CALL PHASEKH, came round; it is an occasion for the contribution of a multitude of sacrifices, and a vast crowd streamed in from the country for the ceremony.55 Mishnah The Mishnah (about 200 C.E.), being a written record of the Pharisaic oral laws and traditions, confirms that during the time of the second Temple the lamb was sacrificed shortly after the eighth and one-half hour (i.e., after 2:30 P.M.) on the “arab of Phasekh” (i.e., according to Pharisaic interpretation, the afternoon arab before the night of the Phasekh supper). It states: 51 52 53 54 55

Jos., Antiq., 9:13:2–3. Jos., Antiq., 14:2:1. Jos., Antiq., 14:2:2. Jos., Antiq., 17:9:3. Jos., Wars, 2:1:3.

222

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh The Daily Whole-offering was slaughtered at a half after the eighth hour, and offered up at a half after the ninth hour; (but) on the arab of Phasekh it was slaughtered at a half after the seventh hour and offered up at a half after the eighth hour, whether it was a weekday or the Sabbath. If the arab of Phasekh fell on the arab of a Sabbath, it was slaughtered at a half after the sixth hour and offered up a half after the seventh hour. AND, AFTER THIS, THE PHASEKH OFFERING (WAS SLAUGHTERED).56

The difference between the Phasekh of the Exodus from Egypt and those that followed are explained in this way: Wherein does the Phasekh of Egypt differ from the Phasekh of the generations (that followed thereafter)? At the Phasekh of Egypt the lamb was obtained on the 10th (of Abib), sprinkling (of the blood) with a bunch of hyssop was required on the lintel and on the two side-posts, and it was eaten in haste and during one night [. . .] 57 whereas the Phasekh of the generations continued throughout seven days.58

Conclusion The heart of System B is the belief that the seven days of unleavened bread begin with the 15th of the first moon and last until the end of the 21st day. It is also obvious from this evidence that, for the adherents to the Hasidic view (System B), the expression μybr[ (arabim) represents two periods of the day: the afternoon and the evening twilight, with mid-afternoon or sunset at the end of a day dividing the two. Another way of looking at this view is to make the early afternoon the first arab and the late afternoon, either ending at sunset (a legal day) or ending at dark (a common day), the second arab. Sacrificing the Phasekh lamb at about 3 P.M., accordingly, accommodates all three Hasidic understandings. Since the destruction of the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E., sacrifices required under the Torah of Moses, including the Phasekh sacrifice, have been dispensed with by the Jews. Yet, many of the Jewish faithful look forward to the reintroduction of these sacrifices when a future third Temple is built in Jerusalem. When these sacrifices are reinstituted, it is their belief that a Phasekh lamb should once again be sacrificed in the afternoon of the 14th of Abib and eaten during the night of the 15th. Pes., 5:1. The Gemara points out that there is a lacuna here in the Mishnah. In its place, the Gemara claims, it should state that the prohibition against leavened bread during the Phasekh of Egypt “lasted but one day,” and then the text continues as above (Gem., 96b). 58 Pes., 9:5. 56 57

Chapter XIV

The Aristocratic System (System A)

he Aristocratic understanding (System A) of “μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim)” was represented by the Jews called Sadducees, the Boethusian Sadducees, and by the ancient Samaritans. Moreover, it was used by the early assemblies following Yahushua the messiah.1 Very few writings which discuss just how to observe Phasekh have come down to us directly from any acknowledged Sadducean, Boethusian, or ancient Samaritan source, so that for an acquaintance with their opinions we are mainly dependent upon their antagonists.2 These antagonists, and records which are derived from the later variations of this view (as demonstrated by the neo-Samaritans and Karaites),3 show that, contrary to the Hasidic views, the Aristocratic approach understood that the first br[ (arab; intermixing of light and dark) occurred at sunset and the second at deep twilight (the setting of darkness).

Aristocratic Interpretation The Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon explains the Aristocratic interpretation:

μyIBær“[æ the two μyIBær“[æh; ˆyBe, between Dual.

evenings; only in the phrase the two evenings, Ex. 16:12; 30:8; used as marking the space of time during which the paschal lamb was slain, Ex. 12:6; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3; and the evening sacrifice was offered, Ex. 29:39, 41; Num. 28:4; i.e. according to the opinion of the Karaites and Samaritans (which is favoured by the words of Deut. 16:6), the time between sunset and deep twilight.4 James Hastings notes: The time of the Passover sacrifice is defined in the Law as ‘between the two evenings’ ( μyIB'r“['h; ˆyBe, Ex 12 6, Lv 23 5, Nu 9 3. 5. 11). This was interpreted by the Pharisees and Talmudists to mean from the hour of the sun’s decline until its setting; and this was the 1 For the system used by the early assemblies following Yahushua the messiah see below Chap. XVII. 2 CBTEL, 9, p. 235. 3 The neo-Aristocratic view, see below Chap. XV. 4 GHCL, p. 652, s.v. br[.

223

224

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh later temple practice (cf. Pesach. v. 1; Jubilees, 49; Jos., BJ vi. ix. 3). The Samaritans, Karaites, and Sadducees, on the other hand, held that the period between sunset and dark was intended.5

The Targum Onqelos renders the term μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim) into its Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch as ayçmç ˆyb (byn shamashia; between suns).6 The Talmud explains ayçmç ˆyb (byn shamashia) to mean the time between sunset and the stars becoming visible,7 i.e., the twilight after sunset. In support of this view, the noted Jewish scholar, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164 C.E.), made an attempt to independently establish the literal meaning of the Hebrew text.8 His examination of the term byn ha-arabim resulted in his agreement with the view held by the Aristocratic school. He states: Behold, we have two arab periods, the first is when the sun sets, and that is at the time when it disappears beneath the horizon; while the second is at the time when the light disappears which is reflected in the clouds, and there is between them an interval of about one hour and twenty minutes.9 Though records are sparse and direct evidence limited, there is no doubt that those of the original Aristocratic school began their day at sunset.10 The Mishnah, for example, reports that the Sadducees render a thing clean with “the setting of the sun.”11 Since their point of view held that the period of byn ha-arabim was between sunset and dark, we have our first indication that the Sadducees and others of the Aristocratic school originally preferred to sacrifice their Phasekh victim at the beginning of the day, just after sunset, during the twilight of the 14th of Nisan. The Aristocratic view is also demonstrable in the instruction of Exodus, 12:6–8, which ordered the Israelites to eat the lamb “THIS NIGHT,” immediately after its sacrifice. Since byn ha-arabim was followed by night, the early Sadducees, Samaritans, and others of like mind held to the view that one should eat their Phasekh supper on the night of the 14th rather than on the night of 15th, as the Hasidic Pharisees and others were accustomed. Indeed, there is some indication of this practice in ancient records during the early life of the messiah.12 But after 6 C.E. the Pharisees gained religious dominance and the ruling Sadducees were forced by their adversaries to hold Phasekh supper on the night of the 15th.13 How long other Jewish groups who practiced the ADB, 3, p. 691. Targ. Onq., Exod., 12:6, 16:12, 29:39, 30:8; Lev., 23:5; Num., 9:3, 5, 11, 28:4, 8. E.g., B. Shab., 34a–b; cf., B. Ber., 2a–b. Also see S. R. Driver’s comments (BE, p. 89). EJ, 8, p. 1166. Abraham, Com. Exod., 12:6. Par., 3:3, 7; B. Hag., 23a; B. Par., 34b, 36b; B. Yom., 1:19b. Par., 3:7; cf. B. Yom., 1:1a. The Sadducees controlled the celebration of Phasekh until Archelaus was removed as king of Judaea in 6 C.E. and an aristocratic government of priests was set up in mid-7 C.E. Yahushua was 12 years old in the spring of 7 C.E. and is said to have gone with his parents to Jerusalem every year until then to celebrate Phasekh (Luke, 2:41f). Since the messiah never sinned, and since he observed the Phasekh supper on Abib 14, it stands to reason that his parents, to whom he was subject, did likewise. Also see our discussions in FSDY, 2 and 3. 13 This point is especially true in light of Jos., Antiq., 18:1:3, that “all prayers (vows) and sacred rites of divine worship are performed according to their (the Pharisees’) exposition.” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The Aristocratic System (System A)

225

Aristocratic method held out in their belief is unknown. Yet it is certain that nearly all of the Jews living in Judaea, with the exception of the early assemblies following Yahushua the messiah,14 fell beneath the iron hand of the Pharisees prior to the end of the first century C.E., which certainly would have influenced their subsequent decisions. Shortly after the fall of the city of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and because of their conservative religious nature and close ties to the Temple, the power of the Sadducees died out.15 The Boethusian branch of the Sadducees did continue as a recognized group for a number of years longer but they too passed into history.16 The neo-Samaritans and Karaites, who observed a modified form of the Aristocratic view (System C), have remained to our present time but, for all intents and purposes, they too have ceased as a religious force in this latter half of the 20th century. Originally, the assemblies following Yahushua the messiah also observed the Aristocratic system. Yet as time passed they suffered through a period of radical change with regard to the Phasekh festival, a transformation which began in the first half of the second century C.E. We shall discuss this transformation in our subsequent chapters.

Issues for the Aristocratic View Those adhering to the original Aristocratic reckoning for Phasekh (System A) saw the issues quite differently from the Hasidim (System B). For them the expression byn ha-arabim, the time of day on the 14th when the Phasekh lamb was sacrificed, was the twilight after sunset and was the first part of the day. The Phasekh supper was eaten during the night of the 14th.17 Further, they followed the statements in Exodus, 12:18f, and Ezekiel, 45:21, indicating that the 14th of Abib (Nisan) was the first day of the seven days of eating unleavened bread. The expression, “In the first (moon) on the 14th day of the moon within arab you shall eat unleavened bread until the 21st day of the moon within arab,”18 was understood as inclusive of the 14th day and exclusive of the 21st day. Accordingly, the seven days lasted only “until” arab (twilight)—i.e., to the beginning of—the 21st day. For the Hasidic interpretation the statements found in Leviticus, 23:5–8, and Numbers, 28:16–25, where the 14th was the Phasekh and the 15th was called a Khag of Unleavened Bread for Yahweh, are pivotal points for their case. For those holding to the original Aristocratic view, the adherents to the Hasidic system were suffering from a case of overinterpretation. They saw the solution as follows: • To begin with, for the advocates of the original Aristocratic system, per scriptural command,19 there are only seven days of unleavened bread— 14 The Aristocratic practice continued strong among many Christian groups until the third century C.E. It began to be heavily suppressed after the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. but lingered on in more remote regions until the seventh century C.E. See our Chaps. XVII–XIX. 15 NBD, p. 1124; MDB, p. 785. 16 The Talmud mentions a Boethusian in a dispute with one of the pupils of Rabbi Akiba during the first half of the second century C.E. (Shab., 108a; Sof., 1:2). 17 Exod., 12:11f. 18 Exod., 12:18. 19 Exod., 12:15–20, 13:6f, 34:18; Lev., 23:5–8; Num., 28:16–18; Deut., 16:3.

226

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh not seven and one-fourth days (eight days) as produced in the Hasidic system. Since the 14th was a day of unleavened bread,20 they counted these seven days from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day (beginning of the 21st day) of the first moon. • Second, when the festival is referred to in Scriptures as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, without reference to the Phasekh, it has seven days.21 And, when the festival is referred to only as the Festival of Phasekh, with no reference to it as the Khag of Unleavened Bread, it still has only seven days.22 Therefore, Phasekh and Unleavened Bread are two names for one-and-the-same seven-day festival period. • Third, the entire seven-day festival was originally named the Khag of Unleavened Bread.23 Therefore, each day is a khag, not just the first day. At the time of the Exodus, the first day of the seven-day Khag of Unleavened Bread, which is a sabbathon, was renamed the Khag of Phasekh. That left six more khag-days from the original description. These remaining six days formed the Khag of Unleavened Bread and began on the 15th of Abib. This construct is explained by the six days of eating unleavened bread found in Deuteronomy, 16:8. For those holding to the original Aristocratic view, that is all that Leviticus, 23:5–8, and Numbers, 28:16–25, are saying.

What then of the issue of Leviticus, 23:32, with reference to the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the seventh moon? As we have shown, the advocates of the Hasidic view argue that the phrase br[b çdjl h[çtb (be-teshuah la-khodesh be-arab) means, “in the ninth (day) of the moon at arab,” and that this proves that there is a period of arab at the end of the ninth day. Those adhering to the Aristocratic view, meanwhile, see this translation as an error, concocted by the Hasidim in an effort to create support for their interpretation. In the eyes of those advocating the Aristocratic system, this verse does not even mention the ninth. Rather, this passage actually reads that the Israelites should humble themselves, “h[çtb (be-teshuah; with deliverance) çdjl (la-khadash; for renewing) at arab.”24 That is, one is delivered from his sins when he renews himself by making atonement, symbolized by fasting. This fasting starts at arab, at the beginning of the 10th day. Exod., 12:18; Ezek., 45:21; cf., Num., 9:11f. Exod., 23:14f. Ezek., 45:20–24. The evidence shows that the Phasekh, as a commanded sacrifice, was not originally part of the seven-day festival. It was originally intended only as a one-time event in Egypt meant for the Exodus. To demonstrate, there were no commanded sacrifices after the Israelites left Egypt (Jer., 7:21–26). As a result, in the covenant at Mount Sinai, only the statute to keep “the Khag of Unleavened Bread” was affirmed, with no reference to any Phasekh sacrifice (Exod., 23:14–17). The Phasekh sacrifice was reintroduced only after the Israelites rebelled by building the golden calf at Mount Sinai. With this act of idolatry, the Israelites had broken their marriage covenant with Yahweh. To reinstate them into this covenant, Yahweh commanded that a Phasekh victim be sacrificed each year with the unleavened bread (Exod., 34:25). 24 In Hebrew, h[çtb (be-teshuah) means, b (be) = “in, among, with” (HEL, p. 30), and h[çt (teshuah) = “rescue . . . deliverance, help, safety, salvation, victory” (SEC, Heb. #8668), “freedom, safety, salvation, deliverance” (HEL, p. 262). The word çdjl (la-khadash; for renewing) means, l (la) 20 21 22 23

The Aristocratic System (System A)

227

Early Aristocratic View At present we have very few extra-biblical sources demonstrating exactly how the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread was observed prior to the outbreak of the Hasmonaean (Maccabean) Revolt (late 167 B.C.E.). Two Aramaic ostraca dated to the early fifth century B.C.E., though quite probably written later,25 do mention the Phasekh but give no definition.26 One heavily damaged papyrus from Elephantine, Egypt, dated to the fifth year of Darius II of Persia (419 B.C.E.), does mention the days of unleavened bread.27 The text also says something to the effect that, “thus shall you count: fo[urteen . . . ,” and adds, evidently by continuing to count, “and from the 15th day until the 21st.”28 It also explains that something occurs from some date (now lost in the text), extending “. . . f]rom the setting of the sun until the 21st day of Nisa[n . . . .”29 Nevertheless, the text is so defective that we are unable to decipher its precise meaning. If “until the 21st” is by exclusive dating, it would refer to the Aristocratic system; yet if that phrase is inclusive, it would reflect the Hasidic method. There is simply no clear way of knowing. Fortunately, we do have at least one solid reference to the practice of the Jewish priests in the pre-Hasmonaean period and it demonstrates the Aristocratic view (System A). This one record comes from the works of Aristobulus of Paneas and is found in the Canons of Anatolius on the Phasekh.30 Anatolius (c. 262–282 C.E.) was an Alexandrian Christian teacher who became bishop of Laodicea in Syria.31 A. Yarbro Collins writes of Anatolius, “In his work On the Passover, he apparently defended the position of the Quartodecimans,” i.e., the early Aristocratic understanding which held that the seven days of unleavened bread were to be celebrated from the beginning of the 14th day until the end of the 20th of the moon of Abib/Nisan and that the Phasekh supper should take place on the night of the 14th.32 As part of his treatise on the Phasekh, Anatolius defers to the authority of “the excellent Aristobulus from Paneas,”33 a city better known as Caesarea = “to, towards . . . at, in . . . till, until . . . in order to, for the purpose of . . . for, belonging to, with respect to” (HEL, p. 131), and çdj (khadash) = “a prim. root; to be new; caus. to rebuild:—renew, repair . . . new:—fresh” (SEC, Heb. #2318–2319), “renew, restore” (HEL, p. 80). We shall have much more to say about this verse in FSDY, 2. 25 Cf., comments in THP, p. 8, ns. 2, 8. 26 ESE, 2, pp. 1903–1907; RES, no. 1792; PSBA, 33, facing p. 184; THP, p. 8. 27 APOJ, tafel 6; THP, pp. 9f. 28 APOJ, tafel 6, . 4–5. 29 APOJ, tafel 6, . 8. 30 The relevant quotation from the Canons of Anatolius on the Phasekh is found in Eusebius, H.E., 32:14–19. 31 Jerome, Lives, 58; Eusebius, H.E., 7:32; ANF, 6, p. 145; OTP, 2, p. 837, n. a. 32 OTP, 2, p. 837, n. a. Also see below n. 37 and below Chap. XIX, pp. 299–304. 33 The connection with Paneas is found in the Latin and Syriac text (OTP, 2, p. 837, n. c). This “Aristobulus the famous” (i.e., Aristobulus of Paneas) must not be confounded, as is often the case (as done in HJP, 3, pp. 579–586; JE, 2, p. 97f; EJ, 3, pp. 443f; and so forth), with the philosopher named “Aristobulus of Alexandria,” also called “Aristobulus the Peripatetic,” who flourished in the time of Ptolemy Philometor (181–145 B.C.E.) (Eusebius, P.E., 9:6). The fragments from both are found in Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:16–18, P.E., 8:9:38–8:10:17, 13:12:1f, 9–16, 13:13:3–8, 34; Clement, Strom., 1:148:1, 1:150:1–3, 5:99:3, 5:107:2, 6:32:3–33:1, 6:137–144. An English translation of these is provided in OTP, 2, pp. 837–842. Of this second Aristobulus, Eusebius notes that he was a “wise man of the Hebrews, who flourished under the rule of the Ptolemies” (Eusebius, P.E., 7:13). He adds that this Aristobulus partook of Aristotle’s philosophy as well as that of his own country and he is the person

228

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Philippi, located about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee near the source of the Jordan river. It is today called Banias.34 Anatolius notes that Aristobulus, also called Aristobulus the famous,35 was one of the 70 Judahite priests (Levites) who translated the Pentateuch into the Greek LXX during the reign of Ptolemy II (Ptolemy Philadelphus) (283–246 B.C.E.).36 While noting that the Festival of Unleavened Bread continued from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th (as opposed to the Hasidic idea that it began with the 15th and ended at the end of the 21st),37 Anatolius cites Aristobulus of Paneas as one of his chief proofs. He adds that, “the day of diabathrivon (diabaterion; the crossing-festival, Phasekh) was assigned to the 14th of the moon meqΔ eJspevran (meth hesperan; within twilight = byn haarabim).”38 As a result, Anatolius, who is using Aristobulus of Paneas to support the Quartodeciman reckoning, has revealed to us that during the mid-third century B.C.E., the priests sacrificed the Phasekh lamb “within” the time of hesperan, i.e., within the time of twilight following sunset,39 at the beginning of the 14th day, being the first day of the seven-day festival.40

The Ancient Samaritans There is little doubt that the ancient Samaritans reflected the Sadducean position with regard to the timing of byn ha-arabim. To support this detail, we retain one mentioned at the beginning of 2 Maccabees” (Eusebius, P.E., 8:9). The book of 2 Maccabees refers to this Aristobulus as a teacher of King Ptolemy and “of the stock of the anointed priests” (2 Macc., 1:10). This passage adds that the leadership of Judaea sent a letter to this Aristobulus in the 188th Jewish Seleucid year (124 B.C.E.). In a work of this second Aristobulus (Aristob. Alex., frag. 3; Eusebius, P.E., 13:12:2), which he dedicates to a King Ptolemy, he comments that, “the entire translation of all the (books) of the Torah (was made) in the time of the king called Philadelphus, your progenitor.” All problems disappear once it is realized that we are speaking of two different men named Aristobulus (a common name used by the Jews during the Seleucid period). Anatolius spoke only of the man who assisted in the translation of the Torah into Greek. As for the claim that the name Aristobulus does not appear in Aristeas’ list of the 72 translators (Aristeas, 47–51), any such objection fails on three counts. First, Jewish priests of this period often carried more than one name—e.g., Jonathan Johanan (379–348 B.C.E.); Joshua Jason (180–178 B.C.E.); Onias Menelaus (177–162 B.C.E.). Second, the list at question claims 72 names but only 71 remain (one name clearly being erased). The name missing is the sixth name of the fourth tribe (OTP, 2, p. 16, n. k). That someone begrudged Aristobulus of Paneas his place in this list might well serve as a reason to erase his name. Third, the fourth name of the tenth tribe is Baneas, which seems nothing less than Paneas, which easily could represent Aristobulus of Paneas. Any one of these reasons would explain why the name of Aristobulus does not presently appear. 34 Pliny, 7:16 §74; Eusebius, H.E., 7:17; Jos., Wars, 2:9:1, Antiq., 18:2:1. Also see DGRG, 2, p. 540; NBD, p. 175; DB, p. 100. 35 Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:16, “ΔAristobouvlou tou` pavnu.” 36 Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:16. 37 Anatolius went to great lengths to define what he meant by the “seven days of unleavened bread.” He explains that the 14th day was the first day of unleavened bread and the day in which the messiah ate the Phasekh. He then demonstrates that if one counts “from the end of the 13th day of the moon, which marks the beginning of the 14th, on to the end of the 20th, at which the 21st day also begins, and you will have only seven days of unleavened bread, in which, by the guidance of the sovereign, it has been determined before that the most true Festival of the Phasekh ought to be celebrated,” and that these seven days do not go “beyond the limit of the moon’s 20th day” (Anatolius, 8, 11). 38 Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:18. 39 For meqΔ (meth), a form of metav (meta), “within,” i.e., “in the midst of, among, between . . . of motion, into the middle of, coming into or among” (GEL, 1968, pp. 1108f). For eJspevran (hesperan) see above Chap. XIII, p. 215f, n. 36. 40 For the Aristocratic understanding of these seven days see Chaps. XVIII–XIX.

The Aristocratic System (System A)

229

piece of evidence from an ancient Samaritan writer, Ezekielos the Tragedian, in his work entitled ejxagwghv (Exagoge; Deliverance).41 This work was composed sometime between the first part of the second century until about 90 B.C.E.,42 i.e., as early as the outbreak of the Hasmonaean Revolt or as late as the first decade of the next century. Clement of Alexandria calls Ezekielos “the poet of Jewish tragedies.”43 Important fragments of the Exagoge have survived in the works of Eusebius.44 Internal evidence from this tragic drama reveals that the author belonged to the ancient Samaritan sect, which used the Aristocratic method.45 These Samaritans (called “Kuthim” by the Judaeans) were a mixture of foreign peoples, largely from the Babylonian, Median, and Persian regions, who had been forcibly settled in the country of Samaria, north of Judah, after the northern Israelites were deported out of their homeland by the powerful Assyrian empire in the late eighth until the mid-seventh century B.C.E.46 Finding it difficult in their new home, and believing that their problems stemmed from their failure to worship the deity of the land, the Samaritans sent for a Levitical priest who converted them to the religion of Yahweh.47 Though they were not actually descendants of the Israelite people, these foreigners made claim to being descendants of the Israelites when the circumstances suited them—a point of great irritation to and a source of condemnation by the first century Judahites of Judaea.48 Later, in the year that Alexander the Great invaded Samaria and Judaea (332 B.C.E.), Manasseh—a Levitical high priest of the Zadok (Tsadoq) line of Aaron, and brother of Jaddua,49 the high priest of Yahweh at Jerusalem—married Nikaso, the daughter of Sanaballetes, king of the Samaritans.50 As the result of this marriage, Manasseh was made high priest of a new Temple of Yahweh built for the Samaritan people on Mount Gerizim, situated in Samaritan territory.51 Manasseh would have brought with him the Aristocratic view of Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread. 41 Fragments are quoted by Eusebius, P.E., 9:28f; Clement, Strom., 1:23:155f; and Ps.Eustathius (PG, 18, p. 729). 42 OTP, 2, p. 804, “perhaps the first part of the second century B.C.”; AOASH, 2, p. 148, suggests that Ezekielos flourished about 90 B.C.E. 43 Clement, Strom., 1:23. 44 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28. 45 This evidence comes from two details. First, Ezekielos shows a clear bias toward the Aristocratic view that byn ha-arabim begins the day and that the entire Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread lasts only seven days, beginning with the 14th. Second, Ezekielos regards the ordinances from the time of the Exodus out of Egypt—that is, the selection of the Phasekh victim on the 10th day, the smearing of the blood of the Phasekh victim, and the special wardrobe worn—as binding on later generations. Only the Samaritans are known to have continued these customs (see REJ, 46, pp. 174ff; THP, pp. 24f). The fact that Ezekielos is a Samaritan yet is called a Jew is easily explained. The Samaritans were considered a Jewish sect by ancient writers (Eusebius, H.E., 4:22:7; Socrates Schol., 5:22), and the Samaritans (Kuthim) often made the claim that they were descendants of the ancient Israelites who had originally settled in the districts of Samaria (see below n. 48). Also see SHDL, pp. 143f. 46 2 Kings, 17:24; Ezra, 4:8–10; Jos., Antiq., 9:14:1, 3, 11:4:3, cf., 11:7:2. 47 2 Kings, 17:24–34; Jos., Antiq., 9:14:3. 48 E.g., Jos., Antiq., 9:14:3, 10:9:7, 11:2:1, 11:4:3f, 9, 11:7:2, 11:8:6, 12:5:5; John, 4:9; Luke, 9:51–56; Shebi., 8:10, “one who eats the bread of the Kuthim is as if he eats swine’s flesh.” 49 Jos., Antiq., 11:7:2–11:8:4, cf., 20:10:1f. 50 Jos., Antiq., 11:7:2, 11:8:2–4. 51 Jos., Antiq., 11:7:2, 11:8:2–4, 13:9:1.

230

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Our first proof of the relationship between the conservative Zadok priests and the Samaritans is found in the works of Hippolytus (early third century C.E.), who writes that a sect of the Sadducees “had its stronghold especially in the region around Samaria.”52 Epiphanius and John of Damascus likewise identify the Samaritans with the Sadducees.53 Next, these Samaritans followed only the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, discounting even the Old Testament books of the Prophets, and like the Sadducees they dismissed any need to observe the oral laws of the Pharisees.54 The Samaritans, from the latter part of the second century B.C.E., differed from the Sadducees in that they argued that the high priest and the priesthood at Jerusalem, as well as the Temple built there, were not legitimate.55 The high priests of Jerusalem had been dominated for years by the Hasmonaeans and others who were appointed by the Herods or controlled by the Pharisees. On the other hand, the priesthood established among the Samaritans claimed Zadok heritage through Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua. Also in their eyes, the holy mountain was not Mount Zion but Mount Gerizim.56 The Sadducees and early Samaritans were politically opposed to one another. Therefore, the many points of agreement they shared in reference to the issues about Phasekh, the seven days of unleavened bread, and the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost) must all have come from a previous long-standing practice prior to their schism. Since the schism between the two parties was among the ruling priests and occurred in the later half of the fourth century B.C.E., this information indicates that the Aristocratic practice for these festivals was both dominant and very early.

Ancient Samaritan Understanding With the fact that the high priests of the Samaritans were derived from the conservative Zadokites and were so similar to the Sadducees that they were called by that name, we can now examine the ancient Samaritan beliefs about Phasekh as revealed in the record from Ezekielos. In Ezekielos’ drama of the Exodus, Yahweh tells Moses: And you shall say to all the people, The full moon of the moon of which I speak, having sacrificed the Phasekh to the deity th`/ provsqe nukti; (te prosthe nukti; before night), touch the doors with blood, which sign the fearsome angel will pass by. But you shall eat the roasted flesh by night.57 Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:24. Epiphanius, Pan., 1:14; John Dam., 16. SEJS, pp. 225f; BJK, p. 387; DB, p. 584; EBD, p. 907; cf., Jos., Antiq., 13:8:6, 18:1:4. John Dam., 14, states that the Samaritans “reject the post-Mosaic prophecies.” The statements asserted by Epiphanius (Pan., 14), Origen (Celsus, 1:49), and Jerome (Com. Matt., 3, on 22:31–33), that the Sadducees rejected the prophets and Hagiographa, and relied upon the Pentateuch, refer only to the Samaritans and not to the Judahite Sadducees (cf., CBTEL, 9, pp. 235f). 55 SHDL, p. 65. 56 SHDL, pp. 7, 55–57; SEJS, pp. 234–239; SAJ, pp. 142–144. 57 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28:16 (. 156–160). 52 53 54

The Aristocratic System (System A)

231

The Greek phrase th`/ provsqe nukti; (te prosthe nukti) refers to the time in front of and immediately preceding the dark of night,58 i.e., the period of twilight after sunset. To this passage we add another that makes reference to the separation of the Phasekh lamb on the tenth of the moon. Ezekielos writes: And when the 10th day of this moon is come, let Hebrew men by families thus select unblemished sheep and calves, and keep them until the 14th ejpilavmyei (epilampsei; has fully come in) and sacrifice it pro~ eJspevran (pros hesperan; at twilight).59 The Phasekh victim was kept until the 14th day ejpilavmyei (epilampsei; has fully come in).60 R. G. Robertson translates ejpilavmyei (epilampsei) to mean “has dawned,” i.e., the 14th day had just begun.61 It has been known for some time now that the Hebrew-Aramaic word rwa (aur; to illuminate)62 is a technical term used for the twilight after sunset (a type of dawning light of a new day) which comes before the dawn of daylight (since in Hebrew and Samaritan time-reckoning the night precedes daylight).63 This usage is well-attested in the Mishnah,64 and, as Jehoshua M. Grintz so poignantly notes, “in the Gemara there is a discussion about the exact meaning and origin of this strange usage: ‘light’ is an euphemistic surrogate for ‘night.’”65 This same Hebrew phrasing is found behind the Greek of Matthew, 28:1.66 Ezekielos was a Samaritan, and the Samaritans spoke a form of Hebrew-Aramaic. His Greek tragedy about the Exodus merely reflects this old Hebrew-Aramaic thought and usage. In effect, from his perspective, the twilight (dawn) coming after sunset begins a 24-hour day, just as much as the twilight (dawn) before sunrise begins the daylight portion of a common day. It is within this context that the Greek expression pro~ eJspevran (pros hesperan; at twilight),67 being the time of the sacrifice, must be understood. 58 For the Greek term provsqe (prosthe) see GEL, 1968, p. 1513, “of Time, before”; and for nukti; (nukti), a form of nuvx (nuks), see GEL, 1968, p. 1185, “night.” 59 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28:19 (. 175–179). 60 The Greek term ejpilavmyei (epilampsei) means to “shine after or thereupon” and in the case of hJmevrh~ ejpilavmyavsh~, “when day had fully come,” i.e., when a day had fully begun (GEL, 1968, p. 642). 61 OTP, 2, p. 816 (. 178). The Syrian Christian writer Aphraates (Dem., 12:12, cf., v. 6–8, 12–13) similarly follows this Aristocratic interpretation and places the correct observance of the Phasekh supper on the “dawn of the 14th,” equating it with the time of night that the messiah kept his Last Supper with his disciples. 62 SEC, Heb. #215. 63 JBL, 79, pp. 37–39. 64 E.g., Pes., 1:1, 1:3. 65 JBL, 79, pp. 38. 66 JBL, 79, pp. 37–39. In the case of Matt., 28:1, the Greek term ejpifwskouvsh/ (epiphoskouse) was used, meaning “to begin to grow light:—begin to dawn” (SEC, Gk. #2020). 67 The term pro;~ (pros), when used with eJspevran (hesperan), means “at” or “on the side of” the time of hesperan (GEL, 1968, pp. 697, 1496f). More exactly, this phrase refers to the very beginning time or just upon the time of hesperan (= arab). The Greek phrase pro;~ eJspevran (pros hesperan) is used in the LXX as the equivalent of the Hebrew br[ t[l (la-ath arab; at the time of arab), cf., LXX at Gen., 8:11; 2 Sam. (MT 2 Kings), 11:2; Isa., 17:14; and the Hebrew μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim), cf., LXX at Exod., 12:6, 16:12; Num., 9:3, 11, 28:4, 8. This detail seems to indicate that the original thought in this passage was the time byn ha-arabim. The Samaritans considered the time of byn haarabim to be two minutes past sunset (PHT, p. 81.), therefore just at the beginning of twilight.

232

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

When these thoughts are all placed together, it shows that the sacrifice was made pro~ eJspevran (pros hesperan; at twilight), just when the 14th ejpilavmyei (epilampsei; had dawned, had fully come in), yet th`/ provsqe nukti; (te prosthe nukti; before night). Therefore, the Phasekh was sacrificed at twilight, just before nightfall, on the 14th day of the first moon; it was then eaten on that same night, on the 14th day of the moon. Finally, Ezekielos states, “You shall keep this festival to the master (Yahweh) seven days unleavened. Leaven will not be eaten.”68 For the early Samaritans, these seven days of Phasekh were counted “from the morn in which you fled from Egypt, and did journey seven days, from that same morn.”69 This passage is only correctly understood from the ancient Aristocratic viewpoint. It is more fully expressed in the Samaritan Commentary to the Asatir, which notes, “The sacrifice of the Phasekh was from arab until the break of the first dawn. And the festival is from the break of the first dawn to the setting of the sun.”70 This statement reveals that, for those of the Aristocratic school, like the ancient Samaritans, byn ha-arabim—being the time when the lamb was sacrificed—and the nighttime period when the lamb was consumed were both part of the first half of the 14th day. The remains of the lamb were burnt in the morning, thereby ending that part of the festival. Meanwhile, sunset ended the second half of the day. The seven days are thereby divided so that the first day of unleavened bread consists of the sacrifice and Phasekh supper, lasting from the period immediately following sunset (= arab) until the dawn of the first day. The Khag of Unleavened Bread follows in the second half of the first day, from the dawn until sunset of the 14th, and then continues six more days. It was a technical way for the early Samaritans to explain the superimposition of the one-day Khag of Phasekh atop the seven-day Khag of Unleavened Bread at the time of the Exodus. The day of the Phasekh, accordingly, was the same day as first of the seven days of unleavened bread. Except for Ezekielos the Tragedian and the later Commentary to the Asatir, we know little more of how the ancient Samaritans kept the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to realize that the neo-Samaritans, who are a much more recent sect, would not have held on to their Aristocratic interpretation of byn ha-arabim (= twilight after sunset), neither would they have resisted the pressure from the more powerful Pharisees to adopt the Hasidic view, unless the Aristocratic approach was indeed their own original understanding.

Conclusion The records show that the Samaritans were first taught by the early Levitical priests and, in the days of Alexander the Great, established Manasseh (the 68 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28:19 (. 188f). Line 189 literally states, “Seven days (of eating) unleavened (bread), and you will not eat leavened (bread).” An alternate form of punctuation links the first part of this line with the preceding line, resulting in the translation, “You will keep this festival to the master, seven days unleavened. Leaven will not be eaten” (OTP, 2, p. 816, n. b3). 69 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28:17 (. 168f). 70 Com. Asatir, 8:32.

The Aristocratic System (System A)

233

brother of Jaddua, the conservative Zadok high priest of Jerusalem) as the founder of their own high priest line. As a result, ancient Samaritan ideas about the Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread paralleled the conservative Aristocratic understanding. The evidence also proves that the Aristocratic system was in practice long before the founding of the Hasidic school. Therefore, the ancient Zadokite priests and their spiritual brothers and descendants the Sadducees, ancient Samaritans, and Boethusian Sadducees retained a more ancient view of byn ha-arabim. In their understanding byn ha-arabim meant the period between sunset and dark. In turn, the earlier Aristocratic groups, including the Sadducees and ancient Samaritans, kept only a seven-day festival, lasting from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th. This point shall be demonstrated even further in our Section II while dealing with the Quartodeciman Christians, who followed the Aristocratic system.

Chapter XV

The Neo-Aristocratic System (System C)

late innovation of the Aristocratic understanding of μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim) arose sometime after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., becoming clearly manifested in records by the eighth century C.E. This new interpretation (System C) was built under the heavy influence of the Talmudists (spiritual offshoots of the Pharisees). It flourished primarily among the Karaites and neo-Samaritans but was also practiced by some less well-known groups. Like those of the Aristocratic school (System A), these neo-Aristocratic groups (System C) understood byn ha-arabim as the period of twilight that follows sunset. But under the influence of the Hasidic schools (System B), they also determined that the seven days of unleavened bread extended from the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. As a result, they celebrated the Phasekh supper on the night of the 15th. To bridge the obvious gap created by the simultaneous adherence to these two opposing concepts, the advocates of the neo-Aristocratic view argued that there were two different reckonings of a day: a legal day (from sunset to sunset) and a common day (from post twilight to post twilight). The 14th was calculated as a common day, while the 15th was considered a legal day. As a result of this innovative interpretation, byn ha-arabim actually came to represent both the last part of the 14th, as a common day reckoning, and the first part of the 15th day, as a legal day reckoning. In the eyes of the supporters of the neo-Aristocratic system, this arrangement allowed for byn ha-arabim to pass the ancient test of being part of the 14th while also allowing the 15th to be the first day of the seven days of unleavened bread.

Sadducean Influence Already by the mid-first century C.E. the Sadducees and the Samaritans had both come under the heavy domination of the Pharisees. In 70 C.E., with the destruction of the Temple of Yahweh by the Romans, the main branch of the Sadducees had ceased to exist as a political force.1 The effect of the growing dominance of the Pharisees (Rabbinists, Talmudists) among the Jews was the unavoidable influence and pressure placed upon the earlier Sadducean and Samaritan doctrines. Those of the Sadducean persuasion who continued to cling to any semblance of their old Aristocratic views were, from 70 C.E. on, placed under tremendous pressure to compromise with the Hasidic-based groups. As 1

See above Chap. XII, p. 198, n. 24.

235

236

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

suppression continued and necessity grew, new views of the Phasekh took shape. These neo-Aristocratic views retained only a shadow of their ancient form and for the most part were recast in the Hasidic mode. Nevertheless, even within this new construct we still see the original Aristocratic understanding of byn ha-arabim. The Sadducees of Jerusalem had become divided into two main sects by the first century B.C.E.: the Sadducees and the Boethusians (the latter being treated by the Rabbis as if they were one and the same with the other Sadducees).2 Late Rabbinic tradition has provided a fictionalized version of these two Sadducean factions.3 Rabbi Nathan ha-Babli states that Zadok and Boethus were disciples of Antigonus of Soho (about 200–170 B.C.E.), a teacher who had received the oral laws from the high priest Simeon II.4 With this explanation the Pharisees make it appear that the Sadducees were a heresy derived from the Hasidim, which is clearly not the case. The truth to the story seems simply that a priest named Boethus and his faction arose at the time of the Hasmonaean revolt in some doctrinal disagreement with the other Sadducean leadership. Yet, for the reason that the Boethusians were still seen as “the seed of Zadok” (= Sadducees) and agreed with the Sadducees on most issues, the Pharisees and others continued to group the Boethusians under the Sadducean label.5 The “Boethusian branch of the Sadducees” seems to have been named after the Boethus family from which later descended Simon Boethus, a well-known priest of Jerusalem whom Herod the Great made high priest in about 25/24 B.C.E.6 The priestly “House of Boethus” is criticized in the Talmud for its oppression.7 In the New Testament their party appears to be the supporters of the family of Herod the Great. For example, the party of the Herodians is, in a parallel text, made to be Sadducean, though separate from the Sadducees.8 After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. the Sadducees as a distinct political body disappeared. The Pharisees and Talmudists, nevertheless, continued to use the word “Sadducee” for all heretics (including Christians).9 Meanwhile, the term Boethusian independently continued and 2 In the Mishnah and Baraita the terms are freely interchanged (GDJ, 3, pp. 694f). In the dispute between the Pharisees and the Boethusians over where the high priest was to prepare the incense for the Day of Atonement, the Tosef. Yom., 1:8, and J. Yom., 1:39a, call them Boethusians, while the parallel account in the B. Yom., 19b, calls them Sadducees. Also see JE, 3, p. 285; EJ, 4, p. 1169; PSSP, pp. 227f. 3 CBTEL, 9, pp. 239f; JE, 3, p. 285, 4, p. 1169, “legendary”; HJP, 2, p. 406, “historically unreliable.” 4 Ab. R.N., 5; Ab., 1:3. 5 CBTEL, 9, p. 240. 6 Jos., Antiq., 15:9:3. The Boethusian name was not necessarily from Simon Boethus himself, as concluded in CBTEL, 9, pp. 240f. Boethus seems merely a surname carried by numerous members of that family, i.e., the “House of Boethus” (see below n. 7). Also see HJP, 1, pp. 320f, 2, p. 406; EJ, 4, p. 1169; ADB, 4, p. 350; PSSP, p. 227, n. 67. 7 B. Pes., 57a; cf., Tosef. Men., 13:21. See EJ, 4, p. 1169. 8 Cf., Matt., 16:6, “Sadducees” with Mark, 8:15, “Herodi”; yet Mark, 12:13, “Herodians” are listed as separate from those “Sadducees . . . who say there is no resurrection,” v. 18. It is possible that the parallel verses may only demonstrate that the party of Herod was somehow connected with the Sadducees politically and may not mean that they were Sadducean in their religious beliefs; but see EJ, 4, p. 1169; CBTEL, 9, pp. 240f. 9 JE, 10, p. 633; PSSP, p. 226; LS, pp. 97–99.

The Neo-Aristocratic System (System C)

237

was applied to an individual as late as the time of Rabbi Akiba (early second century C.E.).10 At this time the Boethusian name often replaced that of Sadducees, “only for the sake of opposition,” as the opponents of the Pharisees. They had maintained certain Sadducean traditions but “without proper understanding of the historical principles upon which they were based.” 11 It is apparent that the Boethusian branch of the Sadducees, because of their leadership position during the final decades of the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem, were the leaders of the Sadducean movement after the Temple’s destruction. They also became part of the Jewish Diaspora, establishing themselves in various parts of Asia, especially in the frontier regions, as far north as Armenia. Here they would still exert their influence on part of Judaism but, as we have already said, without the proper understanding of the historical principles upon which the original Aristocratic movement was founded.

The Karaites The first clear demonstration of the neo-Aristocratic view comes from the records of the Karaites (the “Readers”).12 The Rabbis assert that the Karaite sect (originally called Ananites)13 was identical with the Sadducees and had originated with Anan ben David (about 740 C.E.), because the latter was ignored in the election of a new Resh-Gelutha.14 Karaite activity was transferred from Asia to Europe by the pupils of Abu al-Faraj Furkan (Jeshua ben Judah) in the middle of the 11th century.15 Today it is admitted that before Anan there were already groups of people holding to his basic views living in outlying districts whom Anan was able to organize. Leon Nemoy calls them the “never entirely suppressed opposition (represented in earlier times by the Sadducee faction).” 16 They absorbed into their ranks the Jewish sects of “the Isawites (adherents of Abu ‘Isa al-Isfahani) and the Yudghanites, who were influenced by East-Islamic tendencies, and small remnants of pre-talmudic Sadducees and Boethusians and similar anti-traditional movements.”17 There seems little doubt that many of the remaining Samaritans were also in some kind of loose alliance with these various remnants. The Karaites themselves claimed that their predecessors (at least those who held similar ideas) went back much further than Anan. They believed B. Shab., 108b; Sof., 1:2. JE, 10, p. 632. CBTEL, 5, p. 17. μyarq (Qaraim) is the plural form of the Hebrew arq (qara), meaning “called . . . call together, assemble,” with the idea of having a convocation for reading Scriptures (HEL, p. 234; SEC, Heb. #7121–7124, cf., #4744). They saw themselves as those who relied upon Scriptures rather than upon the oral laws of the Talmudists. The principle was established by Anan, as transmitted by Japheth ben Ali, that one was to, “Search thoroughly in the Torah and do not rely on my opinion.” This statement was meant to uphold the doctrine that the Scriptures were the sole source of law. Its reality was to create a great variety of opinions among the Karaite factions (EJ, 10, pp. 765, 777). 13 JE, 7, p. 438; EJ, 10, p. 764. 14 CBTEL, 5, p. 17. 15 JE, 7, p. 441. 16 KAEEL, p. xvi. 17 EJ, 10, p. 764. 10 11 12

238

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

that the true law had been preserved by the Sadducees, whose leader, Zadok, had discovered a “portion,” but not all of the truth.18 Anan, they claimed, was merely a leader of some renown who had only later organized the forces in opposition to the Rabbis. At the same time, the assertion that the Karaites were Sadducees is in part a fabrication, for they disagreed with the Sadducees on many important issues, including issues about the Phasekh and the resurrection.19 They in fact represented an amalgamation of Jewish ideas. Since Boethusian leadership survived the first century C.E., it is highly probable that the information about the Sadducees, to whom the Karaites made reference as providing some of their spiritual background, came by means of the Boethusian branch of the Sadducees. Indeed, the Karaites claimed, for example, that their opinion about how to calculate Pentecost came from Boethus.20 It is also clear that the ruling Boethusian Sadducees, ever since the first century C.E., had already been compromised by the Pharisees with reference to the practices of Phasekh, for they had been forced to keep the Phasekh according to the dictates of the Pharisees. Herein lie the reasons why men still holding Sadducee-like views were flourishing in 740 C.E. when Anan ben David came to power. Yet, like the Boethusians under Pharisaic domination, they kept the Hasidic method of seven days of unleavened bread from the 15th until the end of the 21st. It was the continuing Pharisaic (Talmudic) repression of those Jews holding on to the Aristocratic understanding of how to observe the Phasekh that resulted in the creation of the neo-Aristocratic view (System C). The Phasekh of the Karaites As far as the observance of Phasekh, the Karaites were divided. Some divisions adjusted the calendar according to the season in which the crops became ripe in Palestine. Others adopted the Rabbinical system in its entirety.21 Earlier Karaites, like Anan ben David, believed that the Phasekh did not override the weekly Sabbath, others held a contrary opinion.22 These variations merely demonstrate that rabbinical Judaism had a great deal of influence over these Aristocratic-leaning groups. The fact remains that Karaite ideas had in part sprung from the families of Sadducean priests and therefore retained some of the priestly interpretations for the Phasekh and its observances. Yet the Karaites also lived in a time of heavy Pharisaic (Talmudic) influence. For this reason, though they agreed with the Sadducees on the time of day that the Phasekh lamb was to be sacrificed (i.e., between sunset and dark), they also adopted ideas from the dominant Hasidic groups, like the Pharisees and Essenes, as well as from the powerful Mohammedans and others. The Jewish Encyclopedia notes: EJ, 10, p. 765. For example, the Karaites, unlike the Sadducees but in accord with the Pharisees, believed in the resurrection of the dead on the day of judgment as well as in rewards in the afterlife (EJ, 10, p. 778; CBTEL, 5, p. 18). 20 Al-Kirkisani, 1:7. 21 THP, p. 255, n. 1. 22 THP, p. 255. 18 19

The Neo-Aristocratic System (System C)

239

But Karaism in fact adopted a large part of rabbinical Judaism, either outright or with more or less modifications, while at the same time it borrowed from earlier or later Jewish sects—Sadducees, Essenes, Isawites, Yudghanites, etc.—as well as from Mohammedans.23 This merging of Sadducean and Rabbinical Judaism, therefore, directly affected the Karaite practice of Phasekh. To demonstrate, the Karaite writer Samuel al-Magribi understood “byn ha-arabim” as follows: Its beginning is the setting of the sun, and its end the disappearance of the last brightness of daylight, and this is the period of dusk which lingers for some time after the sinking of the last portion of the disk of the sun.24 In Scriptures, the Phasekh is to be sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan. Yet the Karaites, clearly under Pharisaic-Talmudic influence, sacrificed during the twilight at the beginning of the 15th of Nisan and ate the Phasekh that same night. To bridge the gap between the apparent contradiction Samuel al-Magribi provided the following reasoning: This time is regarded as part of two days: of the common day, which is the fourteenth of Nisan, as mentioned above; and of the legal day, which is the fifteenth. The common day begins after the sinking of twilight and continues until its next sinking; this is the day as reckoned for the purpose of offering the sacrifice. The legal day begins with sunset and lasts until the next sunset.25 For the Jews, the legal (scriptural) day ended at sunset,26 while the common day ended after twilight, with the appearance of the first three stars of the evening.27 Indeed, in the time of Pliny (first century C.E.), a day for “the common people everywhere” extended “from dawn until the darkness of night.”28 For this reason the Greek words deivlh~ (deiles), deivlino~ (deilinos), etc., meaning the last half of daylight (the afternoon),29 were at times used by editions of the LXX to translate the Hebrew word arab.30 Some LXX versions use deivlh~ (deiles; afternoon) in place of eJspevra~ (hesperas; twilight) as a translation of arab.31 These details show that a legal day overlapped with the common day JE, 7, p. 438. Al-Magribi, 2:1; KAEEL, p. 199. Al-Magribi, 2:3; KAEEL, pp. 199f. 26 THP, p. 131, and n. 3, p. 199, and n. 6; EJ, 5, p. 1374; ADB, 4, p. 766. For the scriptural evidence that the legal day ends and begins with sunset—the moment when the entire sun disappears below the horizon (EJ, 5, p. 1376)—see above Chap. XIII, pp. 213ff, p. 213, n. 21. 27 B. Ber., 2a–b; Maimonides, Code, 3, 1:5:4; JE, 3, p. 501. 28 Pliny, 2:79. 29 GEL, 1968, pp. 373f. 30 CS, 1, pp. 286, 287. 31 CS, 1, p. 557, at Exod., 18:13, and 1 Macc., 10:80. 23 24 25

240

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

during the period of twilight. This period of overlap was the source of much debate in Talmudic circles.32 The Karaite view is undoubtedly derived from a strained effort to merge the diverse practices of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Such a merger came about because of Pharisaic dominance (demanding that Phasekh be sacrificed toward the end of the 14th and eaten on the night of the 15th), while the party of the Karaites, still a minority, clung to the ancient priestly interpretation that byn ha-arabim was twilight after sunset. System C simply bridged the gap between the two opposing views.

The Samaritans The Samaritans suffered through the same pressures and changes that developed the Karaite view (if indeed they are not both derived from the same source). We know, for example, that in the latter part of the second century B.C.E., the Jews of Judaea had conquered the country of the Samaritans.33 Though they never agreed with the Pharisees on many scriptural issues, the Jews of that time had gained important political influence over the Samaritans, just as they had become dominant over the Sadducees. Because of Judaean supremacy, the Samaritans became subject to the same rules as the Edomites who were living in southern Judaea. Since they were living in the ancient land promised by Yahweh to the Israelites, they were obligated to keep the laws of the Jews. Failure to keep these laws meant exile.34 Meanwhile, the Pharisees became dominant in the reign of Queen Alexandra of Judaea (76/75–68/67 B.C.E.),35 which was not long after Ezekielos the Tragedian wrote. As a result, the Samaritans from the mid-first century B.C.E. onward fell under the authority of the Pharisees, just as the Sadducees and others had been forced to do. The Samaritans, meanwhile, were strong allies and supporters of Herod the Great,36 who conquered and ruled Judaea in the winter of 37/36 B.C.E.37 For a time Herod even left his relatives in Samaria for safety.38 Herod married a Samaritan woman named Malthace,39 the mother of his son named Archelaus, who ruled Jerusalem after Herod’s death.40 During his siege against Jerusalem, while residing in Samaria, Herod took another wife, named Mariamme, the daughter of Simon, the son of Boethus, the Jewish 32 This debate is discussed at some length in the B. Shab., 34a–35a. Here the twilight after sunset, called arab and byn ha-arabim by those of the Aristocratic school, was by the Talmudic writers referred to as twçmçh ˆyb (byn ha-shamasuth; between the suns). They argued whether it should be counted as the last part of day (i.e., the common day) or the first part of night. They determined that any conclusion was in doubt. Admitting that the legal day ended at sunset, at which time a person, if he followed the purity laws, was rendered clean, the rabbis judged other issues leniently. For example, one was allowed to store away food twçmçh ˆyb (byn ha-shamasuth; between the suns) but is forbidden to do so after dark on the Sabbath day. Cf., Maimonides, Code, 3, 1:5:4. 33 Jos., Antiq., 13:10:2f. 34 SJC, chap. xxv; cf., Jos., Antiq., 13:9:1. 35 Jos., Wars, 1:5:1–4, Antiq., 13:15:5–13:16:6. 36 Jos., Antiq., 14:11:4, 14:15:3. 37 For the date of Herod the Great’s conquest of Jerusalem see SJC, chaps. xvi–xx. 38 Jos., Antiq., 14:15:4. 39 Jos., Antiq., 17:1:3, Wars, 1:28:4. 40 Jos., Antiq., 17:10:1.

The Neo-Aristocratic System (System C)

241

priest.41 In late 30 B.C.E. Samaria was brought under direct control of this Jewish king.42 After Herod’s death, Augustus Caesar assigned Samaria to King Archelaus (4 B.C.E.–6 C.E.), the son of Herod the Great.43 Meanwhile, King Herod the Great (36–4 B.C.E.) was supported by the Boethusian Sadducees. He appointed Simon, the son of Boethus, high priest in about 25/24 B.C.E and then, as we have stated above, married Simon’s daughter, Mariamme.44 Mariamme, in turn, became the mother of Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great.45 Herod Antipas later became the tetrarch of Galilee. During the Herodian period, the family of Boethus supplied several high priests: Joezer, who filled the office twice;46 Eleazar;47 Simon Kantheras;48 his son Elioneus;49 and Joshua ben Gamaliel, whose wife, Martha, belonged to that house.50 The close political association between the Samaritans and the Boethusians with the family of Herod the Great was strong. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to conclude that, after the Herodians lost power, some of the Samaritans, despite their dislike of the Jerusalem priesthood and the Temple at Jerusalem, fell under the same kind of Pharisaical pressures that affected the Boethusians and other Sadducees. Over the years some of the Samaritans would have found it necessary to make the same kind of compromise that the Boethusians of the first century C.E. had made in their celebration of the Phasekh. Different Samaritan Sects There is no evidence of a continuous tradition among the Samaritans. To the contrary, the Samaritans have undergone many vicissitudes since they were founded.51 The great divergence in Samaritan attitudes began shortly after a period of intellectual stagnation, which occurred “from the time of Hadrian and a little later, when most of the ancient literature of the Samaritans had been irretrievably destroyed.”52 Between the early second and fourth centuries C.E. a number of Samaritan sects emerged, namely, the Dositheans, Gorothenians, Masbothaeans (Sebuaeans), and by the fourth century a faction that was identified with the Essenes.53 Their willingness to compromise is also demonstrated by the fact that Phariseelike eschatological tenets and the dogma of the resurrection (previously denied by the Sadducees and Samaritans) already appeared in full bloom by that time.54 Jos., Antiq., 14:12:1, 14:15:14, Wars, 1:12:3, 1:17:8. Jos., Antiq., 15:7:3; NBD, p. 1132. Jos., Antiq., 17:11:4. Jos., Antiq., 15:9:3, 18:5:4, 19:6:2. Jos., Antiq., 18:5:1. Jos., Antiq., 18:1:1. Jos., Antiq., 17:13:1. Jos., Antiq., 19:6:2. Jos., Antiq., 19:8:1. Yeb., 6:4. THP, pp. 251f. SHDL, p. 3. Eusebius, H.E., 4:22; Epiphanius, Pan., 1:10; Theodoret, Fab., 1:1; John Dam., in EGM, 1:282; Nicetas, 1:35; SEJS, pp. 252–265. 54 SEJS, pp. 239–251. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

242

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The early Dositheans, for example, reflected the changing positions of some of the Samaritans, for some of them “believed in the resurrection of the dead, which belief is foreign to the Samaritans.”55 As James Montgomery poignantly comments: For from all we know of Samaritanism there can be no doubt that it remained under the steady influence of Judaism, and that this spiritual patronage was so strong and so necessary that even after the complete excommunication of the schismatics in the IIId and IVth Christian centuries Rabbinism still infiltrated into Samaria.56 The Essene faction is vital to understanding the development of the neoSamaritans. As discussed earlier, the Jewish Essenes were a Hasidic-based group.57 Indeed, Hippolytus even classified the Pharisees as an Essene sect.58 That the Essenes would have established themselves among the Samaritans proves that by the fourth century C.E. serious inroads had been made by the Hasidic schools into the Samaritan groups. With regard to the festivals, the Essene Samaritans “celebrated their feast indifferently with whomsoever they chance to be.”59 In this willingness, one can already see the roots for a compromise between the Aristocratic and Hasidic forms of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread. At about this time, due to Jewish suppression, the Samaritans seem to vanish. Moses Gaster writes: The persecution of the Samaritans was so effective that for close upon a thousand years their very existence was entirely forgotten, and they lived only in the memory of the ancient writers.60 We do know that many Samaritans spread to other regions, which served as a source for the acquisition of different ideas. For example, there was a large Samaritan population living in Egypt by the 12th century C.E.61 At the same time, the destruction of ancient Samaritan literature makes it difficult to trace the history of these changes, the oldest known Samaritan writings belonging only to the 10th or 11th century C.E.62 Yet there is good evidence of differing opinions among the Samaritans even over the last centuries.63 It is very probable that various factions continued to celebrate Phasekh quite differently over the centuries. Neither should we doubt that there were contacts between the Samaritans and the Karaites. James Montgomery’s research into Samaritan theology, for 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

John Dam., 13. SEJS, pp. 72f. See above Chap. XI, p. 184, n. 32. Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:23. John Dam., 12. SHDL, p. 2. Gaster, Asatir, p. 170. Gaster, Asatir, pp. 134f. Gaster, Asatir, p. 259.

The Neo-Aristocratic System (System C)

243

example, admits to this influence.64 It was from this mix of ideas that, in the final stages of the existence of the Samaritan religion, at a time when their numbers had dwindled so drastically, that the neo-Aristocratic view emerged as dominant. The Neo-Samaritan Phasekh With regard to the celebration of the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread, we are not made aware, with any detail or clear delineation, of the modern or neo-Samaritan view until the end of the 19th century C.E., with the work on Samaritan beliefs and practices composed by the high priest Jacob ben Aaron, entitled The Guide.65 Parroting the Pharisees of the first century C.E., the neo-Samaritans celebrate eight days of unleavened bread.66 They remove the leavening at the very end of the 13th and keep the festival from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 21st of Nisan/Abib.67 To this very day, the 14th of the moon is considered by the neo-Samaritans a day of preparation. Using as their authority Exodus, 23:18, “You shall not sacrifice over leaven the blood of my sacrifice,” the neo-Samaritans neither eat “leavened or unleavened,” on the 14th nor keep “anything fermenting into yeast.”68 The neo-Samaritans, like the Karaites, have put a strange twist on the understanding of Phasekh and the concept of “between the arabim.” They bridge the gap between the Aristocratic and Hasidic views by calculating byn haarabim as the time between sunset and dark. Then they calculate byn ha-arabim as occurring at the end of the day. Therefore, for the neo-Samaritans, as with the Karaites, the common day ends at the arrival of dark (i.e., the appearance of the first three stars in late twilight).69 Also, like the Karaites and Pharisees, they make the legal day end with sunset (arab), but the expression “between the arabim,” for religious purposes, means the end of the common day. Sunset is the first arab and the setting of twilight the second arab. The neo-Samaritans sacrifice their Phasekh lamb after sunset, which they believe is the last part of the 14th, holding that they are following the prescription of Exodus, 12.70 For the neo-Samaritans, “Real twilight is the space of two minutes after the actual going-down of the sun. This is the moment when the Paschal Sacrifice is slaughtered.”71 Phasekh, therefore, is eaten at the beginning of the 15th, just as it was with the Pharisees and their confederates. Accordingly, although the neo-Samaritans have developed a different understanding of the phrase “between the arabim,” in that it actually ends rather than begins a day, it is certain that their view of the expression “between the arabim,” to mean the period between sunset and dark, was a very ancient one—derived from the same priestly source as that practiced by the Sadducees. For this reason, the neo-Samaritans continue to cling to that 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

SEJS, p. 204. Quoted in PHT, pp. 78–83. Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1. SEJS, p. 40. PHT, pp. 77–78. See above n. 27. PHT, p. 81. Ibid.

244

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

understanding, if for no other reason than that it serves as a mark of distinction and national pride. At the same time, for an assortment of reasons, the ranks of the Samaritans have greatly dwindled over the centuries. In 1970, for example, there were only 430 Samaritans counted as still living in Palestine.72 As a result, there are very few Samaritans remaining who continue to practice the neo-Samaritan Phasekh system.

Conclusion The ancient Aristocratic priests and their spiritual brothers and descendants the Sadducees, ancient Samaritans, and Boethusians retained the ancient view of byn ha-arabim. In their understanding, byn ha-arabim meant the period between sunset and dark. The earlier Aristocratic groups, including the Sadducees and ancient Samaritans, kept only a seven-day festival, lasting from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th. Later groups, such as the Karaites and the neo-Samaritans, modified their Phasekh observance so that they could retain their more ancient definition of byn ha-arabim as between sunset and dark. Yet they conformed with the Pharisaic interpretation of the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread, beginning it with the 15th and continuing it until the end of the 21st. In doing so they created a third interpretation of the festival observance (System C). 72

EJ, 14, p. 738.

Chapter XVI

Counting Shabuath (Pentecost)

s found with the celebration of Phasekh, there existed a great debate among the various Jewish factions, beginning in about the second century B.C.E., with regard to just how and when one was to count to the Khag of Shabuath (Weeks), also called Pentecost. This debate was sparked by the fact that there is no direct statement found in Scriptures telling us exactly on which date one is to keep the Festival of Weeks. Instead, the dating of the festival is dependent upon the timing of the rm[ (omer) wave offering, as it relates to the seven days of unleavened bread, the interpretation of key words, and the inferences provided from context and statements made in Scriptures. The result of this method was several varying views and the entire subject became a matter of much controversy. Our next effort, therefore, is to examine important scriptural statements that must be used to determine the original practice of Pentecost and to investigate the approaches used by the various Jewish religious schools.

Four Approaches The calculations for keeping the Festival of Weeks was yet one more area where those holding to the Aristocratic view sharply opposed those advocating the Hasidic construct. Their dispute centered upon the interpretation applied to Leviticus, 23:11, which commands that the omer offering should be waved “on the day after the Sabbath.” The meaning of the word Sabbath as found in this verse became the source of much contention. As a result, postBiblical Jewish traditions soon varied concerning the day on which the sickle was to be put into the first corn of a year’s harvest. Four different interpretations arose: two with a majority following and two with a minority following. • Aristocratic (majority) view: the Sabbath referred to is the weekly Sabbath. The omer wave offering always occurs on the first day of the week falling just after the festival day of Phasekh. • Quasi-Aristocratic (minority) view: the Sabbath referred to is the weekly Sabbath. The omer wave offering occurs on the first day of the week falling just after the end of the seven days of unleavened bread. • Hasidic (majority) view: the Sabbath referred to is the high Sabbath festival day of Phasekh, which for the Hasidim is Abib 15. The omer wave offering, therefore, always occurs on the 16th 245

246

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh of Abib (Nisan), the day after Phasekh, no matter which day of the week that might be. • Quasi-Hasidic (minority) view: the Sabbath referred to is the high Sabbath festival occurring on the last day of the seven days of unleavened bread. For these quasi-Hasidic advocates this date is always Abib 21. The omer wave offering, therefore, always occurs on Abib 22, no matter which day of the week that might be.

To begin with, we shall quickly dispense with the two minority constructs. These two views were originally advocated by some of the smaller Hasidic groups and a few others strongly influenced by them, such as the Essenes, the Qumran Covenanteers, the Ethiopian Falashas Jews, the Mishawayhs, and at least one Syrian group. As we shall demonstrate, they are clearly aberrant and do not reflect the original meaning of the Levitical text. One minority view is a quasi-Aristocratic system found in use among those at Qumran and in the book of Jubilees. The advocates of this view used the Phasekh system of the Hasidim but, most likely due to their support of the Zadok line of priests, retained some Aristocratic leanings. This Pentecost system always counted the 50 days from the Sunday which follows the seven days of unleavened bread.1 Like the Aristocratic groups and those that followed them on the Phasekh issue, the advocates of the quasi-Aristocratic Pentecost system understood the instruction found in Leviticus, 23:15, that the Khag of Weeks was to be kept on “the day after the Sabbath,” as referring to the weekly Sabbath. Therefore, the khag of the 50th day must always fall on the first day of the week. Nevertheless, the advocates of this view failed in that they did not consider the important evidence from Joshua, 5:10–12, which, as we have already demonstrated in an earlier chapter, clearly allows for the omer offering to be waved within the seven days of unleavened bread.2 The tenet that it must always be waved after the seven days of unleavened bread, therefore, is manifestly wrong. A second minority view, the quasi-Hasidic Pentecost system, was used by a Syrian Jewish group and is continued to this day by the Falashas of Ethiopia. It always counts from the day after the last day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.3 In this interpretation, the Sabbath of Leviticus, 23:11, is not perceived as a weekly Sabbath but, as the Pharisees claimed, as a high Sabbath and festival day. Yet it too fails to consider Joshua, 5:10–12, by also always placing the first day of the seven weeks beyond the seven days of unleavened bread. 1 The Qumran community had a fixed solar calendar whereby this Sabbath always fell on the 26th of Nisan and the Festival of Weeks always came on Sunday the 15th of Siwan (THP, pp. 41, 235, 247–251; EJ, 14, p. 1319; DSSE, pp. 43f; BCal, pp. 25–28; EEC, pp. 119f, 1b. n. a). Also see Jub., 1:1–4, 6:17–22, 15:1f, 16:13, 44:1–5, where 29 days appears to have been used for the second month, placing the festival on the 16th day of the third month (?). 2 See above Chap. X, pp. 165ff. Josh., 5:10–12, notes that the Israelites ate from the new crop on Abib 16, which makes the omer wave offering occur on that date, well within the seven days of unleavened bread. 3 THP, p. 255; EEC, pp. 119f, 1b. n. a; BCal, pp. 24f; JE, 5, p. 328.

Counting Shabuath (Pentecost)

247

We are now left with the two majority systems: one advocated by the Aristocratic groups—the Sadducees (and their Boethusian brothers), the Samaritans, and the Karaites—and a second practiced by the Hasidic Pharisees. Once again we find ourselves entangled in the debate between the two leading factions of first century Judaism. J. Van Goudoever summarizes these two majority interpretations, stating: Around the beginning of our era there were at least two rival systems for the counting of the 50 days; one from the Sunday after Passover to the Sunday 50 days later, and one from 16 Nisan to 6 Sivan ·Siwan‚. It appears that this was not only a question of difference of counting. It was also a difference in the theological conception of Revelation. According to the Pharisees, the Torah (i.e. the five Books of Moses) was revealed to Moses, and the Rabbis were to explain the Torah. According to the Zadokites every law was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai and other regulations were rejected by them.4 Aristocratic Pentecost System The Sadducees, Boethusians, Samaritans, and the Karaites, all representatives of the Aristocratic view, understood the term “Sabbath” in Leviticus, 23:11, literally, hence, as the weekly Sabbath.5 This view was quite opposite that of the Pharisees, who interpreted this “Sabbath” as the “bwf μwy (yom tob),” also Aramaic “abf amwy (yoma toba),” or “festive day”6 of Passover (which for them was the 15th of Abib).7 Therefore, in accordance with Joshua, 5:10–12, for those following the Aristocratic view, the omer wave offering came on that first day of the week which followed Phasekh.8 In addition, the passage in Leviticus, 23:15f, became an important formula in the Aristocratic construct: And you shall number for yourself from the day after the Sabbath, from the day you bring in the omer wave offering, they shall be seven complete Sabbaths, until the day after the seventh Sabbath. You shall number 50 days. “The day after the seventh Sabbath” can only mean the day after the seventh weekly Sabbath day, for there was no other Sabbath or high Sabbath day BCal, pp. 143f. E.g., Hag., 2:4. The term μwy (yom) means “day” (HEL, p. 105); bwf (tob) means, “happy, prosperous . . . valuable . . . goodness . . . wealth . . . prosperity . . . beauty” (HEL, p. 99), “joyous, glad . . . pleasing, desirable” and “(morally) good” (CHAL, p. 122). Therefore, bwf μwy (yom tob), being a morally good day, came to be applied to a “feast-day” (CHAL, p. 122), cf., 1 Sam., 25:8. This expression was used by the Talmudists and in the Aramaic writings for a joyous and morally good day, i.e., for the high Sabbaths. 7 See our discussion below pp. 250ff. 8 THP, pp. 248f; Danby, Mishnah, p. 506, n. 1; NBD, p. 179. 4 5 6

248

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

occurring at this time. This detail is further supported by the expression, “they shall be seven complete Sabbaths.” The words “complete Sabbath” is a reference to a complete week ending with a Sabbath day. Seven complete Sabbaths, in turn, equal 49 days. The next day after the seventh weekly Sabbath is the 50th day. Therefore, for the advocates of the Aristocratic Pentecost view, the Festival of Weeks always fell on the first day of the week, on the 50th day from the presentation of the omer wave offering.9 A demonstration of the Aristocratic view was supplied by their antagonists, the Pharisees, in the Mishnah. In the section entitled the Hagigah, while discussing the issue of Pentecost and the slaughtering of animals on the Sabbath, this text reports: The High Priest may not put on his high-priestly vestments, and mourning and fasting are permitted, to lend no support to the words of them (the Sadducees) that say, “The trx[ (Atsarth; Closing Assembly) falls on the day after the Sabbath.”10 The Babylonian Talmud similarly states: For the Boethusians held that the Closing Assembly must always be on the day after the Sabbath.11 These statements demonstrate the belief of the Sadducees that the Festival of Weeks, contrary to the practice of the Pharisees, always came on the day after the weekly Sabbath.12 The first day of the 50 days, accordingly, must also fall on the day after the weekly Sabbath. The differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees were also expressed by the Menahoth portion of the Mishnah. While discussing the procedure used by the Pharisees to reap the barley corn for the omer wave offering, the author expresses the Pharisaic sensitivity to specific charges made by the Boethusian Sadducees (who were the priests). The passage reads: How did they make (the omer) ready. The messengers of the court used to go out from the arab (= late afternoon) of the bwf μwy (yom tob; festive day = Phasekh) and tie the corn in bunches while it was yet unreaped to make it easier to reap; and the towns nearby all assembled there together that it might be reaped with 9 EJ, 14, p. 1319; JE, 9, p. 593; Danby, Mishnah, pp. 213, n. 12, 506, n. 1; BCal, pp. 12, 18, 19– 24; EEC, pp. 119f, 1b. n. a; NBD, p. 179. 10 Hag., 2:4. 11 B. Men., 65a. 12 The Karaites, who followed System C—which held the hybrid view combining many of the Aristocratic concepts with those of the Hasidim—argued that the “day after the Sabbath” could include the festive day of the 15th (KAEEL, pp. 215–217). This allowance may well stem from the more ancient Aristocratic view that the 14th was the true high Sabbath of the Phasekh. This earlier concept was then merged with the Pharisaic view that the seven days of unleavened bread extended from the 15th to the 21st of Abib. As a result, the 15th was allowed as a day of the omer wave offering among the Karaites though disallowed by the traditions built up by the Pharisees.

Counting Shabuath (Pentecost)

249

much pomp. When it grew dark he called out, Is the sun set? and they answered, Yes! Is the sun set? and they answered, Yes! Is this a sickle? and they answered, Yes! Is this a sickle? and they answered, Yes! Is this a basket? and they answered, Yes! Is this a basket? and they answered, Yes! On the Sabbath (day) he called out, On this Sabbath, and they answered, Yes! On this Sabbath, and they answered, Yes! Shall I reap? and they answered, Reap! Shall I reap? and they answered, Reap! He used to call out three times for every matter, and they answered, Yes! Yes! Yes! Wherefore was all this? Because of the Boethusians who used to say: The omer may not be reaped at the close of the bwf μwy (yom tob; festive day) (= Phasekh).13 This statement is important because it reflects the early Sadducean (Boethusian) position that the omer of barley could not be reaped on the festive day of Phasekh. Yet the Pharisees allowed that it could be reaped on the weekly Sabbath day. This point is also indicated by the fact that the omer wave offering is mentioned as a separate item after the discussion of the rituals of Phasekh.14 The Pharisees could not deny this regulation and were careful that the sun had already set on their festive day of Phasekh before they reaped their omer of barley. Otherwise the Sadducees would have charged the Pharisees with error regarding their own Hasidic interpretation of which day was the festive day of Phasekh. The Karaites also followed the Aristocratic system for Pentecost. The Karaite writer Jacob Al-Kirkisani (10th century C.E.) directly tells us from whom they received their practice. He writes: As for Boethus he was of the opinion that Pentecost can only fall on a Sunday which is also the view of the Ananites and all the Karaites.15 In the same way, the Samaritans “maintain that the offering of the Sheaf is to be performed on the Sunday within the Passover week.”16 They also speak of the khag of the 50th day as the “Sabbath of the seven Sabbaths.”17 The Aristocratic interpretation of the seven Sabbaths is also basic to understanding their view. They define the “seven weeks” of Deuteronomy, 16:9, by the “seven complete Sabbaths” of Leviticus, 23:16. The Karaite writer Samuel al-Magribi, for example, writes: The expression “seven complete Sabbaths” means that each Sabbath is to serve as the concluding day of Men., 10:3, cf., 10:1. Lev., 23:5–8, and Deut., 16:1–8, deal with the Phasekh and its requirements, followed by Lev., 23:9–15, and Deut., 16:9, which relate to the omer wave offering and the count of 50 days. 15 Al-Kirkisani, 1:7; KAEEL, p. 50. 16 THP, p. 254; STE, 2, p. 20; DJS, 1, p. xxiii. 17 TSL, p. 285. 13 14

250

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh the week, by way of distinction from a Sabbath which falls in the middle of a different period of seven days, such a week not being regarded as “complete” since it is not uniform with the sequence of the seven days of Creation. The meaning of “complete” is thus that the week is to conclude with a Sabbath, which conforms with the ordinance, “Seven weeks you shall count for yourself” (Deut., 16:9), each week ending with a Sabbath. This is decisive proof in the hands of the Karaites, seekers of the truth, against the dissidents, who hold different opinions on this subject. The reason Scriptures mentions “Sabbaths” before “days” (Lev., 23:16) is because the Sabbaths are meant to be directly connected with the Sabbath quoted before, namely, the one mentioned in “on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it” (Lev., 23:11).18

The important features of the Aristocratic view for counting the 50 days of Pentecost are, as a result, well-established. The omer wave offering could only take place “after” Phasekh and never on that festival day; it can only take place on the first day of the week (Sunday); and it must follow a weekly Sabbath day that falls during one of the seven days of unleavened bread. Counting seven complete Sabbath weeks from the day of the omer wave offering one arrives at the day after the seventh Sabbath. This day is the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost). Pharisaic Pentecost System The Pharisees held quite a contrary opinion. They insisted that the statement, “the day after the Sabbath,” as found in Leviticus, 23:11, refers not to the weekly Sabbath but to the high Sabbath day of Phasekh, which is a bwf μwy (yom tob; festive day). Tobias, for example, writes: “The day after the Sabbath” simply means “the day after the bwf μwy (yom tob; festive day).”19 Their festival day for Phasekh was Abib 15. The day of the omer wave offering, accordingly, was always Abib 16, no matter which day of the week that might be.20 Under this system, the Festival of Weeks came on the 50th day, counted inclusively from the 16th of Abib, regardless of which day of the week it fell on. Evidence for this view is also thought to come from Joshua, 5:10–12, where they define the statement about the day (the 16th) after the Phasekh (which they make to be the 15th), when the Israelites began to eat from the stored grain, to mean, “they ate from the produce of the land of Kanaan in that year.”21 Al-Magribi, 12:7–8; KAEEL, p. 217. Lek. Tob, Lev., 128f; KBFY, p. 277. EJ, 14, p. 1319; JE, 9, p. 593; BCal, pp. 18f; EEC, pp. 119f, 1b. n. a; Danby, Mishnah, pp. 213, n. 12, 506, n. 1. 21 See the LXX of Josh., 5:10–12. J. Van Goudoever points out that the Pharisees read Josh., 5:11, so that the grain mentioned there is not stored grain but the grain of that year’s crop., i.e., 18 19 20

Counting Shabuath (Pentecost)

251

The Pharisaic view is demonstrated in several sources. In the Mishnah, as shown above, for instance, it plainly states that the messengers of the court used to go out during the arab (= Pharisaic late afternoon) of the festive day (Phasekh) and tie the corn in bunches while it was yet unreaped to make it easier to reap for the omer. The barley corn was then cut just after the sun had set and the festive day had ended.22 The Babylonian Talmud states: Our Rabbis taught: And you shall count unto you— that is, the counting is the duty of every one—from the day after the Sabbath, that is, from the day after the bwf μwy (yom tob; festive day).23 The first century C.E. Pharisaic priest named Josephus, as another example, dates the offering of the firstfruits of the barley by stating: On the second day of unleavened bread, that is to say the 16th, our people partake of the crops which they have reaped and which have not been touched until then.24 Another Pharisaic priest from that century, named Philo, similarly writes: But within the festival (of Phasekh) there is another eJorth/` (heorte; festival) FOLLOWING DIRECTLY AFTER THE FIRST DAY.25 Since the 16th could fall on any day of the week, this meant that the 50th day could also come on any day of the week and not just after a Sabbath day. What then of the issue of the “seven complete Sabbaths”? The Pharisees held the exact opposite opinion to that of the Aristocrats. The Pharisees defined the “seven complete Sabbaths” of Leviticus, 23:16, by the “seven weeks” of Deuteronomy, 16:9. That is, each of the seven Sabbaths represent a “week” as a period of seven days—not as a scriptural week extending from Sunday to the Sabbath. For them, this Sabbath meant a random period of seven days. Under this interpretation, each of these seven-day periods could begin and end on any day of the scriptural week. Therefore, one does not really count Sabbaths but days. The rabbis followed the instruction from Leviticus, 23:16, which commands, “you shall number 50 days.” Rabbi Joshua, for example, argued that, from the day of the omer, one must “count days and sanctify the trx[ (Atsarth; Closing Assembly).”26 Rabbi Jose ben Judah, likewise states, “Scripture says, You shall “On the morrow after the Passover they ate from the produce of the land.” This view, though, as he admits, is not probable. He writes, “However, in Joshua the morrow after Passover seems to be 15 Nisan and not 16 Nisan; and in the Greek version the words ‘on the morrow after Passover’ are missing” (BCal, p. 19). Also see our discussion in FSDY, 2. 22 Men., 10:3. We have quoted this passage above on pp. 248f. 23 B. Men., 65b. 24 Jos., Antiq., 3:10:5. 25 Philo, Spec., 2:29 §162. 26 B. Men., 65b.

252

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

number 50 days.”27 Some did recognize a contradiction in their logic but interpreted it to their own advantage. To demonstrate, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkari, with a little sleight of hand, breached the contradiction with the following argument: Now one verse says, You shall number 50 days, while the other verse says, Seven complete Sabbaths there shall be. How are they to be reconciled? The latter verse refers to the time when the yom tob (festive day = Phasekh) falls on the Sabbath, while the former to the time when the yom tob (festive day = Phasekh) falls on a weekday.28 Therefore, the command of “seven complete Sabbaths” only refers to those times when Phasekh fell on a weekly Sabbath. On those occasions, the 16th would be a Sunday and, as a result, the 50th day of the count would also fall on a Sunday. When the Phasekh did not fall on a weekly Sabbath, then the 50day count was used, disregarding the issue of counting Sabbaths.

The Oldest System The oldest of the four Pentecost systems is the Aristocratic, which counted the 50 days from the day after the weekly Sabbath following Phasekh, Sunday to Sunday. Its antiquity is demonstrated by the fact that both the ancient conservative Samaritan and Sadducean (Boethusian) priesthoods practiced the identical Pentecost system—this despite their loathing for each other. This common approach among competing branches of the Zadokite priests reflects a common history, indicating that this system was used by the Zadokite priests prior to the fourth century B.C.E. (the time when the Samaritan schism took place).29 These Aristocratic priests were “heirs to the old Zadokite tradition in Jerusalem.”30 This Aristocratic system was later followed by the early Christian assemblies,31 demonstrating their belief in its antiquity as well. Josephus, though himself a Pharisee, retains a relevant record from an earlier Jewish writer, Nicolas of Damascus, further demonstrating the antiquity of the Aristocratic method. This record refers to the days of the Hasmonaean leader Hyrcanus, when the Sadducean (Aristocratic) system for Pentecost was dominant in Judaism. While the Jewish king was on an expedition, his troops remained at rest for two straight days due to this Jewish festival. Josephus comments, “for the Festival of Pentecost had come around, following the Sabbath (day), and we are not permitted to march either on the Sabbath (day) or on a festival (day).”32 Therefore, the Festival of Pentecost was the day immediately following the weekly Sabbath. 27 28 29 30 31 32

Ibid. Ibid. See above Chap. XIV, pp. 228ff. E.g., BCal, pp. 20–22, 29. ACC, 2, pp. 1157–1161; BCal, pp. 19–24, 175, 225f. Jos., Antiq., 13:8:4.

Counting Shabuath (Pentecost)

253

We must understand these words by their historical context. Hyrcanus of Judaea made this campaign as an ally of Antiochus VII (Antiochus Sidetes), when the latter marched against Parthia.33 Antiochus VII died at the end of this eastern campaign.34 Antiochus VII ruled only nine years (138/137– 130/129 B.C.E., Oct. reckoning)35 and died in the early spring 129 B.C.E., just when the snow began to melt, as the crops began to appear, and while his troops were still in their winter quarters.36 Nevertheless, Antiochus VII did not bring Hyrcanus under his authority until the fall of his fifth year, being the 179th Babylonian Seleucid year (133/132 B.C.E., Nisan or spring reckoning).37 Placed into historical context, which demands a double Sabbath for Pentecost after Antiochus VII conquered Hyrcanus yet before the former’s death, the Pentecost season (late May to early June) of 133 B.C.E. is too early while that of 129 B.C.E., which followed Antiochus VII’s death, is too late. The double Sabbath in question could only have taken place in the spring of 132 to 130 B.C.E. Under Pharisaic calculations, none of these three years would have resulted in a Sabbath day followed by a high Sabbath day of Pentecost.38 Therefore, only the Aristocratic system would have worked, reflecting its use during this period. The second oldest Pentecost system is the quasi-Aristocratic. This point is reflected by the book of Jubilees (late second century B.C.E.).39 At that time, they still regarded only the first day of the week for both the omer wave offering and the day of Pentecost. Yet they differed from the Aristocratic groups in that they began to count from the first day of the week that followed the entire seven days of unleavened bread. They failed to listen to the instruction provided by Joshua, 5:10–12. In effect, this system, despite its error with regard to Joshua, 5:10–12, is further proof of the antiquity of the original Sunday to Sunday format. Shortly after the appearance of the quasi-Aristocratic Pentecost system came the Hasidic or Pharisaic version. J. B. Segal writes: And, indeed, the insistence of the Pharisees upon their forced interpretation of the term ‘Sabbath’ shows that the usage was of no great antiquity.40 Segal dates the appearance of the Pharisaic Pentecost system to the “second–first century B.C.”41 J. Van Goudoever notes that the “influence” of Ibid. Diodorus, 34:15–17; Justin, 38:10; Livy, Sum., 59; Appian, Syr., 68. Syncellus, 1, p. 552, 2, p. 271; Eusebius, Chron., 1, pp. 255, 263, app. 1, pp. 16, 56, 91f; Jerome, Euseb., 226F–228F; HJP, 1, pp. 131f. 36 Diodorus, 34/35:15–17; Justin, 38:10, 39:1. 37 SJC, chap. xiv. 38 The computer program Voyager II, version 2.06, by Carina Software, shows that the Pharisaic calculation for Pentecost would have fallen on May 29/30, Sun. nighttime/Mon. daytime, in the year 134 B.C.E.; May 18/19, Fri./Sat., for 133 B.C.E.; June 5/6, Wed./Thurs., for 132 B.C.E.; May 25/26, Sun./Mon., or possibly May 26/27, Mon./Tues., for 131 B.C.E.; May 14/15, Thurs./Fri., or possibly May 15/16, Fri./Sat. for 130 B.C.E.; June 1/2, Wed./Thurs., for 129 B.C.E. 39 OTP, 2, p. 43–45; DSST, pp. 238–245; THS, p. 283. 40 THP, p. 250. 41 Ibid. 33 34 35

254

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

this newer system “was increasing in the beginning of our era.”42 As we shall show below, the Pharisaic Pentecost system did not replace the Aristocratic Pentecost system in the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem until 68 C.E. The last Jewish Pentecost system to make an appearance was the quasiHasidic view. This system mixes the Pharisaic view (that the Sabbath day mentioned in Leviticus, 23:11, is a festive day) with the quasi-Aristocratic view (that the omer wave offering should follow the entire seven days of unleavened bread). As with the quasi-Aristocratic construct, they failed to heed the instruction provided by Joshua, 5:10–12, which allows for the omer wave offering within the seven days of unleavened bread. As a result, their 50-day count begins after the high Sabbath on the last day of unleavened bread. There is some evidence of this quasi-Hasidic view in an old Syriac translation of Leviticus, 23:11 and 15,43 and it was followed by the Ethiopian Falashas Jews.44 The Falashas were established shortly before the Mishnah (c.200 C.E.) and the Talmud (c.500 C.E.) were compiled.45 In either case, because of this evidence one cannot place a valid date of origin any sooner than the early second century C.E., although some would suggest a reason to begin it just before the beginning of our common era.46

The Triumph of the Pharisees The priestly Aristocratic system for the omer wave offering and the Festival of Weeks was overthrown during the second half of the first century C.E.47 In the Megillath Taanith (composed about 68 C.E.),48 for instance, we read that the period from the 8th of Nisan until the 14th was attached to the seven days of the Khag of Unleavened Bread as a period wherein, “it is forbidden to mourn.”49 According to the Scholiast on the Megillath Taanith, these additional days marked the triumph of the Pharisees over the Sadducees in their famous controversy regarding the date of the Festival of Weeks.50 No such claim of doctrinal victory was actually made in the Megillath Taanith, which leads scholars like Solomon Zeitlin and J. B. Segal to interpret this claim as a later gloss.51 It seems rather designed to guise a more sinister episode that accompanied this so-called victory. Nevertheless, the association of the victory of the Pharisees with a specific time of the year mentioned in the BCal, p. 29. APOT, 2, pp. 34f, n. XV.I; BCal., p. 25. The Syriac translation of Lev., 23:11 and 15 reads, “After the latter of the two festival days or after the last day (bathar yawmaΔ charna).” 44 JE, 5, p. 328. 45 FA, p. xlii. 46 E.g., BCal, pp. 25, 27, 60, 89. 47 BCal, p. 29, “The priestly system in Jerusalem was defeated, probably in the second part of the first century (together with the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple).” 48 The last event chronicled in the text took place on Adar 17, 66 C.E. Meanwhile, the Talmud places its composition a few years before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. (MTS, pp. 3f, 112–115; B. R.Sh., 18b). The Pharisee Zealots overthrew the Sadducee high priest in Nov. of 67 C.E., allowing for the first omer wave offering to be made according to the Pharisee method in the spring of 68 C.E. The year 68 C.E. for the compostion of the Megillath Taanith, therefore, is in full accord with these events. 49 Meg. Taan., 1. 50 MTS, p. 75; THP, p. 32. 51 MTS, p. 75; THP, p. 32, and n. 15. 42 43

Counting Shabuath (Pentecost)

255

Megillath Taanith lends itself to defining the episode and period of this change. Unlike the Phasekh, which was a people’s festival, the omer wave offering at the Temple was solely a function of the high priest. Therefore, the Pharisees were not able to force the conservative Sadducees to submit in this practice unless they had first obtained control over the Temple. The most auspicious time for this doctrinal victory over the Sadducean priests would have been during the Jewish revolt against Rome, which began in 66 C.E. It would come after the Hasidic Zealots, an extremist group of Pharisees, took control of Jerusalem in November of 67 C.E. Not long after seizing the city, an insurrection of the populace was instigated against them by Ananus, the senior high priest. The Zealots murdered him and many of the Aristocratic families and then converted the Temple of Yahweh into their fortress, making the sacred place of the Temple the headquarters of their tyranny.52 Having seized the Temple they also seized control of the priesthood. Josephus tells us: To these horrors was added a spice of mockery more galling than their actions. For, to test the abject submission of the populace and make trial of their own strength, they essayed to appoint the high priests by lot, although, as we have stated, the succession was hereditary.53 They chose from the priestly clan of Eniachin, and cast lots for a high priest. Josephus continues: By chance the lot fell to one who proved a signal illustration of their depravity; he was an individual named Phanni, son of Samuel, of the village of Aphthia, a man who not only was not descended from high priests, but was such a clown that he scarcely knew what the high priesthood meant. At any rate they dragged their reluctant victim out of the country and, dressing him up for his assumed part, as on the stage, put the sacred vestments upon him and instructed him how to act in keeping with the occasion.54 Since the radical Pharisees called Zealots instructed Phanni, it is clear that it was at this moment that the Pharisaic practice for Pentecost was instituted at the Temple. As these events were unfolding, the Roman leader Vespasian heard of them from deserters and is said to have entered the city of Gadara on the fourth of the month of Dystrus (i.e., about March 21 of 68 C.E.).55 Therefore, the first occasion for this new high priest to perform functions at the Temple was during the Passover season in the spring of 68 C.E., 52 53 54 55

Jos., Wars, 4:3:7, 4:5:1–4:6:2; cf., HJP, 2, pp. 496–499. Jos., Wars, 4:3:7. Jos., Wars, 4:3:8. Jos., Wars, 4:7:3f.

256

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

with preliminary celebrations beginning on the eighth of Nisan.56 On Nisan 16, the first Pharisee-style omer wave offering would have been made by this priest. This moment was later interpreted as a victory for the Pharisaic view. Phanni was also the last high priest to serve in the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem,57 which was destroyed in September of 70 C.E.58 With the destruction of the Temple, Sadducean power was utterly destroyed.59 As D. Freeman points out, the Pharisaic “reckoning became the normative in Judaism after A.D. 70, so that in the Jewish calendar Pentecost now falls on various days of the week.”60

Day of the Sinai Covenant Another important point of reference for the Khag of Weeks (Pentecost) was the ancient assertion, held by both Jews and Christians alike, that on the day of this festival, during the year of the Exodus (i.e., in 1439 B.C.E.),61 the Old Covenant Torah with its Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai.62 The widespread belief that Pentecost was the birthday of the Torah demands our attention, for it will later help us set the counting for the Festival of Weeks. Proof of this old assertion shall be offered in our next volume. For now we need only to demonstrate just how well-established this concept was among both Jews and Christians. We find the claim that the Torah was given to the Israelites on the Festival of Weeks asserted as early as the Maccabean period in the late second century B.C.E.63 The earliest known connection was made by the book of Jubilees (about 135 B.C.E.),64 whose author, as we have previously noted, followed the quasi-Aristocratic Pentecost system. The Jubilees text demonstrates the historical background for this belief. The Jewish Falashas of Abyssinia, who follow a quasi-Hasidic Pentecost system, believe that Pentecost is “the day of the giving of the Law.”65 Those adhering to the Aristocratic view of Pentecost also retained this interpretation. It was advocated by the Samaritans,66 and suspected as true by the Karaites.67 Though not directly stated by Josephus and Philo, those holding to the Hasidic Pentecost view also believed in the connection of this festival with the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. For example, this claim is made by the midsecond century C.E. Pharisaic work called the Seder Olam, which reports, “In the third moon, on the sixth day of the moon,” i.e., the day marked by the Meg. Taan., 1. Jos., Wars, 6:8:4–5, 6:10:1. Jos., Antiq., 20:10:1. HJP, 2, pp. 402, 414; EJ, 14, p. 622; BCal, p. 29; EBD, p. 902; NBD, p. 1124; CBTEL, 9, p. 241; DB, p. 579. 60 NBD, p. 964; MTS, p. 75. 61 For confirmation of this date see IC and the related study in SJC. 62 NBD, p. 964; NCE, 11, p. 109; BCal, pp. 131, 139–144, 186–190; ACC, 2, p. 1160; JE, 9, p. 592. 63 PCB, p. 232. 64 Jub., 1:1, cf., 6:17. 65 JE, 5, p. 328. 66 TSL, 1, pp. 335ff. 67 Al-Magribi, 15:2f; KAEEL, pp. 224f; ERE, 5, p. 880. The Karaites claimed, “we do not know for certain the precise day when it happened” because the exact day was not directly stated in Scriptures. Their hesitancy seems more from a willingness to criticize the rabbis who claimed this event as a historical fact. 56 57 58 59

Counting Shabuath (Pentecost)

257

Pharisees as the Festival of Weeks, “the Ten Commandments were given to them.”68 Still later, this view is given in the Babylonian Talmud,69 in the Exodus Rabbah,70 by Maimonides,71 and in the Midrash entitled Tankhuma.72 In one passage from the Talmud, for example, we read, “On the sixth day of the moon (of Siwan) the Ten Commandments were given to Israel.”73 Rabbi Eleazar (c.270 C.E.) argues that Pentecost was “the day on which the Torah was given.”74 This belief eventually led to the custom of studying the Torah all night on Pentecost.75 The Old Covenant made at Mount Sinai was a marriage contract between Yahweh and the Israelites.76 The Qumran Covenanteers saw a renewal of this covenant every year on the Khag of Weeks.77 The Zohar even calls the time between Passover and Pentecost the “courting of the bridegroom Israel with the bride Torah.”78 Christian writers followed the Aristocratic view of Pentecost.79 They also declared their belief that Yahweh gave the Torah on Pentecost day. For them, this was a type of the giving of the sacred ruach on the day of Pentecost in the year of the messiah’s resurrection.80 A fragment of Severian of Gabala (c.400 C.E.), for example, states that, “the Torah was given on the day of Pentecost.”81 Augustine (writing between 396–430 C.E.), as another example, speaks of “the 50th day” as “when they received the Torah written by the finger of the deity.”82 In another place, he notes that Pentecost was “the day on which the Torah was given on Mount Sinai to Moses.”83 He likewise writes that the Torah was written with the finger of the deity and was given to Moses on this day, adding that this was a type of the sacred ruach, called the finger of the deity in the New Testament, which the messiah promised to his disciples as a Comforter and sent to them on the 50th day after his suffering and resurrection.84 Again Augustine argues: Why do the Jews celebrate Pentecost? This is a great mystery, brethren, and quite wondrous. Consider this: on the day of Pentecost they (the Jews) received the Torah written by the finger of the deity, and on the day of Pentecost the sacred ruach came (to the disciples of the messiah).85 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

S.O., 5. B. Pes., 68b; B. Shab., 86b. Exod. Rab., 31. Maimonides, Moreh, 3:43, “The (Festival of) Weeks is the day of the giving of the Torah.” Mid. Tankh., 26c. B. Shab., 86b. B. Pes., 68b. Zoh., Emor, 98a. See Jer., 31:31–32; cf., Hos., 2:18–20. Jub., 6:17; DJS, 1, pp. 86ff, 19:1–8, 20:1–3; MLDSS, pp. 377f; BASOR, 123, p. 32; BCal, p. 140. JE, 9, p. 593. See our Chaps. XXII–XXIII. As recorded in Acts, 2:1–13. Severian, frag. (EEC, p. 80, text 80; CGPNT, p. 16). Augustine, Cat. Rud., 23. Augustine, Epist., 55:16 §29. Augustine, Faust., 32:12. Augustine, Serm. Mai, 158:4. Cf., Acts, 2:1–4.

258

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Leo the Great (c.440–461 C.E.), in one of his homilies about the day of Pentecost, reports that on that day, “the Torah was given on Mount Sinai.”86 Chrysostom similarly writes, “On that day the Torah was given according to the Old Covenant.”87 All of this evidence indicates a strong belief among various sects of Judaism and early Christianity that the Torah marriage covenant was made on the high Sabbath of the Khag of Weeks.

Conclusion Ancient records have provided us with four models used for counting the 50 days to the Festival of Weeks. Only two are viable—the Aristocratic and Hasidic (Pharisaic) models—for only these two conform with the example provided by Joshua, 5:10–12, that the omer wave offering can occur during the days of unleavened bread. The heart of the difference between all of these various systems, nonetheless, is their differing interpretations about what exactly is meant by the phrase, “on the day after the Sabbath,” as found in Leviticus, 23:11. Nevertheless, it is important to notice that the oldest of these known systems was the Aristocratic Pentecost, and this was also the system deemed correct by all of the ancient Christian assemblies.88 86 87 88

Leo, Serm., 75. PG, 63, p. 933. See below Chap. XXII, pp. 344–347.

Section II Early Christian Schools

Quartodeciman System A

Month of Abib First Day (High Sabbath)

Seventh Day (High Sabbath)

Phasekh Meal with Unleavened Bread and Wine (Eucharist)

Six Days of Eating Unleavened Bread (Deut., 16:8)

Phasekh

Seven-Day Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread Seven Days of Unleavened Bread

Legend 24 Hours

Dark

Chart F

Sunset

260

Quasi-Quartodeciman System D

Month of Abib

The Festival of the Phasekh of the Resurrection and its Eucharist is celebrated on the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday) that falls on one of these seven days.

Seven Days Used to Determine the Phasekh of the Resurrection

Legend 24 Hours

Dark

Chart G

Sunset

261

Quasi-Quartodeciman System E

Month of Abib

The Festival of the Phasekh of the Resurrection and its Eucharist is celebrated on the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday) that falls on one of these seven days.

Seven Days Used to Determine the Phasekh of the Resurrection

Legend 24 Hours

Dark

Chart H

Sunset

262

Hybrid Syrian System F

Month of Abib

Phasekh Meal

The Festival of the Phasekh of the Resurrection and its Eucharist is celebrated on the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday) that falls on one of these seven days.

Phasekh

Seven Days Used to Determine the Phasekh of the Resurrection

Legend 24 Hours

Dark

Chart I

Sunset

263

Modern Hybrid System G

Month of Abib Memorial

First Day (High Sabbath)

Seventh Day (High Sabbath)

Phasekh Meal

Phasekh

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Seven-Day Khag of Unleavened Bread Eight-Day Observance

Legend 24 Hours

Dark

Chart J

Sunset

264

Introduction: Section II

he Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost) were not just Jewish concerns. Today, few Englishspeaking Christians, largely due to their long practice of glossing the Hebrew word Phasekh with the name Easter and their abandonment of the Festival of Pentecost, realize that Phasekh and Pentecost were the chief religious observances of the early Christian assemblies. In one form or another, all early Christian groups not only observed the Phasekh and Pentecost but calculated the Phasekh observance in connection with the seven days of unleavened bread. The Roman Catholic writer Augustine (c.400 C.E.) reminds Christians: Phasekh and Pentecost are festivals with the strongest Scriptural authority.1 With regard to Pentecost, general agreement was maintained among the various Christian factions. The 50 days of Pentecost were celebrated by the Aristocratic method, counting from the first day of the week following Abib 14. The Phasekh was another matter. Unfortunately, as had occurred with the Jewish experience, divergent opinions about the Phasekh soon sprang up. Epiphanius (c.378 C.E.), for example, informs us that confusion over Phasekh arose among the various Christian groups shortly after the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem were removed from power at the beginning of the Jewish revolt led by Bar Kochba against Rome: For long ago, even from the earliest days, the Phasekh was celebrated at different times in the Assembly,2 occasioning ridicule every year. For some kept it a week early and quarreled with others, while others kept it a week late. And some celebrated it in advance, others in between, others afterward. And in a word, as is not unknown to many scholarly persons, there was a great deal of muddle and tiresomeness whenever trouble was stirred up in the Assembly’s teaching on the question of this festival. In the time of Polycarp (c.158 C.E.) and Victor (196 C.E.) the East was at odds Augustine, Epist., 55:17 §32. The Greek term ejkklhsiva/ (ekklesia), Latin ecclesia, shall be translated throughout as “Assembly,” if the reference is to the world body, and as “assembly,” if the reference is to a local congregation (see GEL, 1968, p. 509; SEC, Gk. #1577). The Hebrew term behind the Greek and Latin is lhq (qahal), hlhq (qahalah), “an assemblage:—assembly, congregation” (SEC, Heb. #6951, 6952; HEL, p. 228; cf., CS, 1, p. 433). The English term “Church,” which is often used to translate the Greek and Latin words, is misleading in that it gives a connotation of a building for public worship as well as for the congregation. 1 2

265

266

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh with the West and they would not accept letters of commendation from each other. But in as many other times—in the time of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and Criscentius, when we find each of them writing argumentatively to the other, and down to our own day. This has been the situation ever since (the Assembly) was thrown into disorder after the time of the circumcised bishops (ending in 133 C.E.).3

One fact is certainly cogent. Since the messiah never sinned, the Phasekh observed by the messiah and his disciples provides an important key to the correct Phasekh celebration. In this regard, all the various early assemblies made the claim that they were continuing the Phasekh, either in fact or in spirit, as the messiah had commanded. Yet only one of these practices, if any, can be correct. Therefore, in our search for the original and true observance of Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread, it is incumbent upon us to fully examine these various early Christian systems in order that, in our second and third volumes, we might weigh their credibility and worth against Scriptures.

The Christian Systems Few Christians today realize the vibrant and rich history that has been preserved for us from the Ante-Nicaean Christian period (30–324 C.E.) and afterward. Contrary to the popular opinion of a Christian “dark age,” what we actually find is a time of great debate, turmoil, and doctrinal evolution. As we search through the ancient records from this period, we discover that during the first several centuries of our common era four basic Phasekh systems, with some local variations, were competing with each other for the hearts and minds of the numerous Christian assemblies. For simplification purposes, this study shall utilize the following labels to identify each of the four early Christian systems: System A (the Quartodeciman), System D (the early western quasi-Quartodeciman), System E (the Roman), and System F (the hybrid Syrian). We shall also add to our investigation the discussion of a recent innovation among some Christian groups, which we have labeled System G. System A (Quartodeciman Phasekh): Buried in the pages of antiquity is the little known fact that the original Phasekh practice of the early Christian assemblies was the Aristocratic System A (see Chart F). We retain the System A label due to the fact that the original Quartodeciman practice was a direct descendant of the old conservative Zadok (Tsadoq) system of the priests. For that reason, those who followed this system, or one of its later variants, were subsequently called Quartodecimans (14th keepers). The Quartodeciman formula was nothing less than a continuation of the Aristocratic understanding: the 14th was Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread continued from the 14th until the end of the 20th of Abib 3 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:7–9. For the Quartodeciman practice of the circumcised Christian bishops of Jerusalem see below Chap. XVII–XIX and FSDY, 2.

Introduction: Section II

267

(the first lunar month). The early Quartodecimans differed from the old Jewish Aristocratic system in that they did not practice the ritualistic sacrifices or offerings of the handwritten Torah, including the slaughter of the Phasekh lamb. In its place, they counted the messiah as the true Phasekh lamb and his death as a realization of the prophetic type expressed in the handwritten Torah and sacrificed and eaten on the night of Abib 14 during the Exodus. Unleavened bread and the mystery of the Eucharist became the focus of this new Christian Phasekh repast. Neverthless, the method for determining the dates for the Phasekh dinner and the seven days of unleavened bread was identical to that used by the conservative priests (System A). The Quartodecimans noted that the “Phasekh of the Jews”—a reference to the Phasekh repast on the 15th of Abib as practiced by the state religion of the Pharisees—was not the true Phasekh of the Torah. Instead, they gave that honor to the 14th of the first moon, claiming four points of doctrine: • The 14th was a high Sabbath. • It was a day of remembrance of the messiah’s (the lamb’s) death. • It was the day of the Phasekh meal (the Last Supper). • It was the day of the fellowship of the Phasekh Eucharist. The Quartodecimans always celebrated the Phasekh festival (i.e., the Phasekh supper and the Eucharist) on the 14th of Abib, regardless of which day of the week it fell on. Also for the early Quartodecimans, the 14th and 20th were always observed as high Sabbaths. During the first three centuries C.E., support was very strong among the early Christian assemblies in the East for the Quartodeciman method, especially in Asia Minor where the apostles John and Philip taught. Nevertheless, after this system was condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. as Judaizing, it was suppressed and soon faded into disuse. System D (Early Western quasi-Quartodeciman Phasekh): In the early second century C.E., along with the collapse of the power of the circumcised Christian bishops of Jerusalem, a dissenting opinion appeared among some of the western assemblies. As a result, a variation of the Quartodeciman view was constructed by some of the bishops in the West (see Chart G). This western quasi-Quartodeciman method (System D)—which must not be confused with other minor quasi-Quartodeciman systems4—retained the Aristocratic understanding for the seven days of unleavened bread, i.e., that these days extended from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon. This system also recognized that the messiah ate the Phasekh supper on the 14th of Abib. Yet the advocates of this system did not always keep the Phasekh supper and Eucharist on the 14th, counting that day as far too sad an occasion for such a joyous celebration. In fact, they considered such an observance an act of Judaizing. In its place, its supporters observed the day of the omer wave offering (emphasized as being the date of the messiah’s resurrection) as the 4 For the variant practices of some of these minor quasi-Quartodeciman groups see below Chap. XVII, pp. 278f.

268

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

sacred day for the Phasekh festival and Eucharist celebration. This festival was always placed on the first day of the week within the seven days of unleavened bread and, therefore, it would only occasionally fall upon the 14th day. Since the festival of Phasekh was only observed on the first day of the week within the seven days of unleavened bread, the Quartodeciman method of always counting the 14th and 20th of Abib as high Sabbaths was abandoned. This early western quasi-Quartodeciman system became the basis for the first major breach within the early orthodox Christian community. It was originally used in the western districts of the Roman empire, especially in places like Rome and Alexandria, until the latter end of the second century C.E. At that time it was replaced in those districts with the Roman assembly doctrine of Phasekh (System E). The System D (quasi-Quartodeciman) construct was condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.) in the name of unity and under the guise of avoiding any appearance of Judaizing. Nevertheless, System D continued in use for centuries among various outlying assemblies. It was eventually suppressed by the Roman Church, which had slowly gained political power over the other assemblies, and fully disappeared by the early eighth century C.E. System E (Phasekh of the Roman assembly): In the late second century C.E. a third important construct was developed in the West, chiefly by the bishops governing the assemblies in Rome and Gaul. In the early second century C.E., the assemblies at Rome and Gaul had abandoned System A for System D, regarding the former as an act of Judaizing. Yet they found it difficult to overcome the Quartodeciman argument that, since the messiah and his disciples had kept their “Last Supper” Phasekh on the 14th of Abib, all Christians should do likewise. In response to the Quartodeciman position, those in the West took on a new strategy. The western bishops had already found reason to fault the Quartodeciman construct that Phasekh should be held on the 14th—it was the same day that the Jews sacrificed their Phasekh lamb and it was the sad occasion of the messiah’s death. The Roman assembly advocates of System E, therefore, believed that if one were to observe the Phasekh Eucharist5 on this date he was also committing the heinous act of Judaizing. To remove the Quartodeciman claim that the 14th was important, the supporters of System E dismissed the Aristocratic construct altogether and adopted the Hasidic premise, which held that the legal Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread began on the 15th of Abib (see Chart H). The 14th, they now argued, was merely the day given under the handwritten Torah for the Phasekh sacrifice. Indeed, they retorted, since we are no longer under the Torah and since the true lamb has been sacrificed with the death of the messiah on the 14th, that day has been fulfilled. The celebration of the 14th, as a result, is simply no longer necessary or relevant and, to the chagrin of the Quartodecimans and advocates of System D, they proclaimed that the 14th should never be observed as the Phasekh festival or for the giving of the Phasekh Eucharist. 5

See above Intro.to Part II, p. 138, n. 9.

Introduction: Section II

269

The advocates of System E then carried over the idea developed in System D that, since the messiah was murdered on the 14th, it was only a commemoration of a sad occasion. The first day of the week (Sunday), on the other hand, being the day of the week of the messiah’s resurrection, was a much happier and more proper day on which to celebrate the Phasekh. Therefore, the first day of the week falling within the seven days of unleavened bread (counting from the 15th until the end of the 21st) should be observed as the festival. The preceding Friday and Saturday were marked as the day of the messiah’s crucifixion and burial (time in the grave). These days were honored but only as a time to fast, not to celebrate. At the same time, the advocates of System E disregarded the Hasidic interpretation that the 15th and 21st days of Abib were always high Sabbaths. Beginning with Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century C.E., the Roman Church obtained the backing of the Roman empire. It is at this point that the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church truly began. With the Roman government behind them, System E eventually gained the upper hand and overcame all other Christian Phasekh systems. Though slightly modified over the centuries, this system is presently the dominant practice among Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians. System F (Hybrid Syrian Phasekh): The transition to System E proceeded along a different path in Syria. A strong Quartodeciman heritage existed in the East and did not allow for any quick transformation. In response to this reality, those who gravitated toward the western views developed a hybrid system that incorporated both Quartodeciman and western elements. In many ways this hybrid system mimicked the efforts of the Jewish Karaites and the neo-Samaritans (System C), who blended together the Aristocratic and Hasidic constructs to form a hybrid third view (see Chart I). In the late second century C.E., the Syrian assemblies were Quartodeciman. They kept the 14th day of the first moon as the Phasekh and their seven days of unleavened bread were counted from the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon. Yet during this same period some of the Syrian Christian assemblies had already adopted the western format of celebrating the day of the resurrection (the first day of the week following the 14th) by keeping the preceding Friday and Saturday as a fast. Major change came after the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. The council, dominated by the Roman Emperor, made the decision to disregard any Quartodeciman or quasi-Quartodeciman system for the observance of the Phasekh festival. They then ordered the various Christian assemblies to adopt the Hasidic construct for the seven days of unleavened bread. Unwilling to immediately abandon the 14th as Phasekh, many Syrian Christians continued to observe the 14th. Yet to satisfy Rome, some began to attach the Hasidic seven days of unleavened bread (from the 15th to the 21st) to their celebration, and like Rome they disregarded the Hasidic idea that the 15th and 21st of Abib were always high Sabbaths. They also continued to keep the Friday and Sabbath preceding Phasekh Sunday as a fast, though at times this conflicted with the 14th as Phasekh, and they continued to observe Sunday as the Phasekh of the resurrection, the messiah being raised on that day. In doing so,

270

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

they remained in harmony with the Roman Catholic celebration. This hybrid form we have labeled System F. Once the Hasidic construct for the seven days of unleavened bread was fully accepted, it was not long before the hybrid System F construct was, for the most part, abandoned and the Roman Catholic System E Phasekh completely adopted. System G (modern hybrid Phasekh): In our present time a new hybrid has developed. In this form, which we dub System G (see Chart J), the 14th of Abib is the day of the Phasekh supper, and the 15th is the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread extends from the 15th until the end of the 21st day of Abib, a total observance of eight days. Despite the fact that the 14th is also a day of eating unleavened bread, under this system the 14th is not a high Sabbath and is not counted among the seven days of unleavened bread. Rather, the 14th is a solemn memorial day in observance of the messiah’s death. At the same time, the Hasidic interpretation that the 15th and 21st days of Abib are high Sabbaths has been retained. Though System G is not explicitly found mentioned among any ancient Jewish or Christian assemblies, its proponents argue that it was the original practice. Therefore, for comparative reasons, we shall touch upon this system now and explore its potential in our later volumes. Minor Views: There are likewise some other minor variant views that have been extrapolated over the centuries. Some believe that arab is merely a point in time. Some claim that the messiah offered his Phasekh lamb on the 13th of Abib; 6 while others believe that some of the rites of Phasekh, such as the Eucharist, should be offered every Sunday as communion. Such views are either so speculative as to have no substantive support or are so far from the original system that they cannot be remotely considered as celebrating Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread. When relevant, we shall deal with these and other similar views as we proceed with our study.

A Common Foundation There were eight basic premises concerning Phasekh, the seven days of unleavened bread, and Pentecost which were almost universal and formed the foundation upon which the overwhelming majority of the early Christian assemblies, whatever system they followed, stood: (1) The Phasekh celebration was required for all Christians.7 (2) The Christian Phasekh was an innovation in that it did not require any ritualistic animal sacrifice.8 (3) The Phasekh lamb of the Torah and its sacrifice was a typology of the death of the messiah, the true Phasekh lamb of Yahweh.9 6 7 8 9

CBTEL, 5, pp. 744–746. Cf., 1 Cor., 5:7f. Cf., Heb., 7:26–28, 10:1–13; Matt., 9:13, 12:7. E.g., 1 Cor., 5:7; cf., John, 1:29, 36; 1 Pet., 1:19; Rev., 5:6–12.

Introduction: Section II

271

(4) The bread and wine (or grape juice) of the “Last Supper” Phasekh possessed a higher typology than formerly stated under the Torah.10 (5) The day of the messiah’s resurrection was observed, being one and the same with the day of the omer wave offering. This omer wave offering always took place on the first day of the week, on the day following the weekly Sabbath which fell within the seven days of unleavened bread. The resurrection day was also the first day in the 50-day count to Pentecost. (6) The messiah ate his famous Last Supper on the night of the 14th of Abib and suffered his death in the daylight portion of that same day (Hebrew sunset-to-sunset reckoning). (7) The celebration of Phasekh was based upon the occurrence of the seven days of unleavened bread. (8) The festival of Pentecost was a required Christian celebration. Its date was determined by the Aristocratic method, which counted the 50 days from the first day of the week that fell after Abib 14. Pentecost, as a result, always fell on the first day of the week (Sunday). These eight premises relating to the celebration of Phasekh and Pentecost are everywhere expressed in ancient Christian literature, regardless of their particular Phasekh preference. Nevertheless, today there is not a general knowledge of items six and seven. Since they are so vital to our research and are basic to understanding the ancient Christian practices, we are obligated at this point to give examples for these two concepts using representatives from each of the four ancient Phasekh systems. The Last Supper: Abib 14 That the messiah ate his “Last Supper” Phasekh at night and suffered death during the following daylight period is clearly established in the Synoptic Texts.11 It is likewise stated that these events occurred on the day of the “preparation of the Phasekh,”12 being also the day of the “preparation of the Jews.”13 This day of preparation is an obvious reference to the Jewish state religious practice, wherein the Phasekh preparation is on the 14th and their Phasekh supper is on the 15th of Abib.14 What is not so well-known is that the ancient Christian assemblies held a universal understanding that the messiah observed his “Last Supper” Phasekh on the night of Abib 14 and died during the daylight portion of that same day (Hebrew reckoning). For example, Apollinarius of Hierapolis (161– 169 C.E.), an advocate of the Quartodeciman System A, argued: 10 11 12 13 14

Cf., Matt., 26:26–29; Mark, 14:22–25; Luke, 22:17–20; 1 Cor., 5:8. Matt., 26:17–27:61; Mark, 14:12–16:47; Luke, 22:7–54; 1 Cor., 11:23–26. John, 19:14. John, 19:42. See above Chaps. XII–XIII.

272

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh The 14th is the true Phasekh of the sovereign, the great sacrifice . . . who was buried on the day of the Phasekh with the stone placed over the tomb.15

Anatolius of Alexandria (c.270 C.E.), a supporter of System D, while speaking of the events dealing with the Phasekh of the Last Supper, writes: And there is no doubt as to its being the 14th day on which the disciples asked the sovereign, in accordance with the custom established for them of old, “Where will you that we should prepare for you to eat the Phasekh?”16 The advocates of System E also held to the doctrine that the messiah both ate his “Last Supper” Phasekh and then died on the 14th of Abib. Eusebius (fl. 303–339 C.E.), for instance, after reporting that the Jews sacrificed the Phasekh sheep “on the 14th of the first moon,” defines this day as “the (day of) preparation, on which the saviour suffered.”17 He adds: Nor did the saviour observe the Phasekh with the Jews at the time of his suffering. . . . But before he suffered he did eat the Phasekh and celebrate the festival—with his disciples, not with the Jews.18 Clement of Alexandria (fl. 182–220 C.E.), as another example, states that the messiah died on the 14th, prior to the day that the Jews (Pharisees) celebrated their Phasekh (i.e., the 15th): Suitably, therefore, to the 14th day, on which (day) he (the messiah) also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes who brought him to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the Phasekh in the evening (of the 15th).19 Those following the Syrian hybrid (System F) likewise believed that the messiah ate the Phasekh on the 14th and then suffered. To demonstrate, the fourth century C.E. Syrian Christian named Aphraates writes: Our saviour ate the Phasekh with his disciples in the sacred night of the 14th . . . And he was taken in the night of the 14th, and his trial lasted until the sixth hour, and at the time of the sixth hour they sentenced him and lifted him up on the (torture-)stake.20 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f. Also see Eusebius, H.E., 5:24. Anatolius, 8, cf., 10; also cf., Matt., 26:17; Mark, 14:12; Luke, 22:7–9. Also see the discussion between Coleman, bishop of Lindisfarne, and Wilfrid at the Synod of Whitby in Bede, Hist., 3:25. 17 Eusebius, Pas., 7, 9. Also see Peter Alex., frags. 5:1, 2, 7, who specifically identifies the date as Abib 14. Augustine similarly calls the first month “Abib” (Epist., 55:3 §5). 18 Eusebius, Pas., 9, 10. 19 Clement, frag. 28. 20 Aphraates, Dem., 12:6. 15 16

Introduction: Section II

273

Seven Days of Unleavened Bread The requirement among the various early Christian assemblies to observe the Phasekh at the time of the Festival of Unleavened Bread is also well-established. It was never a matter of whether or not one should use the seven days of unleavened bread to set the date, but rather an issue of which method one was to use: the Aristocratic or Hasidic. The Aristocratic position of the Quartodecimans (System A) and quasi-Quartodecimans (System D), for example, is vigorously defended by Anatolius, who wrote: Calculate, then, from the end of the 13th day of the moon, which marks the beginning of the 14th, on to the end of the 20th, at which the 21st day also begins, and you will have only seven days of unleavened bread, in which, by the guidance of the sovereign, it has been determined before that the most true festival of Phasekh ought to be celebrated.21 Similarly, abbot Ceolfrid (an advocate of System E) wrote to King Naitan of the Picts of Scotland about the people in that district holding to the System D view, stating, “For they which think that the sovereign’s Phasekh day must be kept from the 14th of the first moon to the 20th anticipate the time commanded in the Torah.”22 Referencing the events around the year 601 C.E., Bede writes, “For they (the quasi-Quartodecimans of Britain) kept not the Phasekh on the Sovereign’s day in its due time, but from the 14th to the 20th of the moon.”23 Meanwhile, those of Systems E and F regarded the Hasidic method as correct for calculating the seven days of unleavened bread (i.e., from the 15th to the 21st). Proof of this detail is demonstrated in a letter sent by Pope John IV (mid-seventh century C.E.) to the Scots. This letter was composed for the sake of persuading the Scots to amend their System D position. As part of this letter the Pope is found “plainly asserting therein that the sovereign’s Phasekh ought to be sought for from the 15th moon up to the 21st, as was approved in the Council of Nicaea.”24 The Hasidic arrangement also appears in the works of Aphraates (writing in c.344 C.E.), a supporter of the System F Phasekh. In his work, the 14th is still claimed as the day of the Phasekh and of the sovereign’s suffering.25 Nevertheless, to this celebration is attached the Hasidic construct for the seven days of unleavened bread,26 for he states, “AFTER the Phasekh come the seven days of unleavened bread to the 21st (day).”27 The seven days of unleavened bread, as calculated by the Hasidic system, are also a requirement under the more recent Phasekh construct we have called System G. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Anatolius, 8. Bede, Hist., 5:21. Bede, Hist., 2:2. Bede, Hist., 2:19. Aphraates, Dem., 12:6, 8, 12. Aphraates, Dem., 12:8, 12. Aphraates, Dem., 12:12.

274

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Conclusion In our present section we shall examine in greater detail the evidence for each one of the four major forms of the Phasekh celebration practiced by the early Christian assemblies during the first seven centuries C.E. What this data reveals is that, even though there was a common agreement on the eight premises stated above, the various early Christian assemblies still arrived at radically different conclusions. This diversification in the Christian Phasekh came as the result of different regions emphasizing different aspects of the messiah’s Last Supper, suffering (passion), and resurrection. By applying different interpretations to each of the problems, variant views arose. Meanwhile, one consistent calculation among the various early Christian assemblies was the celebration of Pentecost. It was always counted by the Aristocratic method, i.e., the 50-day period began on the day after the weekly Sabbath which fell within the seven days of unleavened bread. Yet, as we shall demonstrate, the first day of the Pentecost count, which was also the anniversary of the messiah’s resurrection, came to serve as a guide for the western Christian reconstruction of Phasekh. For those in the West, those days falling prior to the first day of the Pentecost count were deemed far too sad an occasion for celebrating the Phasekh supper. It was the time of the messiah’s suffering, death, and burial—therefore, a time for mourning. The first day of the Pentecost count, on the other hand, because it was also the day of Yahushua’s resurrection, took on a more joyous tone. From this interpretation arose the Phasekh Systems D, E, and F.

Chapter XVII

The Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

ew people today are aware that during the first four centuries C.E. support was very strong among the early disciples and assemblies following Yahushua the messiah for the Aristocratic system of keeping Phasekh (System A). It may also come as a surprise to learn that this view was in fact the original practice of all orthodox Christians. Its advocates and supporters were in later centuries referred to as the Quartodecimans (14th keepers). In this present chapter we shall investigate the antiquity of the Quartodeciman practice, demonstrate that they observed the 14th day of the first moon for the Phasekh supper, and present their claim that they observed Phasekh according to both Scriptures and the examples set forth by the messiah and his apostles. As part of this discussion, we will also examine the quasi-Quartodeciman views, especially the early western innovation (System D).

Keepers of the 14th Beginning in the third century C.E., those who kept the 14th of the first moon as the Phasekh supper and festival were referred to as “Quartodecimans” by members of the Roman Church and others. Unfortunately, since the view of the Quartodecimans was eventually suppressed by the Church of Rome,1 transmission of their original writings was allowed to fall by the wayside. With only a few exceptions—and there are exceptions—the evidence we have for their practices was recorded by their antagonists. Nevertheless, knowledge of the Quartodecimans was retained by those Christians of that period who were advocating the western views for Systems D and E.2 Sozomenus (mid-fifth century C.E.), for example, writes, “The Quartodecimans are so called because they observe this festival (of Phasekh), like the Jews, on the 14th day of the moon, and hence their name.”3 John of Damascus similarly states, “The Quartodecimans celebrate Phasekh on a fixed day of the year, on that day which coincides with the 14th of the moon, 1 For the suppression of the Quartodecimans and quasi-Quartodecimans by the Roman Church see FSDY, 2. 2 System D differs from System E in that System D calculates the Phasekh of the resurrection on the first day of the week that falls from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon, while System E places the Phasekh of the resurrection on the first day of the week that falls from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. 3 Sozomenus, 7:18. He adds that the Quartodecimans of this period kept the Phasekh “more according to the manner of the Jews” (Sozomenus, 1:16), implying similarities but not exactness.

275

276

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

whether it be a Saturday or Sunday.”4 Jerome notes that the bishops of Asia, “in accordance with some ancient custom, celebrated the Phasekh with the Jews on the 14th of the moon.”5 Yet the Quartodeciman Phasekh of the early Christians was markedly different from the Phasekh of the Pharisees and other Hasidic Jews. They directly opposed the official Jewish practice sponsored by the Pharisees, arguing that the deity (Yahweh) warned believers about these Jews, that they “did always err in their heart as regards the precept of the Torah concerning the Phasekh.”6 The Hasidic Jews did observe the 14th of Abib as the Phasekh, but for them this meant only a day of preparation, the removing of leavened bread from their homes, and observing the rituals for sacrificing the Phasekh lamb. They did not attend the supper of the lamb until the night of the 15th, which they generally referred to as the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The early Christian assemblies, on the other hand, celebrated the 14th of the first moon as the day of the Phasekh supper, as the time of the Eucharist, and as a high Sabbath festival. The Quartodecimans also differed from the Pharisees in that they observed the seven days of unleavened bread like the early Sadducees, from the 14th until the end of the 20th of the first moon (System A), not from the 15th through the 21st (System B). The only similarity with the Pharisees was the fact that the Pharisees included the 14th as part of their overall Phasekh celebration.7 At the same time, during the first few centuries C.E., there were still some conservative Sadducees and Samaritans tenaciously holding on to their ancient Aristocratic practice. It is very probable that the Phasekh supper observed by these conservative Jews might well have been used as still another reference point for those charging the Quartodecimans with celebrating their Phasekh supper on the 14th “with the Jews.” In either case, all of the Jews, whether Hasidic or Aristocratic, referred to the 14th as the Phasekh and it was on this day that the Quartodecimans were found observing their sacred day. The Quartodecimans differed from the Jews of the earlier Aristocratic school in that they believed that, with the death of the messiah, Christians were no longer under the Torah. They also understood the fulfillment of the Phasekh sacrifice in the death of the messiah. For that reason, the Quartodecimans saw no need for the Levitical priesthood and, accordingly, no further need for any of the commanded sacrifices of the Torah.8 On the other side of the equation, the Pharisees of this period labeled the early Christians, especially those living in the East, as minim (heresy) and “Sadducees.”9 This label seems premised upon the fact that the early Christians (Quartodecimans), like the Sadducees, not only rejected the oral laws John Dam., 50. Jerome, Lives, 45. This Quartodeciman argument is reported by Peter Alex., frag. 5:4. Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1. That the followers of the messiah were not under the written Torah see Rom., 6:14f; Gal., 3:22–25, 5:18. Further, Jer., 7:21f, notes that when the Israelites left Egypt there were no commanded burnt offerings or sacrifices. Also review our discussion of this issue above in Part I. 9 That the Pharisees referred to the early Christian assemblies as Sadducees see LS, pp. 97– 99; JE, 10, p. 633; PSSP, p. 226; as minim see JQR, 60, p. 198; CTM, pp. 361–397. 4 5 6 7 8

The Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

277

ascribed to by the Pharisees and rabbis but celebrated the observance of the seven days of unleavened bread, their Phasekh supper, and Pentecost on the same days as the conservative Sadducees.10

The Original Christian View The suppression of the Quartodecimans by the Roman Church has been so complete that few in the modern world are even aware that the Quartodecimans represent the original Phasekh practice of all the early orthodox Christian assemblies: both Jewish Christians as well as those of the nations. This important discovery was first demonstrated years ago by E. Schwarts, and later confirmed by K. Holl and B. Lohse.11 To the voice of these eminent scholars has been added that of the well-respected historian Joachim Jeremias, who concludes, “the passover of the Early Church lived on in that of the Quartodecimanians.”12 He also notes that “the Quartodecimanian passover celebration represents, as we know today, the direct continuation of the primitive Christian passover.”13 Likewise, Alfred Loisy concludes: At the beginning the festival was held, as was natural enough, on the same day as the Jewish Passover which might fall on any day of the week, and with no difference except that it now commemorated the Christian’s salvation, won for him by the death of Christ, the true pascal lamb, as the fourth Gospel teaches. The so-called quartodeciman usage, maintained by the congregations in Asia at the end of the second century and condemned by Pope Victor, WAS THE PRIMITIVE USAGE OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN CONGREGATIONS and is indeed presupposed by the Gospel tradition.14 Especially noted for advocating this Quartodeciman view are those members from the regions of the famous seven assemblies of Asia listed in the book of Revelation, namely, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.15 Surrounding communities concurred, including the assemblies of Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Syria.16 We must also not forget that in the days of Emperors Nero and Hadrian, the Christian population was 10 As with the Sadducees (DBS, 7, pp. 861–864; EEC, p. 119f, 1b, n. a), the Christians always observed the Festival of Pentecost (the 50th day) on the first day of the week, counting the 50 days from the day after the weekly Sabbath falling within the seven days of unleavened bread (e.g., Eusebius, Pas., 4; Athanasius, Fest. Let., 1:10; Apost. Constit., 5:20:2; Theophilus Alex., 20:4 (Jerome, Epist., 96, 20:4); Egeria, 43; ACC, 2, pp. 1157–1161. 11 ZNW, 7, 10f; GAK, 2, p. 214; DPDQ, pp. 74–93. 12 EWJ, p. 122. 13 EWJ, p. 19. 14 BCR, pp. 226f. 15 Rev., 1:11. Some of the most famous Quartodecimans, for example, were Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus), Melito (bishop of Sardis), Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna), Apollinarius (bishop of Hierapolis, near Laodicea), and Sagaris of Laodicea. 16 Athanasius, Epist. Afros, 2, and Epist. Syn., 1:5.

278

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

far more numerous in Asia Minor and Syria,17 the heart of Quartodeciman country, than other parts of the Roman empire. The 14th was even observed in the Christian assemblies as far away as the British Isles, where it continued under the System D (early western) form until the end of the seventh century C.E.18 Likewise, the Quartodeciman practice originally prospered in Rome, Egypt, Ethiopia, as well as other western countries, until the early part of the second century C.E.19 Due to an accumulation of Roman and Jewish persecution against the Christians, their own anti-Jewish sentiments, and a strong desire by some of the assemblies to separate themselves from the stigma of being classified as a Jewish sect, the Christians at Rome and Alexandria, as well as a few other western cities, began to turn to a modified Quartodeciman interpretation for the observance of Phasekh, System D.20 Next, we must divide the Quartodecimans into two general camps: the original and the quasi (those sects which developed in later years who gave variant traditions to the Quartodeciman practice). Cyril Richardson calls the original Quartodecimans the “conservatives” among the early assemblies.21 F. E. Brightman refers to them as the “original Quartodecimans” and to those of later practices as “quasi-Quartodecimans.”22 Among the later quasi-Quartodecimans we must include the Montanists23 and the Sabbatians,24 who are one branch of the Novatians,25 and are also called Proto-Paschitaes.26 17 EPC, pp. 63, 87, 103; CRG, p. 108. One is mindful of the statement of the newly installed Roman governor named Pliny to Emperor Trajan in 112 C.E. with reference to the country of Bithynia, Asia Minor. Bithynia was one of the several countries of Asia Minor, listed along with Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia proper, as having Christian assemblies to whom the apostle Keph wrote (1 Pet., 1:1). Pliny the Younger notes of the Christians in his region that, “It is not only the towns but villages and rural districts also which are infected through contact with this wretched cult” (Pliny Young., Epist., 10:96). Tertullian reports that Pliny was “disturbed by their very number” (Apol., 2:6). Eusebius similarly writes that Pliny was “disburbed by the great number of martyrs” (Eusebius, H.E., 3:33:1; also see Eusebius, Arm., Oly. 221). Paul Allard interprets these and the other words from Pliny’s letter to mean that Pliny had arrived in a Christian state (HDP, p. 154). 18 Bede, Hist., 2:2, 4, 3:3f, 3:17, 35, 7:21, 19 Evidence of the Quartodeciman practices in Rome, Egypt, and Ethiopia comes from copies of the Quartodeciman text entitled Epistula Apostolorum discovered in those regions: a Latin text in a Vienna palimpsest, a Coptic version found in Cairo, and an Ethiopic translation (see SACE). Also see our discussion of how and when the western Christian Phasekh (Systems D and E) originated below in Chap. XX–XXI and in FSDY, 2. 20 For the development of System D and its cognate form System E see below Chap. XX–XXI. 21 JTS, (NS) 24, pp. 81, 83, 84. 22 JTS, 25, pp. 262f. 23 Sozomenus, 7:18. Montanism was an early form of Pentecostalism which came into existence during the mid-second century C.E. (NCE, 9, pp. 1078f). Sozomenus (7:18) notes that the Montanist counted the festivals according to the cycles of the sun and not the moon. The first day of the year was always the first day after the vernal equinox, which according to Roman reckoning was the ninth day before the calends of April (i.e., March 24). They kept Phasekh on the 14th day of that cycle (April 6), “when it falls on the day of the resurrection; otherwise they celebrate it on the following Sovereign’s day; for it is written according to their assertion that the festival may be held on any day between the 14th and 21st (days).” Also see the comments in BCal, pp. 162f. 24 Sozomenus, 7:18; Socrates Schol., 5:21. 25 Socrates Schol., 4:28. 26 ACC, 2, pp. 1150f; EEC, p. 163.

The Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

279

One difference between the two camps of Quartodecimans was the fact that the original Quartodecimans did not fast on the 14th at Phasekh,27 while some of the quasi-Quartodecimans “fast and celebrate the vigil and the festival simultaneously” on the 14th.28 Other quasi-Quartodecimans only kept the Phasekh on a fixed day of the year, March 25, which according to the Acts of Pilate was the date of the messiah’s death, and consequently, by this interpretation, the day of the solar year on which the 14th of the moon happened to fall in the year of his death.29 Because many of the quasi-Quartodeciman views only provide later traditions and interpretations built up during the Christian period, they offer little to our research. Therefore, we shall concentrate mainly on the original assemblies and the common themes and premises that held these Quartodeciman views together. Another quasi-Quartodeciman outgrowth of the original Quartodeciman view was System D (the early western variation). Like the Quartodecimans, those following System D counted the seven days of unleavened bread from the 14th until the end of the 20th. Yet they differed from the other Quartodecimans in that they observed the Phasekh supper and Eucharist only on the first day of the week—the day of the week on which the messiah was resurrected—when that day fell during those seven days of unleavened bread. If the first day of the week happened to fall on the 14th then they would observe the 14th as the Phasekh.30 This system was continued in some parts of the British Isles until the end of the seventh century C.E.31 A variation of this view was used by the Audians during the time of the Roman emperor Constantine.32

Phasekh Supper on the 14th The Quartodeciman assemblies followed the Aristocratic understanding of μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim; within the periods of twilight) and kept the 14th of the first moon both as the time of the Phasekh supper and as a high Sabbath. To begin with, it was widely believed among the early assemblies (a belief that continued for a considerable period of time among those of the eastern assemblies) that, at the Exodus from Egypt, the Phasekh sacrifice occurred after sunset, followed that same night by the Phasekh supper, and that both events occurred on the 14th day of the first moon (sunset-to-sunset reckoning). The Christian writer Ephraem the Syrian (mid-fourth century C.E.), to demonstrate, reports that the book of Exodus includes the story about “the lamb” of Phasekh, noting that: . . . on the 14th day (of the moon) they slaughtered AND ate it.33 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

JTS, 25, pp. 260f. John Dam., 50. Epiphanius, Pan., 50:1:5–8, 50:15; JTS, 25, p. 262f. E.g., Anatolius, 10–12; Bede, Hist., 2:2, 4, 3:3. See below Chap. XIX, pp. 307ff. ACC, 2, p. 1150; EEC, pp. 169f. Ephraem, Exod., prooem., 14, “et de agno, die decima quarta immolando et edendo.”

280

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh In another place he states: And on the 10th of this moon, (each) man will procure a lamb for his household, and will keep it until the 14th; then he will slaughter it at sunset, and sprinkle some of its blood on the door-posts and the lintels of the house where they will eat it.34

In turn, the Quartodecimans and others, including the advocates of System E,35 all believed that the messiah both ate his last Phasekh supper and died on the 14th of Abib. Defining this issue, Ephraem continues: And on the 14th (day), when (the lamb) was slaughtered, its type (the messiah) was killed on a (torture-)stake.36 Aphraates similarly writes: Our saviour ate the Phasekh with his disciples in the sacred night of the 14th . . . And he was taken in the night of the 14th, and his trial lasted until the sixth hour, and at the time of the sixth hour they sentenced him and lifted him up on the (torture-)stake.37 Scholars have noticed this important difference between the Quartodeciman view and the Hasidic practice of the Pharisees. Raniero Cantalamessa, for example, contrasts this eastern Quartodeciman premise as expressed by Aphraates with that of the Jews (Pharisees), writing: The Jewish Passover was eaten in the night after the fourteenth of Nisan, but Aphraates puts Jesus’ Passover meal in the night leading to the fourteenth, which his tradition held as the day of Jesus’s death.38 Following this logic, the Quartodecimans and those agreeing with them claimed that the 14th was the correct day in the Torah for keeping the Phasekh supper as well as the Phasekh sacrifice. The African Christian writer PseudoCyprian (c.243 C.E.), for example, attempts to correct Hippolytus—an advocate of System E who believed that the Pharisees were correct in keeping the Phasekh on the 15th—with quotations from Scriptures. He writes that Yahweh commanded the whole assembly of Israel through Moses “to wear certain clothes when they ATE THE PHASEKH ON THE 14TH.”39 The quasi-QuarEphraem, Exod., 12:1. For examples of those following System E who believed that the messiah kept the Phasekh on the 14th, as against the Pharisees who kept it on the 15th, see Peter Alex., frag. 5:1–7; Clement, Pas., frag. 28; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 2:23:3, 4:10:1, cf., EEC, p. 145, 28, n. b; Eusebius, Pas., 8–10; Eutychius, 2. Those of System E depart from the other systems in that they believe that the messiah’s Phasekh supper was not the legal Phasekh of the written Torah but an innovation. 36 Ephraem, Exod., 12:3. 37 Aphraates, Dem., 12:6. 38 EEC, p. 183, 87, n. b. 39 Ps.-Cyprian, 2. The mention of clothes by Ps.-Cyprian is a reference to Exod., 12:11, “And you shall eat it (the Phasekh) this way; (with) your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand.” 34 35

The Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

281

todeciman, Columbanus of Luxovium, similarly argues that “the 14th day of the moon” was chosen by Yahweh as the night for the first Phasekh supper and the beginning of the Exodus.40 Pseudo-Cyprian then argues that the events which occurred and special rules which were required in Egypt during the night of the Phasekh—from the sacrifice of the lamb, the conditions by which the children of Israel should eat the lamb and other foods, the protection of the houses by means of the lamb’s blood, followed by the arrival of the angel of death, and the burning of the remains of the lamb at dawn—were prophetic signatures for the day of the messiah’s capture and murder. Not only was the lamb sacrificed but, by punishing the Egyptians, Yahweh had indicated “the villainy” of those in Egypt (a type of Jerusalem)41 up until that evening. This villainy, Pseudo-Cyprian argues, was symbolic of the acts of those Jews who “came out with swords and clubs” against the messiah “on the first day of unleavened bread ad vesperam (at twilight),”42 i.e., the events which took place during the night that the messiah ate his Phasekh supper and then was seized by the servants of the chief priests on the Mount of Olives.43 In another place this writer adds that the messiah “ate the Phasekh . . . and suffered the next day” (i.e., in the daylight portion of the 14th).44 With this construct in mind, Pseudo-Cyprian in effect charges the Pharisaic method, followed by the advocates of System E, with error because they continued to keep the Phasekh supper on the 15th day. He concludes: And then we shall find that the Phasekh should not be observed by the Jews themselves before or after the 14th of the moon.45 Gregory, Epist., 127. Cf. Rev., 11:8. Ps.-Cyprian, 2. Those who were coming against the messiah with swords and clubs captured him after his “Last Supper” Phasekh (Matt., 26:46–57; Mark, 14:43–50; Luke, 22:47–54), which meal took place “on the first day of unleavened bread, when they kill the Phasekh (lamb)” (Mark, 14:12; Luke, 22:7; Matt., 26:17) and at night (Mark, 14:27–30; 1 Cor., 11:17–28, esp. v. 23; cf., John, 18:3). It was after this meal that Judas went out to lead the Jewish leaders to Yahushua. Therefore, since the reference of Ps.-Cyprian is to the time when the enemies of the messiah “came out” against Yahushua and not just to the events that occurred after they actually captured him, it is clear that Ps.-Cyprian uses the Latin term ad vesperam to include the late evening before midnight, about which time the messiah was captured. 43 1 Cor., 11:23–27; cf., Matt., 26:21–75; Mark, 14:18–72; Luke, 21:14–62; John, 18:1–27. 44 Ps.-Cyprian, 9. In an effort to uphold a Friday crucifixion against the fact that the messiah spent three days and nights in death (Matt., 12:40; cf., Jon., 1:7), Aphraates and some others held to the unique definition that the three hours of darkness that preceded Yahushua’s death (from the sixth until the ninth hour of the 14th day; Matt., 27:45f; Mark, 15:33f; Luke, 23:44–46) and the three hours of daylight remaining in that day (the 9th until the 12th hour of the 14th of Abib) represent the 15th day and the first day of Yahushua’s death (e.g., Aphraates, Dem., 12:6–8, 12f). Therefore, the death of the messiah is counted as part of the next day, though in reality it was the afternoon of the 14th (EEC, p. 186, n. i). This arrangement explains Ephraem’s statements that Yahushua ate the Phasekh on the 14th but was slain on the 15th (Ephraem, Hymns, 3:1). This system of counting must not be confused with the Roman and Alexandrian method (midnight-tomidnight reckoning) which counts the night of the Last Supper as part of the 13th and the death of the messiah as falling within the Roman day of the 14th (e.g., Clement, Pas., frag. 28; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 2:22:3). 45 Ps.-Cyprian, 2. 40 41 42

282

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh Anatolius of Alexandria (c.270 C.E.) writes of the Quartodecimans: But nothing was difficult to them with whom it was lawful to celebrate the Phasekh on any day when the 14th of the moon happened after the equinox. Following their example up to the present time all the bishops of Asia—as themselves also receiving the rule from an unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John, who learnt it on the breast of the sovereign (Yahushua), and drank in spiritual instructions without doubt—were in the way of celebrating the Phasekh festival, without question, every year, whenever the 14th day of the moon had come, and the lamb was sacrificed by the Jews after the equinox was past.46

With regard to the Quartodeciman practice of the apostle John, the priest Wilfrid, at the Synod of Whitby (640 C.E.), admitted: And John, according to the custom of the Torah, on the 14th day of the first moon ad vesperam (= byn haarabim) began to celebrate the Phasekh Festival, not regarding whether it fell on the Sabbath day or any other day of the week.47 Wilfrid then adds clarification when he remarks that both the apostles John and Keph (Peter) looked “for the rising of the moon ad vesperam (= byn ha-arabim)48 on the 14th day of its age, in the first moon.”49 This admission verifies that the period of byn ha-arabim was counted by the Quartodecimans from just after sunset, for while the moon was rising toward the middle of the night sky they ate their Phasekh meal.50 Therefore, unlike the practice of the Pharisees (who began the festival at noon on the 14th), the apostles observed Phasekh from the beginning of the 14th, which is required if one is to eat the Phasekh supper at night during the 14th. The famous Quartodeciman writer Melito of Sardis (c.161–169 C.E.), as another example, is specifically said to have observed Phasekh on the 14th.51 In Anatolius, 10. Bede, Hist., 3:25. See above Chap. XIII, pp. 215f, n. 36. Bede, Hist., 3:25. During the Phasekh season, the moon of the 14th actually makes its appearance on the 13th day, about an hour to one and one-half hours prior to sunset. Since Wilfrid’s reference is to those who observed the night of the 14th for their Phasekh meal, the rising of the moon on the 14th can only refer to its rising during twilight while moving toward the middle of the night sky. 51 In the letter from Polycrates to Pope Victor of Rome (written about 196 C.E.), Polycrates refers to “Melito the eunuch, who lived entirely in the sacred ruach (spirit), who lies in Sardis, waiting for the visitation from heaven when he will rise from the dead.” He adds that Melito was one who “kept the fourteenth day of the Phasekh according to the good news (i.e., the Synoptic Texts), never swerving, but following according to the rule of trust”(Eusebius, H.E., 4:24). Melito, bishop of Sardis, wrote in the time of Emperor Verus (161–169 B.C.E.) (Jerome, Lives, 24; Eusebius, H.E., 4:13:8). Not long after the controversy between Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, (System A) and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, (System D), about 159 or 160 C.E., the dispute was revived 46 47 48 49 50

The Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

283

quoting Exodus, 12:6, which discusses the sacrifice of the 14th, he translates the Hebrew μybr[h ˆyb (byn ha-arabim) by the Greek pro;~ eJspevran (pros esperan; at twilight), just as found in the LXX. Melito then connects both the Phasekh sacrifice performed at twilight (a time which Greek writers identified as a part of night)52 and the Phasekh supper with the same night, the 14th: For behold, he (Yahweh) says, you will take a lamb without flaw or blemish, and pro;~ eJspevran (pros esperan; at twilight) you will slaughter it in the midst of the sons of Israel, and at night you will eat it in haste, and not a bone of it will you break. These things, he said, you will do IN A SINGLE NIGHT. You will eat it according to families and tribes, with loins girt and staff in hand. For this is the Phasekh of the sovereign, an eternal memorial for the sons of Israel.53

No Animal Sacrifice The Quartodecimans also believed that there was no longer a need to sacrifice a Phasekh lamb, for “the messiah our Phasekh was sacrificed for us.”54 Yet they continued with the Phasekh supper and the eating of unleavened bread, per the instructions of Saul, “Let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”55 The yearly slaughter of the Phasekh lamb came only by means of the written Torah. Therefore, its practice was seen merely as a foreshadowing of the messiah’s death. The Quartodeciman writer Melito of Sardis, for example, states of the mystery of the Phasekh, “It is old according to the Torah, but new according to the lovgon (logon; word).”56 He adds: When the thing modeled has been realized, then the model itself is destroyed; it has outlived its use. Its image has passed over to reality. What was useful becomes useless when the object of true value emerges. . . . For the sacrifice of the sheep was again at Laodicea, upon which occasion Melito wrote his two books On the Phasekh. These works are dated, “in the time of Servillius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris was martyred” (i.e., c.164–167 C.E.). In these works Melito defends the opinion of the Asiatics (Eusebius, H.E., 4:26). More precisely, Melito of Sardis (frag. 4) writes, “Under Servillius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris bore witness, there was a great dispute at Laodicea about the Phasekh, which had coincided according to season in those days.” The most likely date, as discussed by Stuart G. Hall (Hall, Melito, pp. xxi–xxii) is the year 166/167 C.E. (May reckoning). Since this event coincided with the Phasekh season in those days, we would understand that the debate took place in the spring of 167 C.E. Also see Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:3; cf., EEC, p.141, 26. n. b; BCal, p. 160. 52 See above Chap. XIII, pp. 215f, n. 36. 53 Melito, Pas., 12f. 54 The reference is to Saul’s comment in 1 Cor., 5:7. 55 1 Cor., 5:7f. 56 Melito, Pas., 3. The lovgon (logon), i.e., the “word” of Yahweh, is a reference to the messiah (John, 1:1–18).

284

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh once of value, but now it is valueless through the life of the sovereign. The death of the sheep was once of value, but now it is valueless through the salvation of the sovereign.57

Melito continues by stating that the messiah is the Phasekh lamb that was foreshadowed by the sacrifice of the lamb under the Torah of Moses: “This is he who is the Phasekh of our salvation.”58 Apollinarius of Hierapolis (a city in Asia located near Laodicea), a Quartodeciman who flourished in the reign of Marcus Antoninus Verus (161–169 C.E.),59 emphasized that the 14th is the sovereign’s “true Phasekh,” since on that day the servant of the deity took the place of the lamb.60 The lamb was killed at twilight at the beginning of the 14th and eaten that night, just as Yahushua observed his “Last Supper” Phasekh. But the lamb symbolized the death of the true lamb later that same day. Therefore, Melito speaks of the messiah’s death “in the middle of the day for all to see,” not at “pro;~ eJspevran (pros esperan = byn ha-arabim).”61 Besides the Phasekh lamb as a type of the messiah, and therefore connected with the sacrifice and supper of the lamb on the 14th, Melito connects other fixtures of the Phasekh supper with the 14th. For instance, he identifies the events that occurred on the day of the messiah’s death (the 14th) with the bitter herbs and unleavened bread of the Phasekh supper and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. That is why the Festival of Unleavened Bread is bitter, as your scripture says: You shall eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs. Bitter for you the nails which you sharpened. Bitter for you the tongue which you whetted. Bitter for you the false witnesses you presented. Bitter for you the scourges you prepared. Bitter for you the lashes you inflicted. Bitter for you Judas whom you hired. Bitter for you Herod (Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee) whom you obeyed. Bitter for you Caiaphas whom you believed. Bitter for you the gall Melito, Pas., 37, 44. Melito, Pas., 69. Jerome, Lives, 26; Eusebius, H.E., 4:26. Chron. Paschale, 1, p. 14. Stuart G. Hall also recognized this apparent contradiction (Hall, Melito, p. 53, n. 56). It is true that Melito makes the analogy that the messiah, as the lamb of the flock, was dragged to slaughter and was “an eJspevra~ (esperas; twilight) sacrifice; a nighttime burial” (Melito, Pas., 71). Hall thinks the analogy is “forced” (Hall, Melito, p. 39, n. 38), but this phrase conforms to the parable of the Phasekh lamb used in this same section. For example, we know that the messiah was not buried at night but buried in the daytime before the arrival of sunset and the new day (Mark, 15:42–47; Luke, 23:50–54; John, 19:31; cf., Deut., 21:22f). The mentioning of a nighttime burial, therefore, is merely a reference to the parable allowed for by the command to eat the Phasekh at night (Exod., 12:8). It is an analogy pointing to the messiah’s death, for night and darkness are a metaphor for death. Also see Matt., 27:45–51; Mark, 15:33–37; Luke, 23:44–47, where darkness covered the land at the time of the messiah’s death. The imposition of darkness in mid-afternoon on the day that the messiah died was a demonstration of divine twilight meant for the sacrifice of the divine Phasekh. This divine Phasekh was itself symbolized by the natural twilight after sunset wherein the natural Phasekh lamb was sacrificed. 57 58 59 60 61

The Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

285

you prepared. Bitter for you the vinegar you cultivated. Bitter for you the thorns which you gathered. Bitter for you the hands which you bloodied. For you have slain your sovereign in the midst of Jerusalem.62 Accordingly, the things of the Phasekh supper, which they held to have taken place during the night of the 14th, expressed the events for that day. In the same manner, the sacrifice of the Phasekh lamb at the beginning of the 14th foretold the death of the messiah later that same day.

According to Messiah and Scriptures The Quartodecimans claimed scriptural authority for their practice of Phasekh and, though they considered themselves not to be under the written Torah, they followed the guides of the Torah with regard to “all the festivals.” Chrysostom (347–407 C.E.), a strong advocate of the Roman Catholic System E, for example, demonstrates this point in his work entitled Adversus Judaeos, where he condemns the Quartodeciman Christians because of their practice of celebrating such scriptural high Sabbath days as the Day of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Festival of Tabernacles.63 Chrysostom could not condemn Pentecost (the Festival of Weeks) because all of the assemblies, including the Roman Catholic Church, continued to observe that day as a high Sabbath.64 In reference to Phasekh, the Quartodecimans claimed that they had based their practice upon the custom followed by the messiah and his disciples as well as upon the commandments found both in the Old and New Testaments. To demonstrate, Eusebius records that the 14th (the night of the Phasekh full moon)65 was observed as Phasekh by the Asian assemblies.66 Meanwhile, the Quartodeciman from Asia named Apollinarius of Hierapolis writes: The 14th is the true Phasekh of the sovereign, the great sacrifice: the son (the messiah) of the deity in the place of the lamb . . . who was buried on the day of the Phasekh with the stone placed over the tomb.67 The 14th (Hebrew reckoning), accordingly, was not only the day when the messiah ate the Phasekh lamb; it was also the day on which his murder took place. Peter of Alexandria, with a specific reference to the 14th of Abib, notes that the Quartodecimans “affirm that after he (Yahushua) had eaten the Phasekh, he was betrayed.”68 Within this context, a Quartodeciman told Hippolytus (c.200–236 C.E.): Melito, Pas., 93. Chrysostom, Adver. Jud., 1 (PG, 48, p. 848). For example see Tertullian, de Orat., 23:1–2, de Bapt., 19:2; Origen, Celsus, 8:22; Eusebius, Pas., 4; Athanasius, Fest. Let., 1:10, Fest. Let., 14:6; Didymus, 5:88; Syn. Elvira, Can., 43; Ambrose, Exp. Luc, 10:34; Apost. Constit., 5:20:2; Theophilus Alex., 20:4; Egeria, 43; ACC, 2, pp. 1157–1161. Pentecost also went through a transition among Christians. “By the beginning of the 4th century C.E., Pentecost has lost its ancient christological content and it is seen as the feast of the descent of the Holy Spirit” (EEC, p. 208, 123, n. c; cf., Paulinus, Poem, 27; Augustine, Serm. Mai, 158:4). 65 Philo, Exod., 1:9, Spec., 2:27. 66 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24. 67 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f. 68 Peter Alex., frag. 5:7. 62 63 64

286

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh The messiah kept the Phasekh ON THAT DAY (the 14th) and he suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it (the Phasekh supper) in the same manner AS THE SOVEREIGN DID.69

As F. E. Brightman observes, this statement “implies that the speaker reckoned the day as from sunset to sunset” for the reasons that “only so would the Last Supper and the Passion fall on the same day.”70 Following Saul’s words to the Corinthians, the assemblies ate “the sovereign’s supper,” i.e., the Phasekh supper, “in the night in which he was delivered up.”71 The Quartodeciman Epistula Apostolorum (140–170 C.E.) shows that this Phasekh meal and its night of remembrance continued until the cockcrow (3 A.M.) on the 14th, the time of Keph’s denial.72 This data also proves that the Quartodecimans understood the scriptural day as beginning with sunset and byn ha-arabim. The Quartodecimans also based their practice upon the writings of the New Testament. In the second century C.E., for example, the leader of the Quartodecimans of Asia was Polycrates, bishop of the diocese of Ephesus.73 In a letter from Polycrates to Victor, bishop of Rome, he gave a long list of famous people from the Asian assemblies who supported their stand.74 Polycrates then adds: ALL THESE KEPT THE 14TH DAY OF THE PHASEKH ACCORDING TO THE GOOD NEWS (New Testament), NEVER SWERVING, BUT FOLLOWED ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF THE TRUST. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, live according to the tradition of my kinsmen, and some of them have I followed. For seven of my family were bishops and I am the eighth, AND MY KINSMEN ALWAYS KEPT THE DAY WHEN THE PEOPLE PUT AWAY THE LEAVEN. Therefore, brothers, I who have lived sixty-five years in the sovereign and conversed with brothers from every 69 Hippolytus, frag. 1; Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 12f, “levgei ga;r ou{tw~ ejpoivhse to; pavsca oJ cristo;~ tovte th/` hJmevra/ kai; e[paqen.” 70 JTS, 25, p. 262. 71 1 Cor., 11:20–27, esp. v. 23; cf., Mark, 13:17–30; Matt., 26:20–35. 72 Epist. Apost., 15. The section intends to foretell the imprisonment of Keph during the days of unleavened bread in the story of Acts, 12:1–19. In this passage of the Epistula Apostolorum the Quartodecimans were advised to “celebrate the remembrance of my death,” “celebrate the Phasekh,” and the “Agape (Love Feast).” Phasekh was to be spent as a “night of watching” and “remembrance” that ended at “the cockcrow,” i.e., 3 A.M. Cockcrow was the time of Keph’s third denial of the messiah on the night of the Last Supper (Matt., 26:34, 74f; Mark, 14:30, 68–72; Luke, 22:34, 60f; John, 13:38, 18:27). Unfortunately, the above passage from the Epistula Apostolorum has been construed by some to mean that the Quartodecimans were fasting until 3 A.M. (e.g., EWJ, p. 123). This view is a matter of overinterpretation; nothing of the sort is even suggested in the text. To the contrary, the Agape or Love Feast and the “celebration” of the Phasekh are references to the Eucharist (the ritual of the bread and wine) and Phasekh supper. To superimpose a fast is totally unwarranted. 73 Eusebius, H.E., 5:22; Jerome, Lives, 45. 74 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:1–5.

The Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

287

country, and have studied all sacred Scripture, am not afraid of threats, for they have said who were greater than I, “It is better to obey the deity rather than men.”75 Anatolius likewise states that the Quartodecimans “kept the Phasekh day on the 14th of the first moon, according to the good news (New Testament), as they thought, adding nothing of an extraneous kind, but keeping through all things the rule of trust.”76 In turn, the Quartodecimans maintained that the New Testament followed the guide of the written Torah, “that Phasekh should be kept on the 14th day of the first moon, according to the commandment of the Torah, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur.”77 Melito of Sardis, in reference to the Phasekh, states, “the teachings of the good news (New Testament) have been proclaimed in the Torah.”78 In the early third century C.E., a Quartodeciman named Blastus was keeping the festival and supper on the 14th in Rome. In Pseudo-Tertullian’s epitome of Hippolytus’ lost work entitled Syntagma, we read that Blastus “says that the Phasekh is not to be kept otherwise than according to the Torah of Moses on the 14th of the moon.”79 These statements are vitally important in that they express the Quartodeciman understanding that the written Torah, and not just the messiah and his apostles, taught that the Phasekh supper was to be kept on the 14th. Another important example comes from the records retained from the debate in 196 C.E. between the Quartodecimans of Asia and the leadership of the Roman Church,80 then headed by Victor. Eusebius (who supported the Roman side of this argument) records the history of this conflict, stating: At that time no small controversy arose because ALL THE DIOCESES OF ASIA thought it right, aiJ paroivkiai wJ~ ejk paradovsew~ ajrcaiotevra~ (ai paroikiai os ek paradoseos arkhaioteras; since sojourning in that manner from a more ancient tradition), to observe for the festival of the saviour’s Phasekh the 14th day of the moon, on which the Jews had been commanded to kill the lamb.81 The problem with the Quartodeciman view for those living during the latter half of the second century C.E. in the West and under Western and Roman guidance was that the Quartodeciman Phasekh too closely resembled the dominant practice of the Jews. True, these Jews did not eat their Phasekh supper Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:6f; cf., Jerome, Lives, 45. Anatolius, 10. A Quartodeciman quoted by Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 8:11. Melito, Pas., 39. Ps.-Tertullian, 8. This work is an epitome of Hippolytus’ lost Syntagma. Chap. 8 deals with the Quartodeciman named Blastus (JTS, [NS] 24, p. 83, n. 2). 80 Jerome associates this debate with the fourth year of Emperor Severus (196/197 C.E., May reckoning) (Jerome, Euseb., year 2212). 81 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:1. Cf., translations in Lake, Euseb., i, p. 503; EEC, p. 33. 75 76 77 78 79

288

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

until the 15th, while the Quartodecimans held their festival and supper on the 14th. Nevertheless, the Jews did celebrate the 14th as Phasekh, for it was on that day that they “had been commanded to kill the lamb.” This common point of reference, as we shall demonstrate in our second volume of this series, gave the opponents of the Quartodecimans a weapon that enabled them to discourage and suppress the use of the Christian form of System A.

Conclusion The Quartodeciman practice was the earliest known for the original Christian assemblies. For the Quartodecimans, System A established the correct method of observing the Phasekh supper as instructed by the written Torah. It was in the nighttime portion of the 14th day of the moon of Abib (Hebrew reckoning) that the messiah kept the Phasekh. Since this Phasekh occurred on the date of his death, it was his Last Supper. After that dinner Yahushua was betrayed; and during the remaining parts of that same 14th day (Hebrew reckoning), he suffered and died. In the opinion of the Quartodecimans, the state religion practiced by the Jews (i.e., the Pharisaic form of the Hasidic religion), which observed the Phasekh supper on the night of the 15th of Abib, was a false system. Therefore, when the Scriptures speak of those Jews who on the morning of the messiah’s death were still waiting to observe their Phasekh supper and great Sabbath,82the Quartodecimans believed it was based upon a Pharisaic misinterpretation of Scriptures. Yet it was also necessary for Scriptures to mention this Phasekh of the Pharisees, since it was the historical occasion and backdrop for the messiah’s martyrdom. 82

John, 18:28, 19:31.

Chapter XVIII

The Seven Days of the Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

he seven days of unleavened bread remained an important period for all the early Christian assemblies. It was by means of these seven days that they determined when to observe Phasekh. For the Quartodeciman practice (System A), being the original view of the early Christian assemblies, and its quasi-Quartodeciman offshoot System D (the early western view), these seven days began with the 14th and extended until the end of the 20th day of the first lunar month. We begin to uncover this important detail by demonstrating three facts: •

The Quartodecimans observed the 14th of Abib as a high Sabbath (great festival day) and as the first of the seven days of unleavened bread.

•

The quasi-Quartodecimans kept the same seven days of unleavened bread as observed by the early Quartodecimans.

•

Both the early Quartodecimans of System A and the quasiQuartodecimans of System D deferred to the apostle John as their ultimate authority for establishing which days were to be observed for the seven days of unleavened bread.

The Quartodeciman High Sabbath The first indication that the Quartodecimans kept the 14th until the end of the 20th as the seven days of unleavened bread comes from the fact that they observed the 14th as a sacred convocation (high Sabbath).1 During the seven days of unleavened bread, Scriptures command the following: On the first day shall be a sacred convocation, and on the seventh day shall be a sacred convocation for you; not any work shall be done on them, only what must be eaten by each person, that alone shall be done by you.2 1 Lev., 16:31, 23:24, 26–32, 39, all demonstrate that sacred gatherings are also called sabbathon days (i.e., high Sabbaths). 2 Exod., 12:16; cf., Lev., 23:5–8; Num., 28:16–25.

289

290

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

For the Quartodecimans, the 14th was the first high Sabbath and the first and great day of unleavened bread. To demonstrate, Apollinarius of Hierapolis argued that he observed the 14th: The 14th is the true Phasekh of the sovereign, the great sacrifice: the son of the deity in the place of the lamb . . . who was buried on the day of the Phasekh with the stone placed over the tomb.3 Meanwhile, Melito, who likewise kept the 14th as the Phasekh,4 speaks of this high Sabbath status when he accuses the Jewish leaders, stating, “you killed your sovereign ejn th megavlh eJorth (en te megale heorte; on the great festival [day]).”5 Similarly, Heracleon, in a discussion about the 14th as the date of the messiah’s death, states:6 This (14th) is the great festival; for it was the figure of the saviour’s suffering, when the sheep was not only slain, but by being eaten, brought repose.7 The reference to the “great festival” day is to a khag and high Sabbath.8 These statements have been misunderstood by some historians who unfortunately have failed to recognize any system other than the Hasidic practice of the 15th as the Phasekh high Sabbath. Joachim Jeremias, O. Perler, and Wolfgang Huber, for example, take the passages from Apollinarius of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis to indicate that there were Quartodecimans who were confused about the sequence of events.9 They reason that these men, though admittedly well-versed Quartodeciman writers, ignored the clear statements found in the Synoptic texts that the messiah died on the same day that he ate his Last Supper. As a result, these scholars believe that some of the Quartodecimans have mistakenly dated the murder of the messiah to the 15th of Nisan rather than to the 14th and that the 15th was the Quartodeciman great festival day (high Sabbath) of unleavened bread. The context for the above statements from Apollinarius of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis proves just the opposite. To begin with, both kept the 14th and ardently defended the Quartodeciman view held by the Asiatics.10 The Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f. Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:5f. Melito, Pas., 79. Heracleon was a disciple of Valentinus in the second half of the second century C.E. The Valentinians were Gnostics, explaining everything as symbols of some Gnostic doctrine. Yet their observance of Phasekh was, as with the earliest Christian practice, Quartodeciman-based. 7 Heracleon, frag. 12; Origen, Com. John, 10:116f. 8 Cf., John, 19:31, where John makes reference to the Jewish (Pharisaic) day for the Phasekh supper as, “that Sabbath was a great day” (cf., John, 18:28, 19:31, 42); and see John, 7:37, where the last day of the Festival of Tabernacles, which is also a high Sabbath (Lev., 23:34–36; Num., 29:12–35), is called, “the great day of the festival.” Eusebius, H.E., 7:30:10, refers to the Christian high Sabbath day of the observance of the Phasekh supper as “the great day of Phasekh.” Socrates Schol., 5:2, meanwhile, refers to this day as the “Sabbath of Phasekh.” 9 For example, see EWJ, p. 19; MSSP, pp. 181–183; PUO, pp. 43f. 10 Melito, bishop of Sardis, wrote two books entitled On the Phasekh (Jerome, Lives, 24; Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:2). Two fragments from the works of Apollinarius of Hierapolis remain in the Chron. Paschale (1, pp. 13f). Each man addressed apologetic arguments of their own to Emperor Marcus Aurelius Verus (161–180 C.E.) (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:1f). Both men are lauded as leaders of Asian assemblies who kept the 14th as the Phasekh supper (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:5f). 3 4 5 6

The Seven Days of the Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

291

Asiatics believed that the messiah died on the same day that he ate the Phasekh, i.e., the 14th, and not on the 15th (Hebrew reckoning). Meanwhile, in a reference to the great controversy that raged in Laodicea during the spring of 167 C.E.,11 Apollinarius of Hierapolis, rather than supporting, actually chastises those who held to the notion that the 15th was both the great festival day (high Sabbath) of unleavened bread and the day on which the messiah was murdered. He describes them as ignorant people who had stirred up disputes about these things and were in need of instruction. He then comments about those advocating this view: They (the advocates) say, then, that the sovereign ate the lamb with his disciples on the 14th and suffered on the great day of unleavened bread (i.e., the 15th), and they explain Matthew’s words (Matt., 26:17) according to their interpretation. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the Torah and the good news (New Testament) seems to disagree.12 Apollinarius of Hierapolis instead argues that it was on the 14th that the messiah ate the Phasekh. He also claims that the 14th was the true date of the “Phasekh of the sovereign (Yahweh), the great sacrifice,” thereby connecting the messiah’s death with the 12th chapter of Exodus, describing the Phasekh sacrifice of the lamb and Phasekh supper during the Israelite Exodus out of Egypt.13 For Apollinarius, the New Testament “seems to disagree” with the advocates of this view because the day that the messiah ate his Phasekh meal is defined in Matthew and other Synoptic texts as “the first day of unleavened bread,”14 and therefore a high Sabbath, being the first day of the seven days of unleavened bread. He adds that it was on this same day (the Phasekh of the 14th) that the messiah was buried.15 As another example, a Quartodeciman told Hippolytus (c.200–236 C.E.): The messiah kept the Phasekh ON THAT DAY (the 14th) and16 he suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it (the Phasekh supper) in the same manner as the sovereign did.17 11 Melito, frag. 4, writes, “Under Servillius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris bore witness, there was a great dispute at Laodicea about the Phasekh, which had coincided according to season in those days.” The most likely date, as discussed by Stuart G. Hall (Hall, Melito, pp. xxi–xxii), is the year 166/167 C.E. (May reckoning). Since this event coincided with the season in those days, we would understand that the debate took place in the spring of 167 C.E. Also see Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:3; cf., EEC, p. 141, 26. n. b; JTS (NS), 24, p. 76; JTS, 25, p. 254; BCal, p. 160. 12 Quoted in Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f. 13 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f, cf., LXX Exod., 12:11, 26f, 48. 14 Matt., 26:17–21; Mark, 14:12–18; Luke, 22:7–16. 15 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f. 16 The surviving text has kai; (kai; and). Louis Duchesne proposes that the original had h/| (hêi; on which), i.e., “on which (day) he suffered” (RQH, 28, p. 10, n. 4). 17 Hippolytus, frag. 1; Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 12f, “levgei ga;r ou{tw~ ejpoivhse to; pavsca oJ cristo;~ tovte th/` hJmevra/ kai; e[paqen.”

292

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

As already noted, this statement “implies that the speaker reckoned the day as from sunset to sunset, and not as from midnight to midnight, since only so would the Last Supper and the Passion fall on the same day.”18 Interesting confirmation of this construct comes in the ancient Syriac text of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, which reflects the eastern view. In its version of the book of Mark, the messiah’s death on the 14th of Abib is said to have taken place “on the Sabbath.”19 The only Sabbath possible for the day of the messiah’s death, since he was only buried for three days and was raised immediately after a weekly Sabbath day,20 is a high Sabbath. The noted scholar Stuart G. Hall recognized the contradiction created when one tries to identify the 15th with the great festival day (high Sabbath) of unleavened bread adhered to by these Quartodecimans. He footnoted the relevant verse about this high Sabbath in his translation of Melito with the following comment: But the influence of John and Evagelium Petri on Melito would make him likely to follow their dating on 14 Nisan, and the festivities described in the lines following appear to refer to the Passover meal itself.21 Once we realize that the Quartodecimans kept the seven days of unleavened bread from the 14th until the end of the 20th of Abib, as we shall more fully demonstrate in our next chapter, it becomes obvious that the first of these seven days, per the instructions from Scriptures, was a high Sabbath.22 Therefore, the Quartodeciman great festival day of unleavened bread, referred to as the day of the messiah’s death, was the 14th. Scriptures command that the last day of the seven days of unleavened bread is also a high Sabbath.23 There is no direct record discussing the Quartodeciman obligation to keep this high Sabbath. Yet the fact that they observed the other high Sabbaths, kept the first day of the seven days as a high Sabbath, and their insistence on following the commands to observe the entire seven days, would strongly indicate that principle.24

The Early Western View Early in the second century C.E., a variation of the Quartodeciman view was created among some of the assemblies in the West (System D). It was fully accepted in Alexandria and Rome. The Christians supporting this construct, not surprisingly, retained the Aristocratic view that the seven days of unleavened bread extended from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of JTS, 25, p. 262. Sin. Pal., at Mark, 15:43. Matt., 28:1; Mark, 16:9; Luke, 24:1. For a complete discussion on the number of days and which days of the week the messiah lay in the grave see FSDY, 2. 21 Hall, Melito, p. 43, n. 45. 22 See above n. 2. 23 Ibid. 24 Chrysostom, Adver. Jud., 1 (PG, 48, p. 848); and see comments above Chap. XVII, pp. 285ff. For evidence that the Quartodecimans observed the last day of unleavened bread as a great or high Sabbath see App. F and G. 18 19 20

The Seven Days of the Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

293

the first moon. Yet, for reasons we shall deal with in a later chapter, they differed from their Quartodeciman brothers in that they observed the first day of the week within these seven days, the day of the messiah’s resurrection, as the Eucharist, Phasekh supper, and high Sabbath (great festival day). Important for our research is the fact that not only did the Quartodecimans disavow the Pharisaic practice of Phasekh and seven days of unleavened bread but so did the early western advocates of System D.25 What has been continuously overlooked is the fact that both of these groups (the Quartodecimans of System A and the quasi-Quartodecimans of System D) observed the seven-day festival of unleavened bread from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th of the first moon. The source for this seven-day view was the common fountain of the teachings of the apostles and the New Testament. System D differed from the conservative Quartodecimans (System A) in that its advocates observed only the first day of the week, the day of the messiah’s resurrection, as the Phasekh festival. On this date and day of the week there occurred annually the omer wave offering; and it was from this date that one would begin to count the 50 days to Pentecost, a high Sabbath (great festival day) honored by the early Christians.26 It is also upon this date that the Christians commemorated the resurrection of the messiah.27 Those following System D ignored the Aristocratic practice of observing the 14th and 20th days of Abib as high Sabbaths. Yet the western method for calculating the day of the Phasekh of the resurrection still required the use of the seven days of unleavened bread as practiced by the original assemblies following Yahushua. The resurrection day would always be placed in conjunction with the seven days of unleavened bread. Therefore, whenever the first day of the week fell during that sevenday period of unleavened bread it became the Phasekh of the resurrection for these western assemblies.

The Seven Days That both the Quartodecimans (System A) and the western advocates of the quasi-Quartodeciman practice (System D) adhered to the same days for the seven days of unleavened bread is demonstrated in the records dealing with the visit of Polycarp of Smyrna (the leading Quartodeciman of his day) with Anicetus (bishop of Rome) either in 158 C.E. or shortly thereafter.28 Irenaeus See below Chap. XIX. Lev., 23:4–21; Num., 28:16–31; Deut., 16:6–10. For the Christian celebration of Pentecost see below Chap. XXII. 27 This view is based upon Matt., 28:1–10; Mark, 16:1–9; Luke, 24:1–7; John, 20:1–19. 28 Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:1, 5, 5:24:16f; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4; Jerome, Lives, 17. Also see Chart K. Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2173 (Oly. CCXXXIIII) attributes Anicetus a position of leadership for 11 years. He then places the beginning of the next bishop, Soter, to the ninth year of Verus (Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2185 [Oly. CCXXXVII]). Eusebius supports this with the statement, “Now by this time, eij~ o[gdoon ejlaunouvsh~ e[to~ (eis ogdoon elaunouses etos; at the driving out of the eighth year) of (emperor Verus) showing forth his leadership, Soter succeeded Anicetus in the bishopric of Rome, who had served in all eleven years.” (Eusebius, H.E., 4:19). That ejlaunouvsh~ (elaunouses) means “to drive away, expel . . . to drive to extremities,” see GEL, p. 248. The eighth year of Verus was 168/169 C.E., March reckoning. Counting the eighth year of Verus as the 11th year of Anicetus, 25 26

294

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

relates how Polycarp “came to Rome and conversed with Anicetus about some difficulty as to the day of the Phasekh.”29 He does not say “difficulties” in the plural, but as to a singular difficulty. Eusebius mentions that there was only one major issue that divided Anicetus (representing Rome) and Polycarp (representing the Asian assemblies)—the issue regarding which day one was to celebrate the Phasekh Eucharist, which was interpreted by those in the West as not only the thanksgiving but the mystery of the cup and bread.30 It was either to be observed always on the 14th or always on the first day of the week during the seven days of unleavened bread.31 He adds, “though they disagreed a little about some other things as well,” there was nothing that prevented them from making peace.32 There is not even a suggestion in these records that the bishops disagreed with regard to chronology over which days represent the seven days of unleavened bread. Just the opposite is true. Although carefully glossed over by later writers, it is clear that on this particular issue they both agreed. Proof of this agreement, for example, is found in Eusebius. He writes: And in this state of affairs they held fellowship together and in the assembly Anicetus conceded to Polycarp the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with all the assemblies, both those who did observe (the 14th only) and those who did not.33 The only way that Anicetus could peaceably yield the Eucharist, which for Eusebius meant the mystery of the cup and bread, to Polycarp, who utterly refused to celebrate it on any other day but the 14th, is if the assembly at Rome was observing the 14th as one of the seven days of unleavened bread. It is also we are brought back to the 20th year of Antoninus Pius (157/158 C.E., July reckoning). This detail is supported by the statement that Soter, who “ended his life within the eighth year of his leadership,” was succeeded by Eleutherus in “the 17th year of Emperor Antoninus Verus” (Eusebius, H.E., 5:1:1; cf., Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2193 [Oly. CCXXXVIII], i.e., in 177/178 C.E., March reckoning). Once again, this places the first year of Soter in the ninth year of Emperor Verus, in turn placing the first year of Anicetus in the 20th year of Emperor Pius. Irenaeus relates that Polycarp came to Rome to converse with Anicetus “about some difficulty as to the day of the Phasekh” (Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:1). They discussed the matter fully but were unable to change one another’s opinion (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:16). The most appropriate time for this visit from the leader of the eastern assemblies to Rome would have been shortly after Anicetus obtained his post. We also know that they partook of the Eucharist together, which demonstrates that Polycarp was in Rome during the spring Phasekh season (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:17). These details indicate that Polycarp could not have been in Rome any earlier than the spring of 158 C.E., not long after Anicetus became sole bishop and leader of the Roman assembly. 29 Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:1. 30 That the Eucharist, the cup and bread, and Phasekh supper all became the same thing to Eusebius and those following System E, see Eusebius, Pas., 7–11. Also see below Chap. XXIII. The Quartodecimans, on the other hand, as demonstrated by the Didache, followed the original meaning of Eucharist, which is the Jewish berakah or giving of a blessing and thanks before a meal (SNT, 6, p. 276; LD, pp. 377, 399). 31 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24. 32 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24.16. 33 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24; Irenaeus, frag. 3.

The Seven Days of the Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans

295

important to notice that there was no objection based upon fasting, which became a major issue a few decades later, or any other such hindrance to either party taking the Eucharist. The debate between the Audians (fourth century C.E. advocates of System D)34 and Emperor Constantine adds further proof that System D was the original western view. In reference to the calculation of the seven days of unleavened bread and Phasekh, the Audians argued that Christians were under instructions from the apostles to “celebrate the festival whenever your brothers from the Circumcision do. Keep it together with them.”35 The Christian Judaeans of the early assemblies (those “from the Circumcision”), as with all members of the early assemblies, were Quartodeciman-based. The Audians interpreted this to mean that they should observe Phasekh Sunday during the seven days of unleavened bread being observed by their Quartodeciman Christian brothers converted from among the Jews. Further, that those in the West during the second century C.E. followed System D is directly asserted by the Audians. We are told that the Audians kept their Phasekh during the period when the Jews were keeping their days of unleavened bread (i.e., the Jewish eight days of unleavened bread, which starts with the 14th day of the first moon). They “give as their reason the fact that this was the (early) usage of the Assembly.”36 The Audians in turn charged those following System E (the Roman Catholic System) of a sell-out and abandoning the system they originally observed, arguing: From the time of Constantine, because of special consideration for the emperor, you have abandoned the observance of the fathers concerning the festival of Phasekh and you have changed the day to one decreed by the emperor.37

Common Apostolic Source For both the Quartodeciman view (System A) and the quasi-Quartodeciman (System D), the apostles are the common source for their understanding of the 14th as the first of the seven days of unleavened bread. To demonstrate, the Quartodeciman named Polycrates reports that the apostles Philip and John taught the assemblies in Asia how to observe the Phasekh. After providing a list of other famous men in the East who followed these apostles, he writes, “All these kept the 14th day of the Phasekh according to the good news (New Testament), never swerving.”38 Likewise, Socrates Scholasticus reports: Moreover the Quartodecimans affirm that the observance of the 14th was delivered to them by the apostle John.39 34 35 36 37 38 39

RAC, 1, pp. 910–915; EEC, pp. 169f, 64, n. a. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:10:2. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:2. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:3. Eusebius, H.E., 5:24; Jerome, Lives, 45. Socrates Schol., 5:22.

296

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Meanwhile, Coleman, bishop of the Scots of Ireland, who defended the System D practice of keeping the 14th through 20th for the seven days of unleavened bread, argued at the Synod of Whitby (664 C.E.): The Phasekh which I am accustomed to observe I have received of my elders of whom I was sent hither bishop, and this all our fathers, men beloved of the deity, are known to have solemnized after the same manner. And this observation, that none may think it a light matter or to be rejected, is the selfsame which THE BLESSED EVANGELIST JOHN, the disciple whom the sovereign (Yahushua) especially loved, kept, as we read, with all the assemblies over which he was head.40

Conclusion Three facts are now established. The Quartodecimans observed the 14th of Abib as their great festival day (high Sabbath) of Phasekh and the first day of unleavened bread. It is also understood that the quasi-Quartodecimans kept the same seven days of unleavened bread that were observed by the early Quartodecimans. Finally, both the early Quartodecimans and the quasiQuartodecimans of System D deferred to the apostle John as their ultimate authority for when one was to observe the seven days of unleavened bread. To fully establish beyond any doubt that the seven days of unleavened bread for both the Quartodecimans and quasi-Quartodecimans extended from the 14th to the 20th, our next chapter shall examine the records from several important quasi-Quartodeciman sources, including their most notable advocate, Anatolius of Alexandria. 40

Bede, Hist., 3:25.

CHART K EUSEBIUS’ LIST OF EARLY ROMAN BISHOPS Linus Anencletus Clement Euarestos Alexander Xystus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius Anicetus Soter Eleutherus

C.E. 67/68–80/81 80/81–92/93 92/93–101/102 101/102–110/111 110/111–119/120 119/120–128/129 128/129–138/139 138/139–142/143 142/143–157/158 157/158–169/170 169/170–177/178

177/178–189/190 177/178–early 193 Victor early 193–201/202 189/190–201/202 Zephyrianus 201/202–218/219 201/202–219/220

Eusebius H.E. First Year 12 years 3:2, 13 yr. 14 Nero1 12 years 3:13–15 yr. 2 Titus 9 years 3:15, 34 yr. 12 Domitian 8 years 3:34, 4:1 yr. 3 Trajan 10 years 4:1, 4 yr. 12 Trajan 10 years 4:4, 4:5:5 yr. 3 Hadrian 11 years 4:5:5, 4:10 yr. 12 Hadrian 4 years 4:10, 4:11:6 yr. 1 Pius 15 years 4:11:6–7 yr. 5 Pius3 11 years 4:11:7, 4:19 yr. 20 Pius5 8 years 4:18:2, 4:19, yr. 9 Verus7 4:30:3, 5:intro 13 years8 5:intro, 5:22 yr. 17 Verus 15 years9 yr. 17 Verus 11 10 years 5:22, 5:28:7 reign of Pertinaz12 12 years13 yr. 10 Commodus14 18 years 5:28:7, 6:21 yr. 9 Severus yr. 9 Severus17

Jerome, Euseb., 267F; Jerome, Lives, 1. Jerome, Euseb., 284F. 3 Ibid. 4 Jerome, Euseb., 285F. 5 Ibid. 6 Eusebius, H.E., 4:19, when Verus was “leaving the 8th year”; Jerome, Euseb., 287F, places his death in the 9th year (cf. ECC, p. 171). 7 Jerome, Euseb., 287F. 8 Eusebius, H.E., only counts Eleutherus’ 13 sole years, to the 10th year of Commodus. Jerome, Euseb., 289F–292F, counts the full 15 years. 9 Jerome, Euseb., 289F. 10 Jerome, Euseb., 292F 11 Eusebius, H.E., 2:28:7, only counts Victor’s 10 sole years. Eusebius, Arm., yr. 2202, counts his full 12 years. 12 Jerome, Euseb., 292F 13 See above n. 11. 14 See above n. 8. 15 Jerome, Euseb., 294F. 16 Eusebius here refers only to the year Zephyrianus retired from his duties. As Jerome proves, he subsequently died in the second year of Avitus (Jerome, Euseb., 296F). 17 See above n. 15. 18 Jerome, Euseb., 296F.

yr. 10 Commodus reign of Pertinax10 yr. 9 Severus yr. 9 Severus15 yr. 1 Avitus16 yr. 2 Avitus18

Dates of relevant Roman Emperors:

1 2

297

Last Year yr. 2 Titus yr. 12 Domitian yr. 3 Trajan yr. 12 Trajan yr. 3 Hadrian yr. 12 Hadrian yr. 1 Pius yr. 5 Pius2 yr. 20 Pius4 yr. 9 Verus6 yr. 17 Verus

Nero

08–64 to 06–68

Titus

06–79 to 09–81

Domitian

09–81 to 09–96

Trajan

01–98 to 08–117

Hadrian

08–117 to 07–138

Pius

07–138 to 03–161

Verus

03–161 to 03–180

Commodus 03–180 to 12–192 Pertinax

01–193 to 05–193

Severus

05–193 to 02–211

Avitus

06–218 to 03–222

CHART L

Comparison of Day Systems by Anatolius But they who are deceived with this error maintain this adjectionem (additional one), because they do not know that the 13th and 14th, the 14th and 15th, the 15th and 16th, the 16th and 17th, the 17th and 18th, the 18th and 19th, the 19th and 20th, the 20th and 21st days of the moon are, as may be most surely proved, each found within a single day. For every day in the reckoning of the moon does not end ad vesperum (at twilight) as the same day in respect of number, as it is at its beginning in the morning. For the day which in the morning, that is up to the six and one-half hour, is numbered the 13th of the moon is found ad vesperum (at twilight) to be the 14th. (Anatolius, 8)

13th Egyptian Reckoning (dawn to dawn)

14th Egyptian Reckoning

13th Egyptian Reckoning

14th Egyptian Reckoning

(dawn to dawn) 13th Roman Reckoning 14th Roman Reckoning (midnight to midnight) 13th Roman Reckoning

15th Scriptural Reckoning

14th Scriptural Reckoning

Legend 24 Hours

Legend Dawn 24Midnight Hours

Sunset

Dawn Midnight Sunset

15th Egyptian Reckoning

15th Roman Reckoning

14th Roman Reckoning

13th Scriptural Reckoning 14th Scriptural Reckoning (midnight to midnight) (sunset to sunset)

13th Scriptural Reckoning (sunset to sunset)

15th Egyptian Reckoning

298

15th Roman Reckoning

15th Scriptural Reckoning

Chapter XIX

More Evidence of the Quasi-Quartodeciman Seven Days

roof that the seven days of unleavened bread for the Quartodecimans extended from the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first lunar month is established from records provided by their offshoots, the quasiQuartodecimans of System D. The most important source for their view is found in the records of Anatolius of Alexandria. To his words we can add the statements provided by the Audians and several bishops representing assemblies located in different parts of Europe.

Anatolius of Alexandria Like the Quartodecimans, those who kept System D observed the 14th until the end of the 20th for the seven days of unleavened bread. The most famous advocate of this system was Anatolius of Alexandria (c.230–283 C.E.).1 Anatolius was originally from Alexandria but later became bishop of Laodicea in Asia Minor (c.270 C.E.).2 He flourished under the emperors Probus and Carus (276–283 C.E.).3 His well-known work on the Phasekh not only defends the System D method but notes that this view was premised upon the practice of the ancient Jewish priests, like Aristobulus of Paneas of the third century B.C.E. (System A).4 He further argues that this was also the method held by the Quartodeciman bishops of Asia, who in turn had received the rule “from an unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John, who learned it on the sovereign’s breast, and drank in instructions spiritual without doubt.”5 In presenting this view, as A. Yarbro Collins notes, Anatolius “defended the position of the Quartodecimans.”6 At the same time, Anatolius always kept the first day of the week during the seven days of unleavened bread as Phasekh.7 Anatolius even admitted that System D was a more recent innovation. He reminds his readers that originally those Christians who advocated the proper system always kept the Phasekh supper on the 14th.8 He is also commonly called Anatolius of Laodicea. Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:6–12; Jerome, Lives, 73. Jerome, Lives, 73. Anatolius, 3. Socrates Schol., 5:22, (writing about 439 C.E.) points out that even in his day the practices of the “modern Jews,” that is, the Jews of his day, were at odds with those of the “ancient Jews,” including the first century C.E. Pharisees like Josephus. 5 Anatolius, 10. 6 OTP, 2, p. 837, n. a. 7 Anatolius, 1, 7, 11, 12, 15. 8 Anatolius, 10. 1 2 3 4

299

300

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The 14th–20th, Not 15th–21st In his discussion, Anatolius writes that “the day of Phasekh is fixed from the 14th day of the moon.”9 Then, after quoting both Exodus, 12:18f and 12:15,10 as proof, he challenges some of the more recent innovations. He specifically mentions certain views derived from the assemblies of Gaul (from which region Irenaeus, an important participant in the creation of System E, had earlier been bishop).11 He also criticizes the methods used by Roman Christians, like Hippolytus, all advocates of different forms of System E, who began the seven days of unleavened bread with the 15th of Abib.12 Some in part permitted the Phasekh celebration prior to the spring equinox and others “erred in the matter of the 21st day of the moon,” in that they allowed that the Phasekh of the resurrection could be celebrated on that date.13 Anatolius, though he believed that System D was the proper observance for Christians of his day, clearly did not argue against the accuracy of the seven-day count for unleavened bread as promoted by the Quartodecimans of Asia, whom he points out had “kept the day of Phasekh on the 14th day of the first moon, according to the good news (New Testament).”14 By referencing the New Testament, Anatolius can only mean that the early Quartodecimans observed the festival in accordance with the way Yahushua and his disciples observed Phasekh on the night of his betrayal and deliverance into the hands of the Jewish leaders.15 On the other hand, those in the West who kept the festival from the 15th to the 21st day of the first moon, he chastised, not only with regard to their allowing that Phasekh could be celebrated as late as the 21st day of the first moon but in the manner in which they calculated the seven days of unleavened bread. As we shall show later on, those holding to the innovation of System E, beginning in the latter part of the second century C.E., held that the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread should be counted by the Jewish Hasidic method.16 The Phasekh of the resurrection, accordingly, was always placed by them on the first day of the week which fell on one of the seven days of unleavened bread, a period calculated from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. Anatolius responds: Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. Unless perchance the 14th day is not reckoned by them among the days of unleavened bread with the celebration of the festival; which, however, is contrary to the word of the good news (New Testament) which says: “And on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Yahushua” (Mark, 14:12). And there is no doubt as to its being the 14th day on which the 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Anatolius, 6. Anatolius, 8; cf., Lev., 23:6. See our discussion below, Chap. XX, pp. 317ff. Anatolius, 1, 8. Anatolius, 8, 9. Anatolius, 10. Matt., 26:17–27:61; Mark, 14:12–15:47; 22:7–23:54; 1 Cor., 5:6–8, 11:17–27. See below Chaps. XX–XXI.

More Evidence of the Quasi-Quartodeciman Seven Days

301

disciples asked the sovereign, in accordance with the custom established for them of old, “Where do you desire that we prepare for you to eat the Phasekh” (Mark, 14:12).17 In his calculation, Anatolius refers to the 14th as both the first day of unleavened bread and as the day on which the messiah ate the Phasekh. His point of reference, therefore, is a scripturally-based method. He goes on to oppose the view that the seven days of unleavened bread were to be counted from the 15th to the 21st. Instead, he reports, if the 14th day of the first moon fell after the equinox, “and proves to be both dominica (the Sovereign’s day—i.e., first day of the week) and the moon’s 14th, Phasekh is to be celebrated on the 14th.”18 At the same time, the last possible day for the celebration of the Sovereign’s day during Phasekh week “cannot pass beyond the close of their festival, that is to say, the moon’s 20th.”19 In another place he states that “we should keep the solemn festival of Phasekh on the Sovereign’s day, and after the equinox, and yet not beyond the limit of the moon’s 20th day.”20 In support of the System A understanding of the Torah that the 14th and 20th of Abib were high Sabbaths, he adds, “For the sovereign ascribes no less praise to the 20th day than to the 14th.”21 A Further Misunderstanding Anatolius not only accuses the advocates of the Roman System E with ignorance of the truth and with not understanding the meaning behind those scriptural passages which state that the seven days of unleavened bread continue from ad vesperum (at twilight) of the 14th day of the first moon “usque (until)” (the beginning of) the 21st day of the first moon ad vesperum (at twilight),22 but he criticizes the calculators from Gaul and other regions with a further misunderstanding. Anatolius points to their confusion about how one determines the beginning of a scriptural day for observing the festival: But they who are deceived with this error maintain this adjectionem (additional one), because they do not know that the 13th and 14th, the 14th and 15th, the 15th and 16th, the 16th and 17th, the 17th and 18th, the 18th and 19th, the 19th and 20th, the 20th and 21st days of the moon are, as may be most surely proved, each found within a single day. For every day in the reckoning of the moon does not end ad vesperum (at twilight)23 as the same day in respect of number, as it is at its beginning in the morning. For the day which Anatolius, 8. Anatolius, 16. Ibid. Anatolius, 11. Ibid. Anatolius, 7, 9, 11, 16; cf., his use of ad vesperum in translating Exod., 12:15, 18f (Anatolius, 8). That Anatolius counts the seven days of unleavened bread by this method is confirmed when he writes that these seven days continue “from the end of the 13th day of the moon, which marks the beginning of the 14th, on to the end of the 20th, at which the 21st day also begins” (Anatolius, 8). 23 Macrobius, Saturn., 3:14f, “vespera follows” sunset. See above Chap. XIII, pp. 215f, n. 36. 17 18 19 20 21 22

302

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh in the morning, that is up to the six and one-half hour, is numbered the 13th of the moon is found ad vesperum (at twilight) to be the 14th.24

What Anatolius meant when he argued that two days, such as the 13th and 14th, contain a “single day” is brought into focus by Wilfrid at the Synod of Whitby.25 Wilfrid points out that the context of Anatolius was his attempt to explain the problem “after the manner of the Egyptians.”26 Both the Egyptians and the Romans (i.e., those at Alexandria and at Rome) officially determined their day “from midnight to midnight.”27 Meanwhile, the Egyptians and many other common people in the Roman world, including those of Gaul, also observed dawn as the beginning of their day.28 Anatolius challenged both systems for beginning a day and makes it a point to explain that one does not calculate scriptural days “by the beginnings of the (Egyptian) day, but by those (days) of the moon (i.e., the scriptural reckoning).”29 To understand Anatolius, we must realize that the Christians of Gaul, Rome, and Egypt who practiced System E were at that time calculating the days of the moon by the Roman system, which spoke of luna tertia, quarta, quinta, etc. (the third, fourth, fifth, and so forth, day AFTER the new moon).30 This system was used by the pagans and was based upon the fact that the Roman civil day began at midnight. Since the new moon both rose and set after sunset and prior to midnight, they calculated the days of the moon as the first, second, and so forth, day AFTER the day (midnight reckoning) of the appearance of the new moon. Therefore, since the new moon appeared after sunset and the civil day did not end until midnight nor the common day until dawn, for the purposes of counting to Phasekh, the first day of the new moon was actually the “day after” the Roman day on which the new moon had made its appearance. As a result, the days of the moon, as reckoned by the Egyptians, Romans, and people of Gaul, were not the same as the days of the moon as reckoned by Scriptures. The Quartodecimans of Asia Minor, by the way, were not troubled with this problem, since the Greeks and their Asian colonies, like the Hebrews and others of the Near East, began their day at sunset.31 For this reason, Anatolius had to explain to the Egyptian Christians and others that the 14th day of the moon should be “calculated not by the beginnings of the day (i.e., by a midnight or sunrise reckoning), but by those of the moon (i.e., sunset-to-sunset reckoning).”32 The first day of the moon in Scriptures begins with the rising of the Anatolius, 8. Wilfrid tries to confuse the issue by interpreting the words of Anatolius in such a way as to include the 21st, stating, Anatolius “also assigned the 20th day to the sovereign’s Phasekh in such a way that he held it for the 21st when the sun had set.” Of course, this was not the intent of Anatolius. Anatolius was trying to show that those keeping the Egyptian method for determining a day erred in that they should not be observing Phasekh beyond sunset of the Egyptian 20th day, because in that case it had become the 21st scriptural day. 26 Bede, Hist., 3:25. 27 Pliny, 2:79. 28 Pliny, 2:79; PCAE, p. 10; HBC, p. 8. 29 Anatolius, 15. 30 Columella, 2:10; HLD, p. 1085. 31 Pliny, 2:79; CGS, p. 589. 32 Anatolius, 15. 24 25

More Evidence of the Quasi-Quartodeciman Seven Days

303

new moon just after sunset. It does not begin a few hours later at midnight or with the next morning following the appearance of the new moon. Therefore, to correctly calculate Phasekh, one must determine the days by the scriptural “reckoning of the moon” (i.e., counting the days from sunset to sunset) against the reckoning of the days of the Egyptians and Romans or many of the common people (i.e., counting the days from midnight to midnight or from sunrise to sunrise). Those following the midnight reckoning of the Romans or the sunrise reckoning of the common people did not take this factor into consideration. Unaware of the correct scriptural sunset-to-sunset reckoning, “they do not know that the 13th and 14th”— i.e., the last hours of the 13th Egyptian day (between sunset and midnight or sunset and dawn) and the following period between that same midnight or dawn and the next sunset of their 14th day—combine to form “a single (scriptural) day,”33 that day being the 14th of Abib (sunset-to-sunset reckoning).34 The same is true for each of the following days, the “14th and 15th, the 15th and 16th, the 16th and 17th, the 17th and 18th, the 18th and 19th, the 19th and 20th, the 20th and 21st days of the moon.”35 Counting from Sunset to Sunset Anatolius calculates the seven days of unleavened bread by the scriptural sunset-to-sunset reckoning. He writes: For the (Egyptian) day which in the morning, that is up to the six and one-half hour, is numbered the 13th of the moon is found ad vesperum (at twilight) to be the 14th (scriptural day).36 Put another way, when the “morning” of the Egyptian and Roman day (which follows midnight by six and one-half hours) is the 13th day of the moon, the following ad vesperum (at twilight), i.e., at sunset,37 becomes the 14th day under the scriptural system. Anatolius continues: Wherefore, also, (according to the scriptural method) the Phasekh is enjoined to be extended up until the 21st day ad vesperum (at twilight); which day, without doubt, in the morning, this is, up to that term of hours which we have mentioned (i.e., the six and one-half hour), was reckoned the 20th (in the Egyptian system).38 This evidence proves that Anatolius, as articulated in System A, believed that the correct scriptural system makes the day of the moon begin ad vesperum (at twilight), which as we have already demonstrated in our earlier chapters commences at sunset. Accordingly, the seventh and final day of unleavened bread comes on the day when the morning is counted as the 20th 33 34 35 36 37 38

Anatolius, 8. See Chart L. Ibid. Ibid. See above Chap. XIII, pp. 215f, n. 36. Anatolius, 8.

304

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

of the moon under the Egyptian system, ending at sunset, when the 21st (scriptural) day arrives. In turn, Anatolius reasoned that the seven days of unleavened bread extended from the beginning of the 14th scriptural day, i.e., at sunset, ad vesperum (at twilight), on the 13th Egyptian day, UNTIL (as far as the beginning of) the 21st scriptural day. The 21st scriptural day begins at sunset, ad vesperum (at twilight), on the 20th Egyptian day. Therefore, with the arrival of sunset on the 20th Egyptian day, the 20th scriptural day ends and the 21st scriptural day begins. He explains the System D count for the seven days of unleavened bread by writing: Calculate, then, from the end of the 13th39 (scriptural) day of the moon, which marks the beginning of the 14th (scriptural day), on to the end of the 20th (scriptural day), at which the 21st (scriptural day) also begins, and you will have only seven days of unleavened bread, in which, by the guidance of the sovereign, it has been determined before that the most true festival of Phasekh ought to be celebrated.40 Final Points What makes the record from Anatolius so important is that he admits that the Quartodeciman practice was the original system of the early Jewish priests, such as Aristobulus of Paneas (System A), and of the early disciples of the messiah. His argument is also premised on the fact that System D was the practice of the western Christian assemblies after abandoning System A, while System E was an even more recent innovation. Three premises provided by Anatolius were subsequently adopted by the Alexandrian assembly and then, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., by the Roman Church: how the Church would calculate the beginning of the days of the moon (i.e., from sunset to sunset), that the 14th of Abib should always follow the vernal equinox, and the use of the 19-year cycle (though slightly modified) designed by Anatolius for determining the dates of Phasekh.41 Nevertheless, the Alexandrian and Roman Catholics held fast to their belief that the seven days of unleavened bread, by which the festival of Phasekh should be determined, was to be celebrated on the first day of the week falling within the period from the 15th to the 21st day of the first moon. They utterly rejected the seven days of System D. System D was branded a heresy and condemned as a Quartodeciman practice. The early Latin text reads xii but clearly, as all translators agree, is a scribe’s error for xiii. Anatolius, 8. HCC, pp. 298–332; NCE, 5, p. 8. For the acceptance of Anatolius by the Roman Catholics also see the comments in Bede, 3:25. As a result of the acceptance of several important parts of Anatolius’ conclusions, the Roman theologian, Jerome, applauds him, writing, “We can get an idea of the greatness of his genius from the volume which he wrote On Phasekh and his ten books On the Institutes of Arithmetic” (Jerome, Lives, 73). Eusebius, in his Historia Ecclesiastica, also praises Anatolius and even records a long quote from a portion of his book on the Phasekh. 39 40 41

More Evidence of the Quasi-Quartodeciman Seven Days

305

The Audians The Audians represented an early fourth century C.E. adherence to a form of the System D format which, along with the Quartodeciman view, was actively being suppressed by the Roman emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. The advocates of System E condemned the Audians because they kept “the Phasekh during the period when the Jews are keeping their (days of) unleavened bread, and give as their reason the fact that this was the usage of the assembly.”42 In other words, the Audians allowed for the 14th as a day of unleavened bread and as the Phasekh, for they did not observe the same seven days as the Pharisees. In their defense, the Audians made reference to the second century C.E. Quartodeciman version of the Diataxis,43 where it is claimed that the apostles decreed that one was to “celebrate the festival (of Phasekh) whenever your brethren from the circumcision do. Keep it together with them.”44 Their brethren, of course, were Christian Judaeans (not those of the Jewish faith), a clear reference to the early Quartodecimans and their keeping of the 14th. Because of the Quartodeciman-like views followed by the advocates of System D, the Audians were at first believed by modern-day historians to be Quartodecimans.45 Raniero Cantalamessa rectifies this problem when he writes: Contrary to B. Lohse, Passafest, 16–18, the followers of Audius were not Quartodecimans, for they always celebrated the Pascha on Sunday. But this had to be the first Sunday after the Pesach of their Jewish contemporaries—whose manner of computing the date was rejected at Nicaea. . . . This rejection was the basis of their grievance against Constantine.46 The advocates of System E accused the Audians of Judaizing and ridiculed their view as antithetical to unity. The effort of the Roman Catholic assembly was to eliminate the differing opinions of the various assemblies and the Audians were standing in the way. For example, Epiphanius, writing about 375–378 C.E., chastised the Audians by noting that their view was at one time appropriate when there were Christian Judaeans acting as bishops in Jerusalem (i.e., until 133 C.E.), for “it was necessary at that time that the whole world follow them and celebrate with them, so that there should be a single confession, with all singing in unison, as it were, and celebrating one festival.”47 Yet after these Christian bishops of Judaean ancestry disappeared in the days of Emperor Hadrian, and the Jewish population was replaced by nonJewish Roman citizens (beginning in 135 C.E.), there developed too much disunity.48 Epiphanius continues: 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:2. CJO, pp. 108f. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:10:2. DPDQ, pp. 16–18; ACC, 2, p. 1150. EEC, pp. 169f. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:10:4. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:10:5; cf., Eusebius, H.E., 5:12:1f.

306

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh Wherefore came their concern to bring the mind of men together into the unity of the Assembly. It having been impossible for such a long time to celebrate (with them), with the deity’s approbation, under Constantine (a correction) was made for the sake of concord. It was for the sake of concord that the apostles made that decree, as they attest when they say, “Even if they err, do not be concerned.” The answer (to the Audians) becomes clear from the very things said there. For they (the apostles) tell (us) to hold the vigil during the (days of) unleavened bread, but, given the Assembly’s way of computing (the dates), this cannot always be done.49

It is interesting that even Epiphanius considers the observation of the 14th the original Christian position, thereby making the Roman Catholic System E (which regards the 15th as the legal day of the Phasekh supper) a later Christian innovation. In response, the Audians laid two charges against the Roman assembly and Emperor Constantine: From the time of Constantine, because of special consideration for the emperor, you have abandoned the observance of the fathers concerning the festival of the Phasekh, and you have changed the day to one decreed by the emperor.50 What the Audians were claiming was that, prior to Constantine’s decrees given at the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), the 14th was permitted as the first day of unleavened bread and was used by different assemblies in their calculation of the day of Phasekh. This mutual respect had remained in the assemblies since the time of the great debate between Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Asia (c.158 C.E.). These leaders had agreed to disagree as to which day the Phasekh Eucharist was to be celebrated and the Roman assembly agreed to live in peace with those who kept the 14th. The Roman Church was now whitewashing its original position, which held its right to differ because of the tolerance of the “fathers.” This view allowed Rome to deviate from the conservative Quartodecimans.51 With the support of Constantine, the Roman assembly had changed to a stand of intolerance in the name of unity. What Constantine and his allies at Rome accomplished was to dismiss the 14th as part of the seven days of unleavened bread and the Phasekh festival and to introduce the 15th as its only beginning date for Christians.52 49 50 51 52

Epiphanius, Pan,, 70:10:5. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:3. E.g., see Socrates Schol., 5:22; Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:16f. See below Chaps. XX–XXI.

More Evidence of the Quasi-Quartodeciman Seven Days

307

Other Records Further proof of the System D arrangement, which reflected the Quartodeciman view for the seven days of unleavened bread, was also retained in records from assemblies who continued until the eighth century C.E. but were stationed in outlying areas of the Roman empire. For instance, in 598 C.E. Columbanus, representing the monastery founded by him at Luxovium in Burgundy, wrote to Pope Gregory the Great about “the seven days sanctioned by the sovereign’s command in the Torah, during which only it is enjoined that the sovereign’s Phasekh could lawfully be eaten.” He adds that these seven days “are to be numbered from the 14th day of the moon to the 20th” and that they should not be exceeded.53 The famous Saxon historian Bede (673–735 C.E.)—himself a Roman Catholic who opposed System D and followed System E—also makes reference to the Quartodeciman-based view of System D used in Britain. Referencing the events around the year 601 C.E., Bede writes, “For they (the Britons) kept not the Phasekh on the Sovereign’s day in its due time, but from the 14th to the 20th of the moon.”54 And of the Scots he writes, “they celebrated not the solemnity of Phasekh in due time, but—as we have showed before—thought that they must observe the day of our sovereign’s resurrection from the 14th of the moon to the 20th.”55 Speaking of the Scots (northern Ireland) in the period of 623-634 C.E., Bede reports of the Scottish bishop named Aidan: For he (Aidan) was wont to keep the Sovereign’s day Phasekh from the 14th day after the change of the moon to the 20th according to the custom of his nation, whereof we have diverse times made mention. For the north province of the Scots (northern Ireland) and all the nation of the Picts (Scotland) did at that time still solemnize the sovereign’s Phasekh celebration, thinking that in this observation they had followed the advertisement written by the holy and praiseworthy father Anatolius.56 Pope John of Rome (consecrated December 25, 640 C.E.) sent a letter to the Scots of Ireland, which in part states: We find therein that certain of your province, contrary to the sound orthodoxy, endeavor to renew interest in renewing out of AN OLD HERESY,57 rejecting through the mist of darkness our Phasekh Gregory, Epist., 127. Bede, Hist., 2:2. If the 14th of the moon after the spring equinox fell on Sunday the Britons would keep Phasekh on that day, the Roman Catholics would defer it to the following Sunday. 55 Bede, Hist., 2:4. 56 Bede, Hist., 3:3. 57 The Latin reads, “novam ex veteri haeresim renovare conantes.” 53 54

308

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh in which Christ was sacrificed, and striving to celebrate the same with the Hebrews on the 14th moon.58

In 664 C.E. Coleman, bishop of the Scots of Ireland,—making reference back to both the apostle John and Anatolius of Alexandria (who relied on the apostle John)—claims “that Phasekh ought to be celebrated from the 14th unto the 20th day of the moon.”59 Interestingly, Wilfrid (an advocate of System E) tried to discredit Coleman’s position by admitting that John did in fact keep the 14th, but did not observe the first day of the week as the Phasekh (as required under System D): For John (the apostle) observed the time of Phasekh according to the decrees of the Mosaic law and had no regard to the first day after the (weekly) Sabbath; and this you do not follow, who keep Phasekh only on the first day after the (weekly) Sabbath.60 Wilfrid’s attempt was to separate those following System D from the apostle John and the early Quartodecimans (System A). Yet by doing so, he actually reaffirmed that the only difference between these two camps, with regard to counting the seven days of unleavened bread, was to point out that the early Christians always kept the 14th as the Phasekh. Since John observed the week of Phasekh according to the Mosaic law, it is also clear that he kept both the first and last day of the week of unleavened bread as a high Sabbath. This fact is yet another indication that the Quartodecimans did likewise and that they based their view upon the Aristocratic interpretation for the week of unleavened bread. Similarly, abbot Ceolfrid (an advocate of System E), in about 710 C.E., wrote to King Naitan of the Picts of Scotland about the people in that district holding on to the System D view, stating, “For they which think that the Sovereign’s Phasekh day must be kept from the 14th of the first moon to the 20th anticipate the time commanded in the Torah.”61 Holding to the Hasidic view that the 21st was a high Sabbath, Ceolfrid later adds: And whereas they refuse to keep the sovereign’s Phasekh on the 21st day of the moon, it is surely plain that they exclude utterly from their solemnity that the day which the Torah oftentimes commendeth to be had in memory above all other with a greater festival.62 Those of System D refused the 21st because they believed that the seventh day spoken of in the Torah was the 20th. Though they themselves did not observe the first and last day of unleavened bread as a high Sabbath, unless the 58 59 60 61 62

Bede, Hist., 2:19. Bede, Hist., 3:25. Ibid. Bede, Hist., 5:21. Ibid.

More Evidence of the Quasi-Quartodeciman Seven Days

309

Phasekh of the resurrection happened to fall on one of these days, this detail does indicate that the Quartodecimans, upon whom the System D construct was built, did observe these days. The evidence reveals that as late as the eighth century C.E. there were still many who followed the System D practice by arguing authority from the apostle John, exactly as the Quartodecimans did. Those of System D also based their belief on the research done by Anatolius of Alexandria, i.e., that the Phasekh of the resurrection should be observed only on the first day of the week during the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which falls from the 14th to the 20th (as in System A). Those following System E charged these people with renewing the old System D heresy (at least a heresy in the eyes of the advocates of System E).

Conclusion The evidence proves that the original view of the seven days of unleavened bread used by the early Christian assemblies was the Quartodeciman (Aristocratic) System A practice. In this system the seven days of unleavened bread continued from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon. The first day, the 14th, was the Phasekh supper and a high Sabbath. System D, developed by the orthodox Christians of the West during the early second century C.E., was built upon the same premise as System A, i.e., that the seven days of unleavened bread extended from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon. It differed in that its advocates preferred to celebrate the joyful event of the messiah’s resurrection and not the sad occasion of his death. Therefore, those following System D moved the celebration of the Phasekh supper up to the first day of the week that fell within the seven days of unleavened bread. Yet the key to System D is that it was born from the Quartodeciman construct for the seven days of unleavened bread. As we shall demonstrate in our subsequent chapters, both the Quartodeciman System A and quasi-Quartodeciman System D practices were eventually suppressed by the Hasidic-based System E, developed and advocated by the Roman assembly toward the end of the second century C.E.

Chapter XX

The Roman System (System E)

espite the fact that the quasi-Quartodeciman System D, the early form of the western view, had made some important inroads during the first half of the second century C.E., its advocates still met with strong resistance. The Quartodecimans argued that Christians should observe only the 14th as the Phasekh supper and Eucharist mystery (cup and bread) because the messiah and his disciples kept that same day. This belief was deeply entrenched. It was made more difficult to overcome by the fact that System D was based upon the same apostolic authority (the apostle John) as was the Quartodeciman construct.1 It soon became obvious that if the Roman assembly was to gain political dominance in the West, as well as over many of the eastern assemblies, a new strategy was required. In response, during the last decade of the second century C.E., the western leaders and theologians developed a new approach, the Roman assembly Phasekh and, after the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., canonized as the Roman Catholic Phasekh (System E).

Countering the Quartodecimans In an effort to counter the Quartodeciman threat, which many in the West considered a form of Judaizing, those under Roman leadership modified System D, which observed the 14th through 20th days of the first moon for the seven days of unleavened bread. Under their new system (System E), as with System D, they retained the Sovereign’s day—the first day of the week during the seven days of unleavened bread—as the time to celebrate the mystery of the Eucharist. Yet major changes came in three areas. First, they advanced the Roman assembly view that the period which began with the Friday preceding the Sovereign’s day until Saturday night was the time to fast.2 Second, the advocates of System E made a decision to adopt the Hasidic construct for the seven days of unleavened bread (i.e., counting from the 15th until the end of the 21st day of Abib). However, they discarded the Hasidic interpretation to always observe the 15th and 21st of Abib as high Sabbaths. Third, they adopted the Hasidic interpretation that the 15th of Abib was the correct day for the legal Phasekh supper found in the written Torah. The ramifications of these changes were far-reaching. See above Chap. XVIII, pp. 295f. The observance of this fast was at the heart of the differences between Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus and leader of the Asian assemblies, and Victor, bishop of Rome, in 196 C.E. (Irenaeus, frag. 3; Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:11–16). 1 2

311

312

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

In our present chapter, we shall open our examination of those Christian systems that adopted the Hasidic view of the seven days of unleavened bread with a discussion of (1) the time frame and (2) the originators of the System E construct. Then in our next chapter, we shall document the mechanics of System E and examine other Hasidic-based Christian systems that followed.

Time of the Change The time of change, when the western assemblies moved from System D to System E, occurred in the second half of the first century C.E. As we have already noted, the earliest advocates of the western view (System D) calculated the seven days of unleavened bread from the 14th day until the end of the 20th day of the first moon, a view that was itself Quartodeciman-based. Yet, unlike the Quartodecimans, they observed a Sunday-only celebration of the Phasekh Eucharist. As Raniero Cantalamessa observed: Naturally the choice of the anniversary of the passion rather than the anniversary of the resurrection as the date of the feast meant emphasizing one of the events more than the other.3 The heart of the attempt to persuade other western and the eastern assemblies to leave the Quartodeciman system rested entirely upon very strong anti-Jewish rhetoric and the claim that the day of the resurrection was a much happier occasion to celebrate the mystery of the Eucharist. To solidify this view, the Roman bishops converted the Friday and Saturday preceding Phasekh Sunday into fast days. Yet these arguments were simply not strong enough to bring the Quartodecimans into the western camp. In the latter half of the second century C.E., the East still remained strongly Quartodeciman. In the eyes of the leaders of the Roman assembly, it became a time for change. The leadership of the Roman assembly realized that they could only gain political dominance over all of these other assemblies if the greater Assembly4 was unified in its doctrines. Therefore, it was necessary for them to find a stronger basis for dismissing the 14th as the day of the Phasekh. The result of this activity was the development of a newer construct for keeping the sovereign’s Phasekh of the resurrection—System E, which argued that the Phasekh could only be kept from the 15th to the 21st days of the first month. To further dismiss the Quartodeciman practice for celebrating Phasekh on the 14th, the accusation was made that those observing the 14th were committing an act of Judaizing. The leader of this new movement is uncovered in the following way. Columbanus of Luxovium, who advocated System D, bitterly testified in a letter to Pope Gregory, dated to the year 598 C.E., that the culprit behind this innovation to dismiss the 14th as a day to observe Phasekh and charge it as being an act of Judaizing was Pope Victor of Rome (192–202 C.E.). 3 4

EEC, p. 9. See above Intro.: Sect. II, p. 265, n. 2.

The Roman System (System E)

313

Columbanus of Luxovium writes (and we quote him at some length to gain the flavor of the dispute): . . . after so many authors whom I have read, I am not satisfied with that one sentence of those bishops who say only, “We ought not to keep Phasekh with the Jews” (i.e., on the 14th). FOR THIS IS WHAT BISHOP VICTOR FORMERLY SAID; but none of the Easterns accepted his figment. But this, the benumbing backbone of Dagon; this, the dotage of error drinks in. Of what worth, I ask, is this sentence, so frivolous and so rude, and resting as it does, on no testimonies from sacred Scripture: “We ought not to keep the Phasekh with the Jews”? What has it to do with the question? Are the reprobate Jews to be supposed to keep the Phasekh now, seeing that they are without a temple, outside Jerusalem, and the messiah, who was formerly prefigured, having been crucified by them? Can it be rightly supposed that the 14th day of the moon for the Phasekh was of their own (i.e., a Jewish) appointment? Or, is it not rather to be acknowledged that it is from the deity, who alone knew clearly with what mysterious meaning the 14th day of the moon was chosen for the passage (out of Egypt).5 Under the guiding hand of theoreticians Victor of Rome and Irenaeus of Gaul, and with the agreement of others like Clement of Alexandria, the western assemblies did an about-face and accepted what had previously been shunned—i.e., the Hasidic premise that the seven days of unleavened bread extended from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. The System E concept was developed as a result of the controversy which followed the visit of the Quartodeciman Polycarp of Smyrna, leader of the eastern assemblies, with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome and leader over several of the western assemblies. It was with this dispute that we hear for the first time of a difference between the observance of the 14th as the historical Phasekh and the western observance of Phasekh Sunday (System D) being practiced at Rome. It was no earlier than 158 C.E.,6 and probably shortly thereafter, that these two bishops tried to resolve their differences over the Phasekh issue. Little was accomplished. They only agreed to disagree. Polycarp, already a very old man and unwilling to cause a schism in the Assembly,7 quietly returned home and peace continued between the two sides.8 Gregory, Epist., 127. Anicetus did not obtain the bishopric of Rome until early in 158 C.E. (see Chart K). Polycarp died after living as a Christian for 86 years (Polycarp, 9; Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:3f, 4:15:20). He was converted as a young boy (Pionius, Poly., 3) and, based on various other factors (see App. F and G), he was at least 99 years old at his death. 8 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:14–17; Irenaeus, frag. 3; Socrates Schol., 5:22. 5 6 7

314

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

At the same time, members of the Roman assembly saw Polycarp’s unwillingness to censure or excommunicate Anicetus as a sign of weakness. Polycarp’s inability to convince Anicetus, allowing Anicetus to retain his own view, and then departing Rome on friendly terms actually represented proof in the minds of many members of the western assemblies that the western view was at least equal in authority to the older Quartodeciman view.9 Polycarp’s inability to convince the leadership of Rome, therefore, became the first major step on the road to political dominance for the leadership of the Roman assembly. Perceiving that they were now unfettered and justified in their approach, the Roman assembly began a major campaign to expand their power. During the latter half of the second century C.E., using a series of conferences, epistles, and meetings, they rapidly increased their dominance over many of the other western assemblies, extending their influence even over the Roman province around Jerusalem.10 Meanwhile, shortly before the death of Polycarp (about the spring of 170 C.E.),11 the western doctrine of Phasekh was making its way into Asia. As a result, the Asian assemblies revived the Phasekh debate at Laodicea (in the spring of 167 C.E.).12 Some were, for the first time, pleading an interpretation of the story of the messiah’s suffering that reflected a strong Hasidic influence. The Quartodeciman Apollinarius of Hierapolis, for example, mentions the fact that at that time some, “on account of ignorance,” had stirred up a dispute, arguing that Yahushua had eaten the Phasekh lamb with his disciples on the 14th but did not suffer death until the 15th, “on the great day of Unleavened Bread.”13 The context of this debate is reflected in Apollinarius of Hierapolis’ response, “the 14th is the true Phasekh of the sovereign.”14 This disagreement reveals the beginning of an effort by those who were trying to introduce the Hasidic construct, which makes the 15th the first day of unleavened bread and a high Sabbath, into the Christian Phasekh debate. At that time, Melito, bishop of Sardis, wrote his two books entitled On the Phasekh.15 In this work Melito defended the view of the Asiatic assemblies.16 Shortly thereafter, in approximately 170 C.E.,17 Apollinarius, who was from the city of Hierapolis (located near Laodicea in Asia Minor), also wrote in defense of the Quartodeciman view. The Quartodecimans were now striking back hard. Indeed, their premise was extremely difficult to argue against. As one Quartodeciman pointed out in his debate with Hippolytus: 9 This attitude is clearly expressed by later writers such as Irenaeus, frag. 3; Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:14–18; and Socrates Schol., 5:22. 10 Roman assembly influence over the bishops of Palestine is clearly expressed by the willingness of Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, to join with Victor in the Phasekh controversy. 11 For the date of Polycarp’s death see App. F and G. 12 See above Chap. XVIII, p. 291, n. 11, for the date of this synod. 13 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f; cf., EEC, p. 141, #26, n. b. 14 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f. 15 Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:1–3, which dates the work, “In the time of Servillius Paulus, proconsul, of Asia, at the time when Sagaris was martyred” (i.e., c.164–167 C.E.; see Lake, Euseb., i., p. 387, n. 7). 16 That Melito supported the Quartodeciman view see Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:5. 17 JTS (NS), 24, p. 76.

The Roman System (System E)

315

The messiah kept the Phasekh ON THAT DAY (the 14th) and he suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it (the Phasekh supper) in the same manner as the sovereign did.18 As a result of the Quartodeciman counter-attack, those holding to the early western view (System D) sought for a stronger argument. Under the leadership of Victor, bishop of Rome (192–202 C.E.), a major effort was made by the Roman assembly to gain doctrinal supremacy in reference to the Phasekh. Many meetings and conferences with other bishops were held on this point, and all unanimously formulated in their letters the doctrine of the assembly for those in every country that the mystery of the sovereign’s resurrection from the dead should be celebrated on no day save the Sovereign’s day (Sunday), and that on that day alone they should celebrate the end of the Phasekh fast.19 The results were proclaimed in 196 C.E.20 Victor, who held the leadership in the West, subsequently published a work entitled On the Phasekh Controversy.21 At that moment, the Roman assembly system of fasting for the two days before Phasekh Sunday had attained supremacy among the western assemblies. At the same time, the agreement to observe the Friday and Saturday fast before Phasekh Sunday was also an acceptance of a very different way of celebrating the suffering and resurrection of Yahushua. Instead of annually celebrating the Phasekh on the 14th and the following Sunday as the Sovereign’s day, this new system always celebrated the same three-day sequence: Good Friday represented the day of the messiah’s death, Saturday his time in the grave, and Sunday was the day of his resurrection. The annual observance of the day of the messiah’s death and his time spent buried in the grave was no longer based upon the exact day of the month, regardless of which day of the week they fell upon. This was the Quartodeciman system and it was controlled by the 14th of Abib. Instead, the new annual observance was based upon the exact day of the week, regardless of which day of the month it fell upon. Under this formulation, since the messiah was raised on the Sunday following Phasekh (the 14th), the messiah’s death should annually be observed on the previous Friday and his resurrection on its proper Sunday. Under this Roman system, the days of Phasekh were controlled by the anniversary of the Sunday resurrection.

Conversion to the Hasidic System The most important change instituted by the new Roman system of Phasekh was the introduction of the Hasidic system for the seven days of unleavened Hippolytus, frag. 1. Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:2. With regard to the importance of the fast see above n. 2. Jerome (Euseb., year 2212) associates this debate with the fourth year of Emperor Severus (196/197 C.E., May reckoning). 21 Jerome, Lives, 34. 18 19 20

316

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

bread, i.e., from the 15th to the 21st day of the first moon. The 14th was retained only for the purpose of determining when the first month of the year should be fixed (i.e., the vernal equinox must fall on or before the 14th day of the first moon). Therefore, the first Christians to fully adopt the Hasidic view of eight days of Phasekh were those following the approach of the Roman assembly (System E).22 In a broken passage, the Liber Pontificalis reports this change under Victor: After sacerdotes (a priestly gathering) had been questioned concerning the cycle of Phasekh [var. text reads, “He also summoned a council and an inquiry was made of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, concerning Phasekh and the first day of the week and the moon”],23 he (Victor) issued a decree that the Lord’s day of Phasekh . . . a discussion with priests and bishops and after holding a council to which Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, had been invited, (they determined that) the sacred Phasekh should be kept on the Lord’s day from the 14th to the 21st day of the first lunar month.24 The leaders who created System E were Victor of Rome, Irenaeus of Gaul, and several others. All “expressed one and the same opinion and judgment, and gave the same vote.”25 Due to the many conferences held on the matter, several bishops of the important Christian center at Alexandria, Egypt, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen, quickly agreed. Included in this decision with Victor was Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. These assemblies were governed by non-Judahite Roman-style Christians, the Jews and Christians of Jewish descent having been banned from even coming near the old city.26 The political shift in the days of Victor was now fully evident. This time, instead of the leader of Asia coming to correct the Roman bishop for his separation from the orthodoxy, the Roman leader of the western assemblies notified those in the East that they were to change to the new Roman assembly orthodoxy or face excommunication.27 This episode reflects the changing position of the Roman assembly leadership toward intolerance. When Polycarp of Smyrna, leader of the eastern assemblies, visited with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, in about 158 C.E. and argued that the Roman assembly should change its position in the name of unity, Anicetus utterly refused. Both sides agreed to disagree and toleration See below Chap. XX–XXI. BTP, p. 18. Lib. Pont., 15. Cf. BPLP, p. 6. Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:3f. Eusebius, H.E., 5:22:1–5:23:4, 5:25:1, which shows that Narcissus and Theophilus were in communication with the assembly in Alexandria, Egypt and established agreement between them on how to observe the Phasekh. For Hadrian’s ban against ethnic Judaeans in or near Jerusalem see Eusebius, H.E., 4:6; cf., Dio, 69:12–14; Orosius, 7:13. 27 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:9. 22 23 24 25 26

The Roman System (System E)

317

of each other‘s view of Phasekh was encouraged. With Victor and the events of 196 C.E., on the other hand, the Roman assembly saw its chance to suppress the older Quartodeciman view. Instead of toleration they moved toward an act of excommunication. This new attitude of the Roman leadership would eventually win the day. When Emperor Constantine, in support of the Roman assembly, held the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., the suppression of all other Christian Phasekh systems became the official Roman Catholic policy.

Irenaeus Irenaeus (c.140–202 C.E.), presbyter and bishop of the diocese of Lyons, Gaul (France),28 was a vital player in the formulation of this new Roman assembly view. Though early in his life he lived in Asia among the Quartodecimans and personally knew Polycarp, in his adult life he helped direct the western assemblies toward their new path.29 Irenaeus was a strong and close ally of both Eleutherus (177–192 C.E.) and Victor, bishops of Rome.30 He is noted for his participation in the conferences that created Victor’s decrees to celebrate Phasekh according to the System E scenario.31 Irenaeus also wrote a book entitled On Phasekh, which also discussed Pentecost.32 It is clear that the System E construct for Phasekh, if it was not actually invented jointly by Irenaeus and Victor, was brought to the forefront and advocated by them. This detail is indicated by the following statement made by Wilfrid at the Synod of Whitby in 664 C.E.: The Phasekh which we follow we have seen to be kept by all at Rome where the blessed apostles Peter and Paul lived, taught, suffered and were buried: this manner we have noted to be PRACTICED OF ALL IN ITALY, AND IN GAUL, countries which we have passed through in pursuit of knowledge or desire to pray: This manner we have found to be performed in Africa, Asia, Egypt, Greece and all the world, wherever the assembly HAS BEEN SPREAD, throughout different nations and tongues, after one order of time and that without variableness.33 Notice that the original regions of this new view were Italy and Gaul, where Victor and Irenaeus were head bishops. The practice is then assumed to have spread throughout other countries, with the implication that it came from Italy and Gaul, where it was originally observed. Further, Eusebius (an advocate of System E) notes that Irenaeus represents “the orthodoxy of the Assembly.”34 Eusebius, H.E., 5:4:1, 5:23:4, 5:24:11; Jerome, Lives, 35. For more details regarding the life of Irenaeus, and his education in Rome before he migrated to Gaul, see App. G, pp. 453ff. 30 Eusebius, H.E., 5:4:1, 5:23:4, 5:24:9–18; Jerome, Lives, 35. 31 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:1–4, 5:24:11. 32 Irenaeus, frag. 7; Ps.-Justin, 115. 33 Bede, Hist., 3:25. 34 Eusebius, H.E., 3:23:2. 28 29

318

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh And Eijrhnai`o~ (Eirenaios; Irenaeus), who deserved his name, eijrhnopoiov~ (eirenopoios; peace maker), gave exhortations of this kind for the peace of the Assembly and served as its ambassador, for in letters he discussed the various views on the issue which had been raised (i.e. Phasekh), not only with Victor but also with many other rulers of the assemblies.35

That Irenaeus was a major contributor is further demonstrated by his influence over Victor in the events that followed the series of conferences we have mentioned above. The bishop of Rome had already demonstrated his authority in the West by his ability to bring together the other western assemblies into doctrinal agreement with Roman leadership. This influence, in turn, gave him a great sense of power. As a result, Victor moved to eliminate his opposition. Based upon the agreements he had reached with the other western assemblies, Victor issued a decree that all Christians must keep the Phasekh according to the Roman assembly system. Yet the Quartodecimans remained undaunted. In a formal letter to Victor from Polycrates, leader of the assemblies of Asia, they utterly refused.36 Upon their rebuff, Victor immediately tried to cut off the dioceses of all Asia and the adjacent regions from the common unity. He “indited letters announcing that all the Christians there were absolutely excommunicated.”37 At this point Irenaeus stepped in. But by no means were all pleased by this, so they issued counter-requests to him to consider the cause of peace and unity and love toward his neighbors. Their words are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them too Irenaeus, writing in the name of the Christians in Gaul, whose leader he (Irenaeus) was, though HE HAD RECOMMENDED that the mystery of the sovereign’s resurrection be observed only on the Sovereign’s day, yet nevertheless exhorted Victor suitably and at length not to excommunicate whole assemblies of the deity for following a tradition of ancient custom.38 Due to the request of Irenaeus and the others, Victor recanted.39 The special mention of Irenaeus, who “had recommended” the new view, demonstrates that he had important influence over Victor. Victor saw his chastisement as instruction from one who had been important in the development of the System E construct. Indeed, the works of Irenaeus prove him to be, as Johnannes Quasten calls him, “the founder of Christian theology” as it is known today.40 35 36 37 38 39 40

Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:18. Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:1–8. Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:9; Socrates Schol., 5:22. Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:9–11. Ibid. Patrol., 1, p. 294.

The Roman System (System E)

319

The View of Irenaeus Further evidence that Irenaeus was one of the original builders of the System E construct comes from the remnants of his works, composed between 180– 189 C.E.41 It is in these letters that we first piece together the ideas forming the System E Phasekh. At first Irenaeus, mimicking the Quartodecimans, states that the messiah “ate the Phasekh, and suffered on the next day,”42 that is, he died during the next daylight period. Yet he also adds elsewhere: Of the day of his suffering, too, he (Moses) was not ignorant; but foretold him, after a figurative manner, by the name given to the Phasekh; and at the very festival, which had been proclaimed such a long time previously by Moses, did our sovereign suffer, thus fulfilling the Phasekh. And he did not describe the day only, but the place also, AND THE TIME OF DAY AT WHICH THE SUFFERINGS CEASED, and the sign of the setting of the sun, saying: You may not sacrifice the Phasekh within any other of your cities which the sovereign deity gives you; but in the place which the sovereign your deity shall choose that his name be called on there, you shall sacrifice the Phasekh at vespere (even), toward the setting of the sun.43 The writings of Irenaeus reflect the earliest Christian interpretation which held to the prescript that Moses had commanded the Phasekh lamb to be killed prior to the setting of the sun (i.e., at the end of the 14th day), being also the same time that the messiah died. Therefore, he interprets the day of the messiah’s death along Hasidic lines, while fully acknowledging that the messiah ate the Phasekh the night before (at the beginning of the 14th day). How the advocates of System E dealt with the dilemma of two Phasekh suppers (one eaten by the messiah on the 14th and one by the Jewish leaders on the 15th) shall be discussed as we proceed.

Clement of Alexandria An important convert to System E was Clement of Alexandria (writing c.193– 212 C.E.). When the bishops of Alexandria came over to the System E side, it tipped the scale strongly in favor of Rome. Eusebius classes Clement with Irenaeus as one of the two great men who “represent the orthodoxy of the assembly.”44 In his own work on the Phasekh, Clement sets down Irenaeus’ account of the Phasekh debate, thereby showing that Irenaeus had important influence upon Clement.45 Bringing the Alexandrian Christians over to the Roman side would prove to be an important political victory. 41 E.g., EEC, p. 145, #28, “Written between 180 and 185.” Sections were probably composed in the first years of Victor, when he was co-bishop with Eleutherus (189–193 C.E.), cf., Chart K. 42 Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 2:22:3. 43 Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 4:10:1. 44 Eusebius, H.E., 3:23:2. 45 Clement, Pas., frag. 25.

320

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Clement was the product of an Alexandrian school taught by a man named Pantaenus. It was in the year that Commodus received the sovereignty (180 C.E.) that “a man very famous for his learning named Pantaenus had charge of the life of the faithful in Alexandria, for from ancient custom a school of sacred learning existed among them.”46 Eusebius tells us of this man: Pantaenus, after many achievements, was at the head of the school in Alexandria until his death, and orally and in writing expounded the treasures of the divine doctrine.47 Eusebius also informs us that, “tradition says that at that time Pantaenus was especially eminent, and that he had been influenced by the philosophic system of those called Stoics.”48 This Greek Stoic philosophy was also strong among the large Pharisaic community of Jews living in Alexandria, for the Pharisees were “a sect having points of resemblance to that which the Greeks call the Stoic school.” 49 In this regard, Pantaenus and the Jews held common ground. Clement of Alexandria was a student of Pantaenus.50 Indeed, Clement “was famous in Alexandria for his study of the sacred Scriptures with Pantaenus.”51 He even succeeded Pantaenus as head of the school at Alexandria.52 Clement’s activity in Alexandria is dated by his work entitled Stromateis. This book uses the death of Emperor Commodus (December of 192 C.E.) as a terminus, showing that Clement was writing early in the reign of Severus (193–211 C.E.).53 At the outbreak of persecution under Severus in 202 C.E., Clement left Alexandria, never to return. He had served more than 20 years as a presbyter of the assembly in Alexandria.54 In the many works attributed to Clement of Alexandria, two are relevant for our discussion. One is entitled To the Judaizers. It was dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem (211 C.E.).55 Though this book is now lost, its very title reflects his anti-Jewish sentiment. Clement also wrote an important book discussing the Phasekh. Eusebius informs us: And in his (Clement’s) book On the Phasekh he professes that he was compelled by his companions to commit to writing traditions that he had heard from the elders of olden time, for the benefit of those that should come after; and he mentions in it Melito and Irenaeus and some others, whose accounts also of the matter he has set down.56 Eusebius, H.E., 5:10. Ibid. Ibid. Jos., Life, 1:2. Eusebius, H.E., 5:11, 6:13. Eusebius, H.E., 5:11. Eusebius, H.E., 6:6. Eusebius, H.E., 6:6. Butterworth, Clement, p. xii. Eusebius, H.E., 6:13:3, cf., 6:8:7, 6:11, the year Antoninus Caracalla succeeded Severus (i.e., 211 C.E.), at the time when Alexander became bishop of Jerusalem. 56 Eusebius, H.E., 6:13:9. 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

The Roman System (System E)

321

In another place he similarly states: Clement of Alexandria quotes this treatise in his own On the Phasekh, which he says that he compiled in consequence of the writing of Melito.57 This evidence proves that Clement of Alexandria composed his own work with regard to the Phasekh based upon his studies of arguments given by Irenaeus and Melito. Clement favored the views of Irenaeus and opposed the Quartodeciman views of Melito. He demonstrates his pro-System E bias when he writes: Accordingly, in the years gone by, Yahushua went to eat the Phasekh sacrificed by the Jews, keeping the festival. . . . Suitably, therefore, to the 14th day, on which he also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes, who brought him to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the Phasekh at eJspevra~ (esperas; twilight). With this precise determination of the days both the whole Scriptures agree, and the good news (New Testament) harmonizes. The resurrection also attests to it. He certainly rose on the third day, which fell on the first day of the Weeks of Harvest, on which the Torah prescribed that the priest should offer up the sheaf.58 By claiming that the messiah always ate the Phasekh sacrificed by the Jews, and then tying it to the fact that on the morning of the 14th the Jewish leaders had not yet partaken of the Phasekh, Clement of Alexandria reflects the view that the messiah did not partake of the legal Phasekh supper for his Last Supper. The coupling of the omer wave offering on the first day of the week with the resurrection of the messiah, of course, reflects his intent on celebrating the Phasekh of the resurrection. What is interesting about Clement of Alexandria’s work on the Phasekh is that he also demonstrates the transition period from System D to System E. This detail is reflected in his thoughts about John 13:1–12. In a fragment from this work, where he uses an Egyptian (midnight to midnight) reckoning for a day,59 we read: But when he (the messiah) had preached he who was the Phasekh, the lamb of the deity, led as a sheep to the slaughter, presently taught his disciples the mystery of the type on the 13th day, on which also they inquired, Where will you that we prepare for you to 57 58 59

Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:4. Clement, Pas., frag. 28. The Egyptians and Romans reckoned a midnight-to-midnight day (Pliny, 2:79).

322

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh eat the Phasekh (Matt., 26:17). It was on this day (the Egyptian 13th = the evening before midnight) then, that both the consecration of the unleavened bread and the preparation for the festival took place. Whence John naturally describes the disciples as already previously prepared to have their feet washed by the sovereign. AND ON THE FOLLOWING DAY (the Egyptian 14th) our saviour suffered, he who was the Phasekh, propitiously sacrificed by the Jews.60

The interpretation of John, 13:1–12, which mentions a meal that took place on the day “before the Festival of the Phasekh” and during which the messiah washed the feet of his disciples,61 is for the first time found associated with the Last Supper.62 This shows Clement of Alexandria’s belief that the Phasekh supper of the messiah was held on the day before the legal Phasekh of the Jews. As Cyril Richardson states, Clement of Alexandria makes the Last Supper “a pre-Passover enacted parable.”63 No doubt the Egyptian work attributed to the Gospel of the Hebrews, as indirectly quoted by Jerome (c.348–420 C.E.), comes from the time of Pantaenus and Clement. It reads, “The eight days of the Phasekh, on which the messiah the son of the deity rose.”64 This statement reflects the transition from the earlier Quartodeciman view of a seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread to the Pharisaic eight days.

Origen The System E interpretation is also reflected in the works of Origen (c.185–254 C.E.), the pupil of Clement of Alexandria.65 Origen was young as a student, for he was a teacher himself by the age of 20.66 He was trained by Clement at the very time of Victor’s decree. Origen was originally from Alexandria but later left Egypt (234 C.E.) and was ordained in Caesarea in Palestine, where he began writing (between 234–251 C.E.).67 Origen accepted the Pharisaic interpretation for the week of Phasekh. In his work On Phasekh, he recounts the commands given in Exodus, 12:3–5, where the Israelites are told to take the lamb on the 10th day of the moon and keep it until the 14th for sacrificing. Origen then explains this statement by saying, “but he does not sacrifice or eat him before five days have gone by.”68 The fifth day after the tenth is the 15th, thereby placing the Phasekh supper on the 15th. He even connects the time for killing the lamb, “pro~ esperan (pros esperan, at twilight),” with the “last hour” of the day, on the 14th.69 Clement, Pas., frag. 28. John, 13:1f. That the supper and feet washing of John, 13:1–12, actually occurred on the night of the 13th of Abib see FSDY, 2. 63 JTS (NS), 24, p. 77. 64 EEC, p. 38. 65 Eusebius, H.E., 6:6. 66 Daly, Origen, p. 2. 67 Daly, Origen, p. 3. 68 Origen, Pas., 18. 69 Origen, Pas., 25, cf., 16, 17, 20. 60 61 62

The Roman System (System E)

323

Origen also interprets that it is on the 15th that the moon reaches its “fullest plenitude.”70 Origen once more connects the eating of the Phasekh with the 15th by concluding from this typology, “And for our part, unless the perfect, true light rises over us and we see how it perfectly illumines our guiding intellect, we will not be able to sacrifice and eat the true lamb.”71 Like Clement of Alexandria, Origen places the incidents of the supper and feet washing found in John, 13:1–12, with the events during the day of the Last Supper,72 thereby connecting the Phasekh meal eaten by the messiah with the day before the Phasekh.73

Conclusion The evidence demonstrates that an important movement toward the Christian Hasidic system got under way around 165 C.E. and blossomed in the days of Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, and Victor, bishop of Rome, and their important proclamation of 196 C.E. The result was System E, which follows the Hasidic System of observing the seven days of unleavened bread, i.e., from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first month of the scriptural calendar. Its advocates did not allow that the 14th day of that month was the legal Phasekh supper. Instead, they interpreted the data so that the messiah and his disciples kept the Phasekh sacrifice and supper on the night of the 14th as a pre-Phasekh enacted parable. The Last Supper, therefore, was merely a foretype of the future Phasekh that was to be kept only on the first day of the week when it fell on any of the days extending from the 15th to 21st of Abib.

70 71 72 73

Origen, Pas., 20. Origen, Pas., 21. Origen, Com. John, 32. As stated in John, 13:1f.

Chapter XXI

The Seven Days of Systems E, F, and G

ur attention shall now turn to the evidence demonstrating the mechanics of the Christian Hasidic construct as represented by Roman assembly System E. This construct eventually resulted in another form, the Syrian hybrid System F, which was an attempt to merge the Quartodeciman System A with System E. To this discussion we shall also attach a description of the more recent innovation, System G. We shall first examine the evidence for the Roman assembly System E construct. The evidence shall demonstrate the change by the western assemblies to the Hasidic method for the seven days of unleavened bread. To justify this change, System E advocates were also obliged to apply a new interpretation to the Last Supper, explaining why the messiah and his disciples observed the 14th of Abib as the Phasekh supper if the 15th was deemed the proper time under the Torah of Moses. In the region of Syria, meanwhile, theologians, who had supported Systems A and D and were influenced by the Council of Nicaea to adopt System E, developed a hybrid solution in order to overcome the strong Quartodeciman leanings of that region. They adopted System F. The Syrian hybrid System F kept the 14th as the Phasekh (the Last Supper) but then utilized the Hasidic System B for the seven days of unleavened bread (i.e., from the 15th until the end of the 21st). In this fashion, they were able to observe, along with the West, the Friday and Saturday fast and to celebrate the first day of the week within the seven days of unleavened bread as the Phasekh of the resurrection. In effect, System F actually served as a transitional phase. As time progressed, the East, for the most part, dropped System F and fully adopted System E. Finally, we shall also add a few comments about System G, a more recent invention that is also built upon the Hasidic construct for the seven days of unleavened bread. Like her sister systems, System G observes the seven days of unleavened bread from the 15th until the end of the 21st of Abib and, like System F, keeps Phasekh on the 14th of Abib.

System E To counter the Quartodecimans, the western assemblies, under the leadership of Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, and Victor, bishop of Rome, abandoned System D, which observed the 14th through 20th days of the first moon for the seven days of unleavened bread, and adopted in its place System E, which utilized

325

326

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

the Hasidic construct for these seven days (i.e., counting from the 15th until the end of the 21st day). The advocates of System E advanced their formula by making the claim that the Pharisees had been correct all along in observing the 15th as the legal Phasekh and as the first day of the seven days of unleavened bread. Indeed, the Jewish Talmud records that “on the arab of the Phasekh” Yahushua was hanged, i.e., on the afternoon before the Phasekh supper.1 Mimicking this view, The Good News According to Peter, a Roman Christian work composed no earlier than about 180 C.E., states that Yahushua was delivered to the people “on the day before the unleavened bread, their feast,”2 this despite the plain statements from the New Testament that the messiah both ate his Last Supper and died on the first day of unleavened bread.3 Armed with this Pharisaic view, the advocates of System E denounced any celebration of the 14th as a day of Phasekh. Instead, they advanced the doctrine that, at the messiah’s Last Supper, he never actually kept the legal Phasekh of the written Torah. Rather, they claimed that he merely kept the 14th as a typology for a new Christian Phasekh which took the place of the old Jewish Phasekh. Though Good Friday (which they calculated as the day of the week when the messiah suffered death) and the following Saturday were also observed in remembrance, these days were treated as a time of fasting. The celebration of the new Christian Phasekh as a feast, on the other hand, was kept only on the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection, called “the Sovereign’s day” (the “Lord’s day” in popular English culture), when that day fell during the seven days of unleavened bread (i.e., from the 15th through the 21st days of the first moon).

The Last Supper: Not the Legal Phasekh? One of the key elements in the System E scenario is the view that the Last Supper of the messiah was not the dinner of the legal Phasekh, this despite three Synoptic texts explicitly mentioning the preparations for it as the Phasekh4 and the reference in Luke, 22:15–18, to “eating the Phasekh (lamb)” at this meal.5 They do agree that the Last Supper took place on the 14th of Abib, within the night prior to the afternoon of the Jewish sacrifice of the Phasekh lamb6 and in the 24-hour day before the Jewish leaders kept their Phasekh supper.7 The System E view is clearly set forth by three important and early supporters of that interpretation: Hippolytus, Peter of Alexandria, and Chrysostom. 1 B. Sanh., 43a, “And it is tradition: jsph br[b (On the arab of the Phasekh) they hung Yeshua (Yahushua the Nazarene). And the crier went forth before him 40 days, (saying), ‘(Yeshua) goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic and deceived and led astray Israel.’” The terms “Arab” and “the Phasekh” are used here in the Pharisaical sense, i.e., to refer to the “afternoon” of the day of the Phasekh sacrifice (Abib 14). 2 GN Peter, 3. 3 Matt., 26:17; Mark, 14;12; Luke, 22:7. 4 Mark, 14:12–17; Matt., 26:17–20; Luke, 22:7–14. 5 JTS, 9, pp. 305–307; EWJ, p. 16–19, p. 16, n. 2, p. 19, n. 2; CSJBO, pp. 119f. 6 Mark, 14:12; Luke, 22:7. 7 John, 18:28.

The Seven Days of Systems E, F, and G

327

Hippolytus Hippolytus (died 235 C.E.) was a strong advocate of the System E (Roman assembly) interpretation. Due to his beliefs, he found it important in his writings to address the Quartodeciman argument that the “Phasekh should be kept on the 14th day of the first moon, according to the commandment of the Torah, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur.” Hippolytus retorts that these Quartodecimans “only regard what has been written in the Torah, that he will be accursed who does not so keep (the Torah) as it is enjoined.”8 He then condemns the Quartodecimans as coming under the written Torah, arguing: They do not, however, attend to this (fact), that the legal enactment was made for the Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Phasekh. And this (sacrifice) has spread unto the nations, and is discerned by trust, and not now observed in the letter (of the law). They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the apostle: “For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole Torah.” In other respects, however, these consent to all the traditions delivered to the assembly by the apostles.9 The first detail noticed, as already demonstrated in the first part of our study, is that the western assemblies had lost touch with the difference between the dogmasin of the Mosaic Torah and the earlier statutes followed by Abraham. The fact that the Mosaic dogmasin, such as fleshly circumcision, had been set aside has nothing to do with whether or not the festival and sacred days of Yahweh are to be kept. To this doctrine, the proponents of System E added the legal interpretation of the Phasekh advocated by the Hasidic Jews. Hippolytus, for example, claims that the Quartodecimans have “fallen into error by not perceiving that at the time when the messiah suffered HE DID NOT EAT THE PHASEKH OF THE TORAH.”10 In another place, he similarly states, “for he who said of old, ‘I will not any more eat the Phasekh,’ probably partook of a supper before the Phasekh. BUT THE PHASEKH HE DID NOT EAT, but he suffered; for it was not the time for him to eat (it).”11 Peter of Alexandria The case for the Hasidic view and against the Aristocratic view is also made by Peter of Alexandria (300–311 C.E.). Though he accepts Abib 14 as the Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 6:11. Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 6:11. Hippolytus misses the intent of Saul’s comment. Saul also commands men to keep the Phasekh festival (1 Cor., 5:7f). Circumcision was a dogmasin (public decree) and was never a pre-Torah olam (age-lasting) statute. As we have already shown in our Part I, the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread differs from circumcision in that it is an olam statute attached to the Covenants of Promise and does not find its origin as a dogmasin of the Torah of Moses. 10 Hippolytus, frag. 1. 11 Hippolytus, frag. 2. 8 9

328

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

day of the Phasekh,12 he does so along the lines of the Pharisees. That is, he considers the Phasekh of the 14th as only including the sacrifice, while the 15th was the feast meal.13 Therefore, as is the case with the Pharisees, Peter of Alexandria makes the festival of Phasekh, as found in the Torah of Moses, a celebration lasting eight days.14 For example, Peter agrees that the 14th was the day upon which the Phasekh was sacrificed and the messiah died.15 Nevertheless, Peter only accepts the Pharisaic view that, under the written Torah, the high Sabbath was the 15th, the first day of the seven days of unleavened bread, and the correct time of the Phasekh supper. Like Hippolytus, Peter of Alexandria states that the messiah, while in the flesh, “with the people, in the years before his public ministry and during his public ministry, did celebrate the legal and shadowy Phasekh, eating the typical lamb,” for he came not to destroy the Torah, or the prophets, but to fulfill them.16 Peter of Alexandria then adds: But after his public ministry, he (Yahushua) DID NOT EAT OF THE LAMB, but himself suffered as the true Lamb in the Phasekh festival, as John, the divine and evangelist, teaches us in the good news written by him.17 Peter of Alexandria then makes reference to the events of John, 18:28, that, while Yahushua was in the praitwvrion (praitorion, hall of judgment), the Jews would not enter, “lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Phasekh.” He adds, “On that day, therefore, on which the Jews were about to eat the Phasekh pro;~ eJspevran (pros esperan; at twilight), our sovereign and saviour Yahushua the messiah was crucified.”18 The point of this argument is that the messiah ate his Last Supper on the 14th, the day of his execution. Yet, after the Jewish leaders had delivered Yahushua to Pilate, they were still waiting to celebrate their Phasekh meal (i.e., with the arrival of the 15th). The Quartodecimans actually agreed with this understanding of the events surrounding the Last Supper. The difference between the two positions was the insistence by the advocates of System E that the Jewish leaders (who utilized the Hasidic calculations for the week of Phasekh) were correctly observing the legal Phasekh of the written Torah. The Quartodecimans claimed the Jewish leaders of that time were mistaken. Peter of Alexandria, therefore, finds it fitting to defend the position of the Pharisees against the Quartodecimans. He writes: For the deity does not say that they (the Jewish leaders) did always err in their heart as regards the precept of the Torah concerning the Phasekh, as you (the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Peter Alex., frag. 5:1. Peter Alex., frag. 5:1–7. Cf., Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1. Peter Alex., frag. 5:1, 2, 7. Peter Alex., frag. 5:7. Ibid. Ibid.

The Seven Days of Systems E, F, and G

329

Quartodecimans) have written, but on account of all their other disobedience, and on account of their evil and unseemly deeds, when, indeed, he perceived them turning to idolatry and to porneia (sexual misconduct).19 Accepting the fact that the Jewish religious leaders had not yet eaten their Phasekh on the 14th, Peter continues: On that day, therefore, on which the Jews were about to eat the Phasekh pro;~ eJspevran (pros esperan; at twilight), our sovereign and saviour Yahushua the messiah was killed on a (torture-)stake, being made the victim to those who were about to partake by trust of the mystery concerning him, according to what is written by the blessed Paul: “For even the messiah our Phasekh is sacrificed for us”; and not as some (the Quartodecimans) who, carried along by ignorance, confidently affirm that after he had eaten the Phasekh, he was betrayed.20 Peter sums up the matter, stating: At the time, therefore, in which our sovereign suffered for us, according to the flesh, HE DID NOT EAT OF THE LEGAL PHASEKH; but, as I have said, he himself, as the true Lamb, was sacrificed for us in the festival of the typical Phasekh, on the day of the preparation, the 14th of the first lunar month. The typical Phasekh, therefore, then ceased, the true Phasekh being present.21 Chrysostom Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople (born 347 C.E., died Sept. 14, 407 C.E.), was appointed bishop of Constantinople in 398 C.E.22 As with the other advocates of System E, he makes the 14th, the day that the messiah ate his Last Supper and suffered death, “the first day of unleavened bread.” He then clarifies his view by calling it “the day BEFORE the festival; for they (the Jews) are accustomed always to reckon the day from eJspevra~ (esperas; twilight).”23 In this way, Chrysostom counts eight days of unleavened bread yet makes the first day of unleavened bread come before the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread. Chrysostom also shows that many of the Christian Quintodecimans (15th day observers) had trouble explaining away the evidence that the Last Supper was the legal Phasekh. He was forced to face the following question: 19 20 21 22 23

Peter Alex., frag. 5:4. Peter Alex., frag. 5:7. Ibid. JE, 4, p. 75. Chrysostom, Hom., 81:1.

330

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh But how, if they (the disciples of Yahushua) were eating the Phasekh, could they eat it contrary to the Torah? For they should not have eaten it, sitting down to their food. What then can be said? That after eating it (on the 14th), they then sat down to the banquet (on the 15th)?24

His response, in agreement with other advocates of System E, was to allow that the Last Supper on the night of the 14th was indeed a Phasekh meal but not the legal one kept by the Jews. Rather, it was the ordainment of a new “sacrament, at the time of Phasekh.”25 As Eutychius (late sixth century C.E.) comments, “Therefore, before he suffered he did eat the Phasekh—the mystical Phasekh, of course.”26 This new Phasekh, Chrysostom reports, was kept by the messiah and his disciples the day before the new Christian schedule “to deliver to you the new rites, and to give a Phasekh” by which the messiah could make us spiritual.27 According to this view, the new sacrament was not appointed previously to the day of the messiah’s Last Supper, but was given at that time because the written Torah was to cease. Chrysostom adds, “And thus the very chief of the festivals (Phasekh) he (Yahushua) brings to an end, removing them to another most awful table.”28 Thus began a new table from which we are to eat a new Phasekh with new rituals and meanings. The advocates of System E proposed that this new Phasekh was kept for the first time on the 14th of the first moon with the messiah’s Last Supper. Because the messiah’s Last Supper was observed on the 14th, it was also reasoned that it could not be the legal Phasekh of the Torah of Moses, which was observed by the Jewish state on the 15th. The interpretation was then advanced that, since the messiah’s Phasekh was held on the 14th, it was a typology for Christians, meant to be expressed in the future only on the joyful celebration of the day of the resurrection (the Sovereign’s day), which fell on the first day of the week during the seven days of unleavened bread. It was therefore advanced that the Last Supper actually allowed Christians to keep the Phasekh annually on the first day of the week during any one of the seven days of unleavened bread (i.e., from the 15th through the 21st day of the first moon). The dispute was bitter and the schism was inevitable. The Quartodecimans agreed with the Roman assembly that the old Phasekh of the Torah, which required each household to sacrifice a lamb, had indeed come to an end with the death of the messiah, the true lamb.29 They also agreed that the unleavened bread and wine consumed at the Phasekh meal revealed a higher meaning as symbols of the messiah. Yet they ardently disagreed with the System E premise that the Phasekh supper kept by the messiah just prior to his death, falling as it did on the 14th of Abib, was not the legal Phasekh. Chrysostom, Hom., 81:3. Chrysostom, Hom., 82:1. Eutychius, 2. Chrysostom, Hom., 82:1. Ibid. For example, this theme is expressed throughout the work on the Phasekh by Melito of Sardis. Also see Ps.-Hippolytus, 1–3; Pas. Proclam., Exsult., 4. 24 25 26 27 28 29

The Seven Days of Systems E, F, and G

331

Neither would they admit to the idea that the messiah observed the Phasekh only this once on the 14th, and that this one-time celebration set an example which gave Christians permission to change the official reckoning for the date of the Phasekh supper and mystery of the cup and bread.

The Seven Days For System E the seven days of unleavened bread followed the Hasidic practice (System B), extending from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. Nevertheless, the first moon of the year was still determined by the 14th day of the moon falling either on or after the spring equinox.30 Wilfrid, at the Synod of Whitby (664 C.E.), for example, notes that “it came to pass that the dominica (Sovereign’s day) Phasekh was kept only between the 15th day of the change of the moon to the 21st and no day else.”31 The System E argument is also fully expressed in a letter from the abbot Ceolfrid to Naitan, king of the Picts of Scotland, trying to convince the latter to keep the Phasekh established by the Roman Church. He gives three rules for the observance of Phasekh: There are then three rules given in sacred Scripture by which the time of solemnizing Phasekh is appointed for us, which by no authority at all of many may be changed; of which rules two are established by the deity in the Torah of Moses, and the third was joined in the good news (New Testament) by the means of the sovereign’s suffering and resurrection. For the Torah commanded that in the first month of the year, and in the third week of the same month, that is from the 15th day to the 21st, the Phasekh should be kept: it was added by the institution of the apostles out of the good news (New Testament) that in the selfsame third week we should tarry for the Sovereign’s day (Sunday) and in it keep the beginning of the time of Phasekh.32 In reference to the commands of Exodus, 12:1–3, Ceolfrid also takes the Hasidic interpretation: By the words which it is most plainly seen, that in the observation of the Phasekh the 14th day is mentioned, yet it is not so mentioned that on that very 14th day it is commanded the Phasekh (lamb) should be kept, but that, when at length vespera (twilight) of the 14th day approaches, that is, when the 15th moon, which making the beginning of the third 30 31 32

E.g., Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:14–17; Ps.-Chrysostom, 7:4, 35; Bede, Hist., 5:21. Bede, Hist., 3:25. Bede, Hist., 5:21.

332

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh week, comes forth into the face of the heaven (i.e. very late afternoon of the 14th), the lamb is bidden to be killed: and it is plain that it is the selfsame night of the 15th day of the moon in which the Egyptians were smitten and Israel redeemed from the long slavery. “Seven days,” he says, “shall you eat unleavened bread.” With which words likewise all the third week of the said first month it is decreed should be solemn. But that we should not think the same 7 days to be counted from the 14th to the 20th, he added straightway: ”The first day there shall be no leaven in your houses. Whosoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh, that life shall be cut off from Israel,” and so forth, till he says: “For in this selfsame day will I bring your army out of the land of Egypt.”33

Abbot Ceolfrid goes on to deny that the 14th was one of the seven days of unleavened bread by identifying the night that Israel was brought out of Egypt with the 15th, being the day after the Phasekh (sacrifice), according to the Hasidic interpretation of Numbers, 33:3. He (Moses) then calls the first day of unleavened bread the one in which he was to bring their army out of Egypt. But it is manifest that they were not brought out on the 14th day, in the vespera whereof the lamb was slain, and which is properly called the Phasekh or Phase; but in the 15th day they were brought out of Egypt, as it is evidently written in the book of Numbers.34 Ceolfrid thereby makes the seven days last “from the beginning of the third week, that is, from the 15th day of the first moon to the 21st day of the same month fully complete.”35 His argument continues: Further, the 14th day is noted down separately outside this number under the name of the Phasekh, as that which follows in Exodus does evidently declare; where, after it was said: “For in this selfsame day will I bring your armies out of the land of Egypt”; it was added straightway: “And you shall observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. In the first month, on the 14th day of the month, you shall eat unleavened bread to the 21st day of the month ad vesperam (at twilight).36 Seven days shall there be no Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. The term ad vesperam (at twilight) is here a translation of the Hebrew term br[b (be-arab), but is interpreted in the Pharisee fashion as late afternoon. 33 34 35 36

The Seven Days of Systems E, F, and G

333

leaven found in your homes.” For who cannot see, that from the 14th to the 21st be not only 7 days but rather 8, if the 14th be itself also reckoned in? But if we will count from the vespera of the 14th day until the ad vesperam of the 21st—as the verity of sacred Scripture diligently search out does declare—we shall well perceive that the 14th day continues its vesperam to the beginning of the Phasekh festival in such a manner that the whole sacred solemnity contains only 7 nights with as many days.37

Authority from Constantine What had begun in c.196 C.E. as a challenge to the Quartodeciman position by Victor, bishop of Rome, was finally granted full authority throughout the Roman empire at the behest of Emperor Constantine. Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. One of the results of this conference was the declaration by Constantine that the Hasidic view for the seven days of unleavened bread, as instituted by Pope Victor, was the correct system under the Torah. Proof of this detail is demonstrated in a letter sent by Pope John IV (consecrated in December of 640 C.E.) to the Scots for the sake of persuading them to amend their System D position. As part of this letter the pope is found “plainly asserting therein that the sovereign’s Phasekh ought to be sought for from the 15th of the moon up to the 21st, AS WAS APPROVED IN THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA.”38 Wilfrid at the Synod of Whitby similarly states: Neither does this tradition of the good news (New Testament) and of the apostles break the Torah but rather fulfill it, for in the Torah it is commanded that the Phasekh should be solemnized from ad vesperam (at twilight = be-arab, interpreted as late afternoon) of the 14th day of the change of the moon of the first month until the 21st day of the same moon ad vesperam (at twilight = be-arab, interpreted as late afternoon): to the following of which observation all the successors of blessed John in Asia after his death and all the assembly throughout the world were converted. And it was BY THE NICAEAN COUNCIL not newly decreed but confirmed, as the ecclesiastical history witnesses, that this is the true Phasekh. This only is to be celebrated by believing men.39 With the force of the Christian emperor of Rome behind the decision, the western assemblies moved to force all other Christian assemblies to unify under just one common system for celebrating Phasekh. 37 38 39

Bede, Hist., 5:21. Bede, Hist., 2:19. Bede, Hist., 3:25.

334

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Hybrid Syrian System F Another form of Phasekh among the ancient assemblies was System F, which was practiced for a time in Syria. The Syrian Phasekh celebration of the third and fourth century C.E. was the direct heir of the Asiatic tradition of the Quartodecimans.40 At the same time, during this period the eastern regions came evermore under the increasing pressure from the western assemblies, especially after the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), to convert to System E. This heavy western influence eventually resulted in the adoption of System E throughout the East, but not right away. Jerome, in a letter to Pope Damasus written in about 377 C.E., mentions the troubles found among the Christian assemblies of the East (Syria) during this period.41 He speaks of the East (Syria) as being “shattered as it is by the longstanding feuds, subsisting between its peoples.” He continues by observing that this problem “is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the sovereign.”42 During this time of upheaval in Syria, and as a transitional phase, some of the Syrian Christians created a hybrid form of the Phasekh celebration that incorporated aspects of both Systems A and E. On the one hand, the Syrian Christians were strongly allied with the Quartodecimans on the issue of which day should represent Phasekh. The historian A. Hamman writes of this transition period: Syria, close to the usage of the Jewish-Christian community, continued to celebrate the Pasch, like the Jews, on the fourteenth Nisan, the anniversary of the night when Jesus was delivered on whatever day of the week it might occur.43 The Didascalia Apostolorum, composed in the first decades of the third century C.E., reflects the Ante-Nicaean portion of this transitional phase for those of Syria following the Quartodeciman System A premise. Wherever, then, the 14th of the Phasekh falls, so keep it; for neither the month nor the day squares with the same season every year, but is variable. When therefore that people (the Jews) keep the Phasekh (i.e. the 15th), do you fast; and be careful to perform your vigil within their (days of) unleavened bread. But on the first day of the week make good cheer at all times.44 Aphraates (writing c.344 C.E.) demonstrates the continued Quartodeciman proclivity of the Syrians after the Council of Nicaea when he writes: 40 41 42 43 44

EEC, p. 15. Jerome, Epist., 15, cf., 16. Jerome, Epist., 15. TPM, p. 11. Didas. Apost., 21, 5:20:10.

The Seven Days of Systems E, F, and G

335

For at the dawn of the 14th day he (Yahushua) ate the Phasekh with his disciples ACCORDING TO THE TORAH OF ISRAEL, and on this day of the Parasceve (Preparation), the 14th day, he was judged until the sixth hour and was killed on a (torture-) stake for three hours. . . . Hence the one who has difficulties about these days will understand that at the dawn of the 14th (day) our sovereign celebrated the Phasekh and ate and drank with his disciples, but from the time when the cock crowed (about 3 A.M.) he ate and drank no more, because they took him captive and began to judge him.45 Again he writes: Our saviour ate the Phasekh with his disciples in the sacred night of the 14th, and he performed the sign of the Phasekh (i.e., the Eucharist mystery) in truth for his disciples. . . . And he was taken in the night of the 14th, and his trial lasted until the sixth hour (noon), and at the time of the sixth hour they sentenced him and lifted him up on the (torture-)stake.46 Ephraem the Syrian (mid-fourth century C.E.) claims the messiah ate the legal Phasekh. He tells his Jewish adversaries: In your time our sovereign ate the little Phasekh and became himself the great Phasekh. Phasekh was mingled with Phasekh, festival joined to festival; a temporary Phasekh, and another that abides; type and fulfillment.47 In this same vein, the Syrian writer Cyrillonas (end of the fourth century C.E.) equates the night that the messiah prepared and ate the Phasekh in the upper room on the 14th of Abib with the night of the Israelite Phasekh in Egypt: Moses went down and prepared a Phasekh for the earthly ones in the depths, that is, in Egypt, the grave of the Hebrews. Our sovereign, however, went up to the bright and airy height (of the upper room) and there prepared his Phasekh, in order to lift us up into his kingdom. The lamb was sacrificed in Egypt, and our sovereign in the upper room; the lamb in the depths and the first-born on the height. Our sovereign 45 46 47

Aphraates, Dem., 12:12. Aphraates, Dem., 12:6. Ephraem, Hymns, 3:2.

336

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh led his group and reclined in the dining room. He went up and was the first to recline, and his disciples (reclined) after him. There they lay with him at the table and watched him, how he ate and was changed. The Lamb ate the lamb, the Phasekh consumed the Phasekh.48

Meanwhile, some of the Syrian Christians were influenced by the Roman model for the celebration of Sovereign’s day (= the day of the resurrection), which was more fully developed in the latter half of the second century C.E. under Pope Victor. While still keeping the Phasekh on the 14th, they began to observe the following Friday and Saturday as a commemoration of the death and burial (time in the grave) of the messiah and the first day of the week as a commemoration of Yahushua’s resurrection. That they observed the first day of the week, for example, is already attested to in the Didascalia Apostolorum.49 Their observance of Friday and Saturday is reflected in their days of fasting during the time of Phasekh. The Didascalia Apostolorum, for instance, states: But on the Friday and on the Sabbath fast wholly, and taste nothing. . . . Especially incumbent on you therefore is the fast of the Friday and of the Sabbath.50 Raniero Cantalamessa comments of this period: The observance of the week of Unleavened Bread, beginning with the Jewish Pascha on the 14th Nisan, on whatever weekday this happened to fall, together with the beginning of the paschal fast, is also prescribed in the Didascalia . . . . Thus, and with the title “Day of the Pascha of Passion” for the fourteenth, the Syrian Church honored the Quartodeciman tradition. But, by having the solemnity of the Lord’s death always on the following Friday and Saturday, it was able to keep the Pascha with the other Churches and still preserve its content as a feast which emphasized the death of Christ more than the resurrection. In this arrangement, the Syrian Church of the early fourth century agreed with the Audians.51 A major alteration came after the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.). In order to accommodate Rome, yet in an effort to maintain their original Quartodeciman Cyrillonas, 5, . 101–103. Didas. Apost., 21, 5:20:10, 5:20:10. But on the first day of the week make good cheer at all times; he is guilty of sin, whosoever afflicts his self on the first (day) of the week. And hence it is not lawful, apart from the Phasekh, for any one to fast during those three hours of the night between the Sabbath and the first (day) of the week, because that night belongs to the first (day) of the week. 50 Didas. Apost., 21, 5:18, 5:19:6. 51 EEC, p. 187, n. n. 48 49

The Seven Days of Systems E, F, and G

337

premise of observing the 14th as the day of Phasekh, many of the Syrian Christians adopted the Hasidic System B for the seven days of unleavened bread (though, like Rome, they disregarded the 15th and 21st days of Abib as always being high Sabbaths). Nevertheless, they continued to observe the Phasekh on the 14th day, thereby increasing the celebration of the festival to eight days. In doing so, they developed a Quartodeciman hybrid we call System F. The newer arrangement (System F) appears for the first time in the works of Aphraates (writing in c.344 C.E.). In his work, the 14th is still lauded as the day of the Phasekh and the sovereign’s suffering.52 Yet now, to this celebration is attached the Hasidic construct for the seven days of unleavened bread. He writes: After the Phasekh, Israel eats unleavened bread for seven days, to the 21st of the month; we too observe the unleavened bread—as a festival of our saviour.53 Aphraates further argues that we should observe the whole week “in his (the messiah’s) suffering and in his Unleavened Bread, because AFTER the Phasekh come the seven days of unleavened bread, to the 21st (day).”54 With the acceptance of System F, the Syrians eventually accepted the Roman Catholic construct (System E) in its entirety. Indeed, by the end of the eighth century C.E., the whole Christian world, including the East, was established in that camp.

Modern Hybrid System G Finally, a few present-day Christian groups have formulated a Phasekh construct that is similar to the old Syrian hybrid System F.55 This practice we have labeled System G. It is not a system known to have been argued by any of the early Jewish or Christian assemblies but, because of its similarity to System F, the claim by its advocates that it was the correct and earliest practice, and due to its popularity in some groups, we shall not fail to mention it as a possibility. As with the old Syrian system, the Passover supper is observed on the night of the 14th. The 14th is itself considered a memorial day. Meanwhile, as with the neo-Aristocratic System C and the Christian System F, the advocates of this view imitate the Hasidic method for counting the seven days of unleavened bread, i.e., from the 15th until the end of the 21st of Abib. In most variations of this system, the 14th is a day to eat unleavened bread. Nevertheless, the 14th is neither kept as a high Sabbath nor is counted as one of the seven days of unleavened bread. Rather, the honor of a high Sabbath is given only to the 15th and the 21st of Abib. The 15th is also kept as a supper and is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Aphraates, Dem., 12:6–8, 12–13. Aphraates, Dem., 12:8. Aphraates, Dem., 12:12. Some notable Christian groups to use this Syrian-like format are the older branch of the Worldwide Church of God, the Assemblies of Yahweh, and Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry. 52 53 54 55

338

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Conclusion When System D failed to have a major impact on the conservative Quartodeciman groups, tactics in the West were changed and System E was adopted, being roughly the present practice of the Roman Catholics and Protestants. This innovation followed the Hasidic construct for observing the seven days of unleavened bread, i.e., from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. Emphasis is placed on the day of the messiah’s resurrection, being the first day of the week falling within the seven days of unleavened bread. The advocates of System E do not allow that the 14th of the first moon is the day of the legal Phasekh supper mentioned in the Torah of Moses. Instead, the evidence that the messiah and his disciples kept the Phasekh sacrifice and supper on the night of the 14th, therefore before Yahushua’s death, is interpreted as a pre-Phasekh enacted parable. The Last Supper, accordingly, was merely a foretype of the Christian Phasekh that was to be kept on the first day of the week that fell from the 15th to 21st days of the first moon, being the celebration of the messiah’s resurrection. System F, meanwhile, was a Syrian development that sought to breach the differences between System E and the opposition forces from System A. Nevertheless, it actually served as a transitional phase in Syria and other parts of the East, leading them from Systems A and D to System E. Once the East had come to the understanding that the seven-day period for unleavened bread actually extended from the 15th until the end of the 21st, it opened the door to the full acceptance of the Hasidic premises for the System E construct. When this transition period was over, the East had adopted System E. The present-day incarnation, so-to-speak, of System F is System G. Like its antecedent, System G observes the 14th as Phasekh and keeps the 15th until the end of the 21st as the seven days of unleavened bread. It differs in that it does not observe the first day of the week following the 14th as the Phasekh of the resurrection, though it does count that day as the first of the 50-day count to Pentecost. Rather, System G keeps the 15th as the Feast of Unleavened Bread and observes both the 15th and the 21st as high Sabbaths.

Chapter XXII

The Christian Pentecost

n the first centuries of our common era, the 50-day Christian festival of Pentecost, like its Jewish counterpart, was inseparably connected with Phasekh. Epiphanius sums up the orthodox Christian position by referring to Acts, 20:16, which speaks of how the apostle Saul (Paul) hastened to keep the Festival of Pentecost at Jerusalem. He then comments, “But what Pentecost was Paul keeping if he had not kept the Phasekh?”1 Christians observed not only the first and last days of this period with special reverence but actually considered the entire 50 days to be significant. The day of the omer wave offering, being the first of the 50 days, was considered the day of the messiah’s resurrection, also known as the Sovereign’s day. The observation of the Sovereign’s day and its connection with the Pentecost season provided the foundation for the development of the western Christian Phasekh systems.

The Early Assembly The 50 days of Pentecost were very important to the early Christian assemblies. As J. Van Goudoever so poignantly observes: The primitive Christian Church kept not only Passover, but also the period of seven weeks or fifty days called ‘Pentecost’.2 The entire 50 days were celebrated with special emphasis being placed upon the first and last days. The early assemblies, therefore, celebrated three aspects of Pentecost: (1) The 50th day, being the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost), upon which day the sacred ruach came down upon the gathered assembly in the year of the messiah’s resurrection. (2) The day of the omer wave offering, being the first day of the 50 days. Upon this day the messiah rose from the dead and breathed the sacred ruach upon his disciples. (3) The entire 50-day period, which was seen as a joyful time, reflecting the dwelling of mankind with the messiah in the kingdom of Yahweh. 1 2

Epiphanius, Pan., 75:6:1. BCal, p. 164.

339

340

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The 50th Day The observance of the 50th day, which day is properly called Pentecost and the Festival of Weeks, gained its authority from the fact that, in the year of the messiah’s death, his disciples kept this celebration with one accord during their stay at Jerusalem.3 It was while they were gathered at this event, as told in the book of Acts, that the sacred ruach suddenly came down out of heaven as a rushing, violent wind, filling the whole house where the disciples were sitting.4 This ruach, appearing in the form of divided tongues of flame, then proceeded to set upon each of those in the gathered assembly.5 The sacred ruach allowed those upon whom it rested to prophesy in foreign languages, so as to be understood by visitors from various nations.6 It was a sign that the word of the messiah was being sent out to all the nations of the world. With the descent of the sacred ruach also came a new revelation to the apostles. Inspired by the ruach, Keph (Peter) delivered his famous Pentecost speech: it is by the messiah’s death and resurrection that there shall come a resurrection of the dead. It is also by his death and resurrection that salvation shall come to all mankind, all who call upon the name Yahweh.7 Upon hearing these words, about 3000 people were baptized and added to the ranks of the assembly. Many more joined in the following days.8 For these reasons, many early Christians considered Pentecost day as the first day of the Christian community. It was the beginning of a new era, the era of the Christian Assembly.9 Authority for the continued observance of Pentecost was reinforced by Saul (Paul), the apostle to the nations,10 when he was recorded in the New Testament as having recognized Pentecost during his ministry.11 Pentecost, accordingly, became the festival of the New Covenant.12 Subsequently, due to its strong scriptural authority, all of the early assemblies, regardless of their respective Phasekh system, kept the festival of Pentecost. The early second century C.E. Quartodeciman Epistula Apostolorum, for example, speaks of both Pentecost and Phasekh as festivals that would continue far into the future.13 The early western assemblies likewise kept Acts, 2:1. Acts, 2:2. Acts, 2:3. Acts, 2:4–12. The Greek word glwvssai~ (glosssais) means, “tongue, as the organ of speech . . . language or dialect” (GEL, 1968, p. 353); “the tongue; by impl. a language” (SEC, Gk. #1100). That the passage refers to foreign languages and not some meaningless babbling is confirmed by the response of those coming from other nations who were hearing the disciples speak. They questioned, “and how do we hear them each in his own dialect?” (Acts, 2:8) For this reason the NJB translates Acts, 2:4, as “to speak different languages”; and the AB renders it, “to speak in other (different, foreign) languages”; and NTB gives, “to speak in foreign tongues.” 7 Acts, 2:13–40. In v. 21, Keph quotes Joel, 2:32, “All who shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved” (cf. SRB, loc. cit., p. 1151, n. g; AB, loc. cit., p. 174; REB, loc. cit., p. 121, n. a, and at Rom., 10:13, p. 159, n. f). 8 Acts, 2:41–47. 9 BCal, pp. 228, 233. 10 Rom., 11:13; 1 Tim., 2:7; 2 Tim., 1:11. 11 Acts, 20:16 (Saul at Jerusalem); 1 Cor., 16:8 (Saul at Ephesus). 12 BCal, p. 233. 13 Epist. Apost., 17. 3 4 5 6

The Christian Pentecost

341

Pentecost. It is mentioned, for instance, in the Acts of Paul (c.180 C.E.),14 and shortly thereafter by Irenaeus,15 Tertullian,16 and Origen. Origen even notes that Christians of his day were often criticized for keeping Pentecost.17 Eusebius writes: For when we have well and duly passed the Passage (Phasekh), another, greater festival awaits us there. The children of the Hebrews call it by the name of Pentecost, and it bears the likeness of the kingdom of heaven.18 Didymus of Alexandria (c.387 C.E.) similarly reports: After this solemnity (Phasekh) we shall also celebrate the Feast of Weeks, called Pentecost, on which we shall reap as perfect sheaves and fullest ears that which flowered in the spring.19 Ambrose of Milan (c.389 C.E.) states: In spring we have the Phasekh, when I am saved; in summer we have the Pentecost, when we celebrate the glory of the resurrection after the manner of the age to come.20 Athanasius, after telling his Christian readers, “Let us keep the sacred festival (of Phasekh),” advises: . . . adding day by day the sacred Pentecost, which we regard as festival upon festival, we shall keep the festival of the ruach who is already near (us) through the messiah Yahushua.21 Support for the observance of Pentecost was so strong that any Christian who failed to keep Pentecost was condemned as a heretic at the Council of Elvira (c.303–306 C.E.): It has been decided to correct a bad custom according to the authority of the Scriptures, so that we all celebrate the day of Pentecost; and that anyone who does not should be marked as having brought in a new heresy.22 Acta Pauli, 1:30–32. Irenaeus, frag. 7; Ps.-Justin, 115. Tertullian, de Cor., 3, de Bapt., 19. Origen, Celsus, 8:22. Eusebius, Pas., 4. Didymus, 5:88. Ambrose, Exp. Luc., 10:34. Athanasius, Fest. Let., 14:6. Syn. Elvira, Can., 43. This edict was written against those who abandoned the 50th day of Pentecost and kept only the 40th day, the day of Ascension (cf., Acts, 1:1–12). In the Codex Toletanus I, this clause reads, “so that after the Phasekh we should all celebrate not the 40th but 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

342

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Early Christian lectionaries demonstrate the various features of Pentecost, which included its role as a festival of covenant, as a festival of revelation, as a festival of Law-giving, and as the gathering around Mount Sinai.23 The Christians often compared the events that occurred at Mount Sinai immediately after the Exodus, the great assembly gathered there and the giving of the Torah of Moses, with the experience of the disciples on Pentecost day during the year of the messiah’s death and resurrection. Augustine, for example, writes: In former times Moses received the Torah on Mount Sinai and he proclaimed the commandments of the sovereign before the people. There the deity came down to the mountain, here the sacred ruach came to be visible in tongues of fire.24 Chrysostom similarly states that, “the ruach which had Moses render the Torah to the Hebrews now came down for the salvation of all people.”25 In another place he writes: On that day the Torah was given according to the Old Covenant, on the same day the sacred ruach came according to the new grace; on that day Moses received the Tablets of the Torah, on the same day the choir of the apostles received the ruach coming down, instead of the Tablets which were given to Moses.26 The Christian Pentecost of the second century C.E. was imbued with the theme of representing the future day on which the messiah would offer his followers to father Yahweh. It was connected with the establishment of Yahweh’s kingdom on earth and the time when the saved would dwell in the kingdom of Yahweh. By the fourth century C.E. the Christian meaning for Pentecost began to shift in emphasis. In the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria (342 C.E.), to demonstrate, he refers to Pentecost as “the festival of the ruach, which is already near through messiah Yahushua.”27 As Raniero Cantalamessa points out, “Pentecost becomes more and more clearly the feast of the Spirit,” and is thought of “as the ‘spiritual’ presence of Christ among his disciples.”28 Day of the Omer Wave Offering The first day of the 50 days of Pentecost, being the day of the omer wave offering, was observed by the early Christian assemblies as the anniversary of the messiah’s resurrection. The well-known Christian theologian and writer Clement of Alexandria (end of the second century C.E.), as one example, emphasized the connection between the omer wave offering and the resurrection. He writes that Yahushua arose from the dead on “the first day of the weeks of the 50th as the day of Pentecost” (EEC, p. 195, n. a). An ancient epitome of these canons summarizes Canon 43 thusly: “After the Phasekh let the 50th, not the 40th (day), be kept.” 23 BCal, pp. 188–190. 24 Augustine, Serm., 186. 25 PG, 64, p. 420. 26 PG, 63, p. 933. 27 Athanasius, Fest. Let., 14:6. 28 EEC, p. 168, #61, n. b.

The Christian Pentecost

343

harvest, on which the priest offered the first dravgma (dragma = omer) according to the Torah.”29 Epiphanius, after quoting Deuteronomy, 16:9, and in reference to the messiah’s death, states that the omer wave offering came on the third day after the slaughter of the Phasekh lamb because it foreshadowed “that blessed omer who has been raised from the dead and is offered from the earth on the third day.”30 It was on this same day that the messiah appeared to his disciples, who had hidden themselves in a locked house for fear of the Jews. After showing the nail holes in his hands and the wound on his side, Yahushua said to them, “Peace to you; as the father has sent me forth, I send you.” Having said these things, “he breathed on (them), and said to them, Receive the sacred ruach.”31 This day, therefore, was the beginning of their apostolic mission to go out among the nations, taking the sacred ruach with them. The ramifications of observing the day of the omer wave offering as the anniversary of the messiah’s resurrection and its effects on the western Christian Phasekh systems will be examined in some detail in our next chapter. For now it is only necessary to point out that the first day of the 50-day count to Pentecost was designated as the “Sovereign’s day,” an important appellation for the day of the Phasekh Eucharist celebration for the western systems. The 50-Day Period Finally, because the ruach was given by the resurrected messiah to the apostles on the day of the omer wave offering, and then the sacred ruach came down upon the gathered assembly on the 50th day (the Festival of Weeks), the entire 50-day period of Pentecost was celebrated with rejoicing.32 According to Tertullian, who followed the western Phasekh system, we rejoice “from Phasekh (the day of the resurrection) to Pentecost day.”33 He further notes that, for the Christians of his day, the period from resurrection day to Pentecost was one long festal day,34 50 days of pure exultation.35 Hippolytus, after writing that the messiah is prefigured in the Phasekh and was sacrificed as our Phasekh, then connects this 50-day period with the heavenly kingdom. He writes that the messiah was prefigured in both the Phasekh and the Pentecost, so that he might fulfill the mysteries prophesied about him: In the Pentecost, that he might make an advance sign of the kingdom of heaven, (by) going up into heaven first himself and offering humanity as a gift to the deity.36 Chron. Paschale, 1, p. 15. Epiphanius, Pan., 51:31. John, 20:22f. BCal, p. 229; EEC, p. 168, #61, n. a. Tertullian, de Cor., 3. Tertullian followed the western system for Phasekh, which observed the first day of the week after the 14th of Abib as the Phasekh of the resurrection. 34 Tertullian, de Bapt., 19. 35 Tertullian, de Jejun., 14. 36 Hippolytus, Elk. and Han. (frag. 5); quoted by Theodoret, Dial., 2:11. The messiah went to heaven both on the first and several days after (Mark, 16:9–19; John, 20:15f, cf., John, 20:19–29 with Luke, 24:36–40) and on the 40th day (Acts, 1:1–9) of these 50 days. On the offering of redeemed humanity to father Yahweh, seen as the meaning behind the offering of the firstfruits (Lev., 23:10–14, 16–20), also see Hippolytus, Noetus, 4; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:17:2. 29 30 31 32 33

344

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Origen refers to this period as the time of leaving the affairs of this life and hastening toward the city of Yahweh. It is a prophetic period, a type of our being risen from death with the messiah and made to sit with him in the heavenly places, at which time, “one is always living in the days of the Pentecost.”37 Therefore, it is a period of supplication and prayer, “so as to become worthy of the mighty rushing wind from heaven, which compels the evil in mortals and its consequences to disappear, and so that one becomes worthy also of some share in the fiery tongue given by the deity.”38 Eusebius, meanwhile, makes the following point: . . . after the Phasekh, we celebrate the Pentecost for seven complete weeks, having soldiered through the previous 40-day period of asceticism (Lent) in the six weeks before the Phasekh. . . . The labors of that observance are fittingly succeeded by the second festival, seven weeks long, with an increase of repose for us, symbolized by the number seven. But the number of the Pentecost is not constituted by these seven weeks: going one day beyond, it seals them on the first day (of the week) with the solemnity of Christ’s assumption. In these days of the sacred Pentecost, therefore, we are right to represent our future refreshment by rejoicing our lives and resting the body as though we were already united to the Bridegroom and incapable of fasting . . .39

Aristocratic Christian Pentecost Vitally important for our discussion is the fact that the early Christians determined Pentecost by the Aristocratic method, i.e., its 50 days were counted from the first day of the week, which is the day after the weekly Sabbath, that followed the 14th of Abib.40 This detail is certainly not surprising, since the original Christian assemblies were all Quartodeciman and all subsequent assemblies acquired their first views from that Aristocratic-based group. Though this date was ascribed in the Torah to the time when the high priest was to provide the omer wave offering, the New Testament makes it the date of the messiah’s resurrection. For the Christians, the 50th day of Pentecost always fell on the first day of the week (Sunday).41 As shown above, Eusebius makes the 50th day fall on the first day of the week, being a seal on the seven weeks.42 Egeria (c.383 C.E.), as another example, reports that in her day, for the Christians living in 37 38 39 40 41 42

Origen, Celsus, 8:22. Ibid. Eusebius, Pas., 5. See above Chap. XVI, pp. 247–250. ACC, 2, pp. 1157–1161. Eusebius, Pas., 6.

The Christian Pentecost

345

Jerusalem, “The 50th day is a Sunday.”43 The Syriac Teaching of the Apostles similarly connects “the first day of the week and the end of Pentecost.”44 This same work goes on to comment that, “by the same gift of the ruach which was given to them on that day, they appointed ordinances and laws.”45 It is manifest that if the 50th day always fell on the first day of the week then the first day of that same 50-day period—the day of the omer wave offering—did likewise. As already demonstrated, eminent early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius,46 identified the day of Yahushua’s resurrection with the day of the omer wave offering. In accordance with this view, the New Testament records that the messiah both rose from the dead and breathed the ruach on his disciples during the first day of the week that followed the day of the Phasekh sacrifice (Abib 14).47 Conforming to this understanding, Justin Martyr writes that Yahushua “rose from the dead” on the day after Saturn’s day (i.e., the Sabbath day),48 on the first day of the week which is also called “the day of the Ôhlivou (heliou; sun),”49 i.e., Sunday. On this point, there was near unanimity among all of the early Christian assemblies, whether Quartodeciman, Roman, quasi-Quartodeciman, or gnostic.50 As a result, it was from the first day of the week (Phasekh Sunday) following the 14th of Abib that the early Christians began to count Pentecost. Athanasius, for instance, states: From this day (the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection) we count one by one seven more weeks and celebrate the sacred day of Pentecost. This was formerly foreshadowed among the Jews under the name of the Feast of Weeks; it was the time for freeing (those in bondage) and forgiving debts, in sum, it was a day of all kinds of freedom. Since that time is for us a symbol of the world to come, we shall celebrate the great Sunday (Pentecost Sunday), enjoying here the first installment of that eternal life. But when we shall depart hence, then we shall celebrate the full festival with the messiah.51 With particular reference to the Pentecost day reported in Acts, 2:1–3, the Constitutiones Apostolicae calculates: Egeria, 43:1. ANCL, 20, pp. 36f; BCal, p. 187. ANCL, 20, p. 38. Chron. Paschale, 1, p. 15; Epiphanius, Pan., 51:31. Matt., 26:17–21, 27:62, 28:1–7; Mark, 14:12–18, 15:42–44, 16:1–6; Luke, 22:7–16, 23:44, 50–56, 24:1–6; John, 18:28, 19:13f, 38–42, 20:1f, 19–23. 48 That Saturn’s day (= Satur–day) is the Sabbath day see, for example, Tacitus, Hist., 5:4; Dio, 37:15–19, 49:22:3f. Also see HBC, pp. 15f; ACC, 2, pp. 1137–1141. 49 Justin Mart., 1 Apol., 67. 50 On a small number of variant views of the three days and nights of the messiah’s stay in the grave see FSDY, 2. 51 Athanasius, Fest. Let., 1:10. That “Great Sunday” is Pentecost see ECC, p. 167, #58, n. e. 43 44 45 46 47

346

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh And again, from the first Sunday (Phasekh Sunday) count 40 days, and on Thursday celebrate the Festival of Assumption of the sovereign (Acts, 1:1–9). . . . When the 50th day from the first Sunday arrives, you are to have a great festival; for on it, at the third hour, the sovereign Yahushua sent us the gift of the sacred ruach (Acts, 2:1–3).52

Theophilus of Alexandria (401 C.E.) likewise counts to Pentecost using this method. He reports: . . . on the next day (after the Sabbath day fast, i.e., on Sunday), which is the symbol of the sovereign’s resurrection, let us celebrate the true Phasekh. Then let us add to these seven more weeks, which compose the festivity of Pentecost, and present ourselves worthy of the communion of the body and blood of the messiah.53 A poem of Paulinus of Nola similarly counts to Pentecost from resurrection Sunday (Phasekh Sunday). He writes: Yet the whole world with equal devotion everywhere venerates this lofty mystery of great love toward humankind in a particular month each year, when it celebrates the eternal king risen with a restored body. After this solemn festival (Phasekh Sunday)—we calculate seven weeks before this sacred day comes around for mortals—comes the day on which the sacred ruach was of old sent down from the heights of heaven in parted tongues of fiery light.54 Origen makes the number “50” sacred and directly points to Pentecost as his prime example. He becomes even more specific and reports that each of the seven weeks of Pentecost ends with a Sabbath day: The number “50” moreover contains seven Sabbaths, a Sabbath of Sabbaths and also above these full Sabbaths a new beginning in the eighth of a really new rest that remains above the Sabbath.55 It is therefore manifest that the early Christians calculated the day of the omer wave offering and Pentecost by the Aristocratic method. Neither has this fact escaped the eyes of present day scholars. J. Van Goudoever, for example, 52 53 54 55

Apost. Constit., 5:20:2, 4. Theophilus Alex., 20:4. Paulinus, Poem, 27. Origen, 150 Ps., frag. on Ps. 3; GCS, 1, pp. 138f; BCal, p. 185.

The Christian Pentecost

347

several times concludes that the Christian system is based upon the old Israelite priestly calendar.56 He writes: When we read that the stone was rolled from the sepulcher and that Jesus arose from the dead on the Sunday after Passover, we must realize that the earliest Christians followed the old priestly calendar in which the 50 days were counted from the Sunday after Passover. So the Christians among the listeners in the synagogue could immediately infer that the Gospels teach that Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the 50 days; just as Jesus was crucified on a special day, Passover, because he was the true Passover according to John, so he arose from the dead on a special liturgical day, the first day of harvest.57 It is also recognized that, just because the Christians used the Aristocratic system for determining Pentecost, it does not mean that they followed the Sadducees. Rather, as Goudoever states, they were merely following the more ancient system used by the original Zadok (Tsadoq) priests of Israel. He concludes: The early Christians perhaps did not favour the Sadducees, but rather the old Zadokite tradition to which the Sadducees were one of the heirs.58

The Sovereign’s Resurrection Day For the early Christians, whether their Phasekh system was Quartodeciman or one of the later western views, the day of the omer wave offering was the anniversary of the messiah’s resurrection.59 In turn, because the title kuvrio~ (kurios; sovereign)60 was applied to Yahushua the messiah, we find that from 56 BCal, pp. 174f, “Since the Jews of the second century of our era did not count the fifty days from Sunday to Sunday, the early Christians in that century did not recognise their way of counting as an originally Israelite counting”; p. 175, “Since, however, we know that the Israelites, before our era, counted their fifty days from Sunday to Sunday, at least in one important (priestly) tradition, we are able to recognize that the Christian liturgical calendar is also in this point allied with the Israelite calendar; we recognize in the celebration of Easter in continuation of the first day (viz. Sunday) of the fifty days of harvest”; p. 221, “The first of the 50 days, being a Sunday in the priestly Israelite calendar, was the day on which the first sheaf was brought to the Temple; for the Christians it was the day on which Jesus arose from the dead. The 50th day was, like the 50th year, a time appropriate for Revelation to both the Israelite and the Christians, although in Judaism this day is not developed until the second century A.D.”; p. 226, “If in all four Gospels the Sunday after Passover is the first day of harvest, then it is clear that the Synoptic Gospels use the old priestly calendar in which the 50 days are counted from Sunday to Sunday. . . . The use by the earliest Christians of the old priestly calendar does not seem remarkable when we remember that between 24 B.C. to 65 A.D. the high priests in the Temple of Jerusalem were members of the family of Boethus. These Boethusians are explicitly mentioned by the Mishnah as those who counted the 50 days from Sunday to Sunday” (cf., Men., 10:3). 57 BCal, p. 225. 58 BCal, p. 226. 59 E.g., Epiphanius, Pan., 51:31; Chron. Paschale, 1, p. 15. 60 SEC, Gk. #2962, “supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by impl. Mr. (as a respectful title)”; GEL, 1968, p. 1013, “of persons, having power or authority over.”

348

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

the time of the Quartodeciman writer John the divine (c.96 C.E.)61 this annual celebration was identified as th/ kuriakh/` hJmevra/ (te kuriake hemera; the Sovereign’s day), th`~ kuriakh``~ (tes kuriakes; the Sovereign’s [day]),” and th`~ kuriakh``~ hJmevra/ (tes kuriakes hemera; the Sovereign’s day),62 commonly known in the English vernacular as “the Lord’s day.” By the final decade of the second century C.E., the western assemblies gave a far greater latitude to this expression so as to extend it to every Sunday.63 61 John the divine is said to have had his vision on the island of Patmos in the 15th year of Domitian (i.e., 96 C.E.) (Eusebius, H.E., 3:18:1–3:23:4; cf., Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 5:30:3, “toward the end of Domitian’s reign”). For the confusion between the apostle John, one of the twelve disciples, and John the divine, the student of the apostle John, see the appropriate Appendix in FSDY, 2. John, one of the twelve, authored the book of John and the epistles 1 through 3 of John. John the divine authored the book of Revelation. 62 Rev., 1:10, John the divine states, “I became in the ruach on th`/ kuriakh/` hJmevra/ (te kuriake hemera; the Sovereign’s day).” There is absolutely no indication whatsoever in this book or from this period that the Sovereign’s day is a weekly Sunday. That construct does not appear for another full century. As C. W. Dugmore correctly argues, why should we doubt that this expression, like others of its class, refers to anything else than resurrection Sunday? (SNT, 6, p. 277). Frank H. Yost, on the other side, argues that this expression should better refer to the weekly Sabbath day (ECS, pp. 27f). Yet his reasoning seems unlikely, since in this form this expression is found nowhere else in Scriptures, let alone in reference to the Sabbath day. Further, if the Sabbath day had been the date intended, John would more likely have said “on the Sabbath day.” Similarly, if John had meant the Phasekh he would have said, “on the day of the Phasekh.” On the other hand, the expression “hJ hJmevra kuvrio~ (he hemera kurios; the day of the sovereign)” mentioned in 2 Pet., 3:10, as demonstrated by its context (2 Pet., 3:3–13, cf., Rev., 20:1–15), and in 1 Thess., 5:2, is a clear reference to the “day of Yahweh,” i.e., the Judgment Day, as found in Isa., 2:1– 22, 13:6–15; Jer., 30:7ff, 46:10ff; Joel, 2:1–13, 3:12–17; Obad., 1:15f; Zeph., 1:7–18; Zech., 14:1–21; Mal., 3:1–4:5; (cf., LXX of these verses). At the same time, as we shall demonstrate in our second volume, there is a connection made later in the western Christian assemblies between the day of Yahweh (the Judgment Day), being the eighth 1,000-year period (= the eighth day) in human history, and the development of their construct of the Sovereign’s day to reflect a weekly Sunday observance. The next Quartodeciman reference to the resurrection day as the Sovereign’s day comes in the Didache, 14:1 (early second century C.E.). Later, the Quartodeciman Melito of Sardis wrote a book on the subject (Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:2). Among the western assemblies, Dionysius of Corinth, about the year 170 C.E., reports that they read Clement of Rome’s letter to them on the sacred Sovereign’s day (Eusebius, H.E., 4:23:11). They obviously did not read it every week but annually on the resurrection day. The spurious GN Peter (c.180 C.E.) similarly refers to the day that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb of the messiah and found him gone as “the Sovereign’s day” (12). Even Irenaeus (c.185 C.E.) refers to the Sovereign’s day as the annual celebration of the resurrection (Ps.-Justin, 115). In none of these or any other comparable record from the time before the last decade of the second century C.E. is there any indication that a weekly Sovereign’s day was observed, only an annual celebration. 63 Some try to superimpose the concept of a weekly Sovereign’s day (Sunday) observance back to the sixth decade of the first century C.E. (e.g., ECY, pp. 13, 22). As we shall prove in our third volume of this series, there is no New Testament evidence of this whatsoever. The method used by those who improperly claim this connection is to superimpose a later definition back upon earlier documents or statements. Early Church fathers, likewise, give no such definition. Ignatius, Mag., 9, for example, contrary to the assertion of some, says nothing of the kind (ECS, pp. 30f; SNT, 6, pp. 279f) and Justin Martyr (mid-second century C.E.) never once defined the weekly Sunday observance practiced at Rome as the weekly Sovereign’s day (Justin Mart., 1 Apol., 67). The first actual references to the Sovereign’s day as every Sunday occurs after the establishment of the System E Phasekh in 196 C.E. Tertullian, de Jejun., 14–15, written about 208 C.E., for example, places the weekly Sabbaths together with the Sovereign’s days as those days on which one was not to fast. Origen, Celsus, 8:22, writing about 248 C.E., also speaks of keeping the plural Sovereign’s days (cf., EEC, p. 155, #43, n. a). It was at this time that the weekly Sunday worship (the eighth day), as developed in the Roman assembly, was merged with the identity of the Sovereign’s day. This transformation also occasioned the expansion of the Eucharist into a weekly (if not daily) occurrence. For more information see our discussion in FSDY, 3.

The Christian Pentecost

349

Rupert of Deutz (12th century C.E.), as an example, notes that many Christians believed “that on the first day of the week the sovereign rose” and that “this is why it is called the day of the sovereign’s resurrection.”64 Gaudentius of Brescia (died 406 C.E.) likewise states that the messiah rose “on the Sovereign’s day, which the Scriptures call the first day of the week.”65 Archaeus (late second century C.E.), meanwhile, in a discussion about the Sovereign’s day, comments: For on that day (the Sovereign’s day), the mystery of the resurrection, of unchangeable hope, and of inheriting the kingdom was established. At this time, the sovereign (Yahushua) triumphed over humanity’s enemy—death—his body having been revived, which will never die any more but with the ruach continues on unchangeable. This is the body, enveloped with glory, which he offered to the father, when the gates of heaven opened to him.66 We also have an indirect report of a statement made in the original works of Irenaeus. This report mentions an early Christian tradition of not kneeling in prayer on the Sovereign’s day,67 which began during so-called apostolic times (i.e., before 133 C.E.).68 This custom was based upon the connection between the Sovereign’s day and the messiah’s resurrection. We read: Not kneeling on the Sovereign’s day is a symbol of the resurrection through which by the messiah’s grace we have been freed from our sins and from the death they made us die. The aforesaid custom had its beginning from apostolic times, says the blessed Irenaeus, the martyr and bishop of Lyons, in his book On Phasekh. In it he also mentions the Pentecost, during which we do not kneel, since it is the equivalent of the Sovereign’s day, for the aforementioned reason.69 Just how early the Sovereign’s day was recognized by Christians is demonstrated by the Quartodecimans, who as we have already demonstrated represent the earliest Christian practices. From their records one discovers that the conservative Quartodeciman assemblies not only observed the Phasekh on the 14th of Abib but acknowledged the Sovereign’s day as the day Rupert, 6:26. Gaudentius, Tract., 1, on 3:10:13. Archaeus, frag. (PG, 5, p. 1490). In the Arabic version, the fragment is attributed to Archaeus but in the Syriac version it was composed by Irenaeus (see EEC, p. 147, #31). 67 This custom is mentioned in the Acta Pauli, 1 (c.180 C.E.), by Tertullian, de Orat., 23:1f; Origen, 150 Ps. (GCS, 1, p. 138; EEC, p. 147); Conc. Nicaea, Can., 20; Eusebius, Pas., 5; and Epiphanius, Expos. Faith, 22:5ff. 68 The early Christian expression “apostolic times” refers to the age of the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem, i.e., until 133 C.E., see FSDY, 2. 69 Quoted by Ps.-Justin, 115. 64 65 66

350

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

of the messiah’s resurrection. To demonstrate, the Coptic text of the Quartodeciman Epistula Apostolorum mentions the Sovereign’s day as the first day of the week, the day on which the messiah came “into being” by means of the resurrection.70 The prominent Quartodeciman writer Melito of Sardis of the mid-second century C.E. wrote a treatise entitled On the Sovereign’s (Day).71 The Didache (early second century C.E.) instructs those in the assembly, “On the Sovereign’s (day) of the sovereign, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks.”72 In the corresponding passage of the Constitutiones Apostolicae, we find the words, “the day of the resurrection of the sovereign, that is, the Sovereign’s day.” This document also refers to the resurrection day as “the first Sovereign’s day.”73 Until the end of the first century C.E., the Sovereign’s day was still only a once-a-year event serving as the anniversary of the messiah’s resurrection.74 Yet as time progressed, and as various Christian assemblies pressed to differentiate themselves from the Jews, a tradition built up that every Sunday should be the Sovereign’s day.75 This transition took place under the guidance of the Roman and Alexandrian assemblies. It became part of their general effort to expand the Eucharist mystery from strictly a Phasekh practice to an every Sunday event.76 70 Epist. Apost., 17f. The conclusion that the messiah was raised early on the first day of the week is based upon the statements made in Matt., 28:1–9; Mark, 16:1–6; Luke, 24:1–7, cf., v. 13–24; John, 20:1f. 71 Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:2; Hall, Melito, frag. 16b. The book itself is now lost to us. 72 Didache, 14:1. The unique expression, “the Sovereign’s (day) of the sovereign,” used in this passage, clearly refers to the resurrection day connected with the Phasekh season and not, as some have glossed, to the weekly Sovereign’s day. In the early centuries C.E. Christians still utilized the sacred name Yahweh, which name was expunged from later copies of these early documents because it was considered too sacred to utter. Returned to its original form, the statement would read, “the Sovereign’s (day) of Yahweh.” 73 Apost. Constit., 5:20. 74 The idea that the Sovereign’s day for early Christians was originally every Sunday is a popular but common misnomer built out of theological wishful thinking. The expression th`/ kuriakh`/ hJmevra/ (te kuriake hemera; the Sovereign’s day) is found in that form only once in all of Scriptures (Rev., 1:10). In this single passage it is clear that John the divine is speaking only of the day of the omer wave offering or resurrection day and not the first day of any particular week. The association with the first day of the week comes when the Scriptures claim that a day with Yahweh is as a thousand years and the Judgment Day is to be determined in this fashion (Ps., 84:10, 90:4; 1 Pet., 2:9, 3:7–13, esp. v. 8). In turn, the Judgment Day follows the approximate thousand-year long Sabbath reign of the messiah (Heb., 3:7–4:13, esp. 4:9; cf., Rev., 20:4–8). Since the approximate thousand-year Sabbath reign of the messiah was equated with the seventh day of the week (Heb., 3:7–4:13, esp. 4:4–7), the Judgment Day was the eighth day. The connection between the Sovereign’s day and the eighth day, accordingly, was emphasized by early Christian writers (see FSDY, 3). The Epistula Apostolorum, for example, in reference to the resurrection day, quotes the messiah as saying, “I have come into being on the eighth (day) which is the Sovereign’s day” (Epist. Apost., 18). At the end of the second century C.E., the definition for the Sovereign’s day was expanded to every Sunday under the guise that it represented the eighth day. This idea was built upon an earlier Roman Christian innovation of worshiping on Sunday. Justin Martyr, for instance, writes, “For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all days, is called however the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and yet it remains the first” (Justin Mart., Trypho, 41:4). This interpretation was then utilized by the Roman and Alexandrian assemblies as a reason to drop the Sabbath day and replace it with the Sovereign’s day for a weekly celebration. See FSDY, 3, for more details. 75 See FSDY, 3. 76 See FSDY, 2.

The Christian Pentecost

351

Conclusion The evidence presented so far reveals conclusively that the early Christian assemblies not only continued the observance of Pentecost but calculated it based upon the Aristocratic method. This detail advances the knowledge that the first Christian assemblies observed the Aristocratic systems for both the Phasekh and Pentecost. This fact is our first indication that the earliest Christians believed that the ancient Zadokite or Aristocratic observances of the Khag of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Khag of Pentecost were the original and intended observances of the Torah of Moses. At the same time, another most revealing factor has been brought to light. The day of the omer wave offering, being the day of the messiah’s resurrection and identified as the Sovereign’s day, was one and the same with the day celebrated by the western Christian assemblies for their Phasekh Eucharist. This fact compels us to explore the influence of the Christian Pentecost and the day of the omer wave offering upon the development of the western Christian systems for the Phasekh of the resurrection (Phasekh Sunday).

Chapter XXIII

The Role of Pentecost on the Christian Phasekh

hat has gone almost unnoticed in the discussion of the observance of the Christian Phasekh is the vital role that the 50-day celebration of Pentecost has played in its transformation. The interpretation that the seven weeks of Pentecost were a time of rejoicing, the Aristocratic calculation for that period, and the connection between the day of the resurrection and the day of the omer wave offering were all combined together and served as the mechanism for altering the original Quartodeciman Phasekh practice. The West merely shifted their emphasis from the Phasekh of the suffering to the Phasekh of the resurrection and in doing so moved the observance of the mystery of the Eucharist celebration from the 14th of Abib to the following first day of the week. At the same time, the breaking of unleavened bread and the giving of thanks on the Sovereign’s day were already a well-established practice by the Quartodecimans when the Christians at Rome and other western cities abandoned that system and began to form System D. Accordingly, it was the original Quartodeciman practice to offer Eucharist with unleavened bread on the day of the resurrection (omer wave offering) and their taking special notice of the Sovereign’s day that served as the justification for the subsequent diversification of the Phasekh celebration. Within a century after Yahushua’s resurrection, the Sovereign’s day had been transformed in importance far beyond that which had originally been contemplated by the earlier Quartodeciman members. It had become so popular in parts of Egypt, Rome, and other districts of the West that it became the day of the Phasekh Eucharist rather than the 14th of Abib.

A Shift in Emphasis By the end of the first century C.E., as Raniero Cantalamessa points out, the “paschalization” of the story of Yahushua remained incomplete in the eyes of many Christians, for “none of the evangelists applies it to the event of his resurrection.”1 In the eyes of many westerners, the day of the resurrection and its importance simply required more attention. To them it was not only a momentous event during the week of Phasekh but a turning point in history as well. As a result, some of the western assemblies began to shift their emphasis to the Sovereign’s day, making it the primary focus point for the Phasekh week and the Eucharist mystery. 1

EEC, p. 7.

353

354

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

This shift was aided by the common usage of the name Phasekh to encompass the entire seven days of unleavened bread. It was surmised that the Eucharist mystery of Phasekh, therefore, could fall on any one of those days. The Phasekh of the resurrection (observed only on the Sovereign’s day), meanwhile, could also fall on any one of these seven days of unleavened bread. By making all seven days equally the Phasekh, the Sovereign’s day was raised to an importance above the singular day of the Phasekh celebration on the 14th (the day of the messiah’s suffering). The Chronicon Paschale (midseventh century C.E.) expresses this view when it states: Necessarily, therefore, the Assembly of the deity gives the name Phasekh not only to the suffering of the sovereign but also to his resurrection.2 The Sovereign’s day was to the resurrection of the messiah what the day of Phasekh was to the suffering of the messiah. In time, under System E, the two events (the suffering and the resurrection) both came to be celebrated on Phasekh Sunday. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.425 C.E.), for instance, explains that in his time, “on the very day of the saving suffering,” i.e., Phasekh Sunday, Christians “solemnize the memory both of the suffering and of the resurrection of the sovereign.”3 By making both the suffering and the resurrection part of the same event, Christians in the West felt justified in moving the joyous celebration of the Eucharist mystery to the day of the resurrection. To demonstrate this change with System E, Epiphanius (c.377 C.E.) refers to “the day of resurrection and great festive day of the Phasekh.”4 Augustine (fl. 396–430 C.E.) remarks that “our yearly festival (of Phasekh) renews the memory of his resurrection.”5 Pseudo-Cyril of Alexandria similarly writes about “the Phasekh of the sovereign, which is the Festival of the Resurrection.”6 The Chronicon Paschale concludes that the sacred Assembly of the deity “designates the august festival of the resurrection from the dead of the messiah, our deity, as the Phasekh.”7 The day representing the “true Phasekh” also shifted. At first, as the midsecond century C.E. Quartodeciman writer Apollinarius of Hierapolis shows, the 14th was considered the true Phasekh. He writes: THE 14TH IS THE TRUE PHASEKH of the sovereign, the great sacrifice: the son (the messiah) of the deity in the place of the lamb . . . who was buried on the day of the Phasekh with the stone placed over the tomb.8 Though by no means left unopposed even in the West, by the fifth century C.E. we find that the Phasekh of the resurrection, generally speaking, became 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 424f. Theodoret, Cure, 9:24. Epiphanius, Expos. Faith, 22:14. Augustine, Serm. Wil., 4:3. Ps.-Cyril, Prologus Pascha, 5 (SCMC, p. 338; FTC, 77, Let. 87, p. 123). Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 424. Chron. Paschale, 1, p. 13.

The Role of Pentecost on the Christian Phasekh

355

the only true Phasekh for those in the West.9 For example, in 401 C.E. Theophilus of Alexandria comments that “the next day” after that Sabbath day—the Sabbath day representing the anniversary of the messiah lying in the grave—“is the symbol of the sovereign’s resurrection, let us celebrate THE TRUE PHASEKH.”10

The Eucharist Phasekh The effort by western Christian assemblies to move the celebration of the Phasekh from the 14th of Abib to the day of the omer wave offering was further facilitated by three changes in the use of the term Eucharist: (1) the expansion of the meaning of the term Eucharist (thanksgiving) to include the mystery of the bread and wine (though some would argue it was unfermented grape juice) of the Last Supper, (2) the extension of the Christian Eucharist mystery to days other than just the Phasekh supper, and (3) the identification of the Eucharist bread and wine with the Phasekh victim. First, the term eujcaristevw (eucharisteo), eujcaristiva (eucharistia), etc., i.e., Eucharist, properly means “to offer thanks.”11 The Greek word was derived from the Jewish term berakah, the act of giving thanks and a blessing at the beginning of every meal.12 The expression to “break bread,” meanwhile, was a common Jewish idiom meaning to “partake of an ordinary meal,” including its meat and drink.13 Since the first Christians were Judaeans, there is little doubt that, when this expression is used in the New Testament, it only refers to eating a meal and not to the special act of breaking bread and sharing it at the Phasekh supper.14 It only took on this newer meaning much later among the non-Jewish Christians, who gave to the expression an intent beyond its original use. EEC, p. 180, #84, n. a, pp. 203f, #116a, n. s, p. 216, #140, n. a. Theophilus Alex., 20:4. GEL, 1968, p. 738; SEC, Gk. #2168–2170; YAC, pp. 969, 970. SNT, 6, pp. 275f; LD, pp. 377, 399. SNT, 6, pp. 274f. Among the Jews of this period, the breaking of bread and the giving of thanks was part of the normal routine for their partaking of an ordinary meal (ELS, p. 10). The Jews were in the custom of beginning a meal by breaking the bread and then asking grace (e.g., B. Ber., 46:a–b). Even the Roman Catholics admit, “The Jews were accustomed to begin their common meals with a prayer of grateful praise to God (the Semitic idea behind eujcaristiva, eujlogiva) spoken over a loaf of bread, which was then divided among the participants” (NCE, 2, pp. 779f). Also see below n. 14. 14 For example, in Acts, 2:42 and 46, the disciples were “each day steadfastly continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread in their houses.” This statement simply means that they were going to the Temple by day and eating their meals at home at night. In another instance, Saul broke bread with pagans after a 14-day fast for their health (Acts, 27:33–36). Breaking bread with pagans can hardly be defined as keeping the Eucharist. Yet, because the bread eaten the night of the messiah’s Last Supper was described as “broken” (1 Cor., 10:16f, 11:23–28), the western assemblies, especially non-Jewish Christians unfamiliar with Jewish customs, latched on to two statements indicating that bread was broken on the first day of the week (Luke, 24:35, Acts, 20:5–11). Connecting the first day of the week with the breaking of bread, these western Christians interpreted them as a reenactment of the Eucharist. In both instances, this interpretation is strained, being no more than an interpretation overlaid atop a misinterpretation. In Luke, 24:35, for example, on the day of his resurrection the messiah broke bread with two disciples who at the time did not know he was the messiah. These two men were Judaeans who had stopped at a village late in the afternoon to eat dinner. There is no suggestion whatsoever that 9 10 11 12 13

356

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

At the same time, the Christian Eucharist mystery celebrated in the sharing of the bread and cup of wine has its roots in the original act of the apostles sharing in the wine and broken unleavened bread in the night of the messiah’s Last Supper on the 14th of Abib. For the earliest Quartodeciman Christians the Eucharist, the breaking of bread, and the mystery of sharing the cup of wine and the unleavened bread were three different things, though by the second century C.E. all three came together in the Eucharist of the Phasekh celebration. Following scriptural practice, unleavened bread was originally eaten by the earliest Christians during all seven days of the Phasekh festival. The giving of the Eucharist for every meal during the seven-day festival of Phasekh, therefore, was in due time joined with the celebration of the mystery of the unleavened bread and cup. The system was evolving. In the Quartodeciman Didache (early second century C.E.), to demonstrate, on the “Sovereign’s (day) of the sovereign,” Christians were instructed to “come together” and “break bread and give Eucharist.”15 The command to break bread and give Eucharist clearly separates the concept of breaking bread from the Eucharist itself. Here breaking bread clearly means only to have a meal. Perhaps in this instance the giving of Eucharist may also only mean to merely give a blessing. Nevertheless, with the scriptural seven days of unleavened bread, only the first and last days of the Phasekh festival were required convocations. The remaining days, except for the weekly Sabbath day, could be celebrated at home. What had developed by the beginning of the second century C.E. among the Quartodeciman assemblies was the added practice of gathering on the Sovereign’s day to commemorate the resurrection. This gathering for a meal on the Sovereign’s day became the vehicle by which the entire celebration of Phasekh was altered. As a result, at the beginning of the second century C.E., when all the orthodox Christian assemblies were still Quartodeciman, the Eucharist of the Phasekh was kept on the 14th of Abib. At the same time, these Christians also assembled on the Sovereign’s day—being the first day of the 50-day Pentecost they believed that they were participating in the mystery of the Eucharist. It was late in the day and they had been traveling (Luke, 24:28f). Their breaking of bread was merely the act of men partaking in an afternoon meal. In the passage found in Acts, 20:5–11, it is true that Saul broke bread on the first day of the week, but saying this without any context is misleading. His breaking of bread cannot be the Eucharist because this particular first day of the week occurred 12 days after the Festival of Unleavened Bread had already passed (Acts, 20:5–7). Also, Saul was setting out in the morning on a journey (Acts, 20:7, 11–13), it being the day after the Sabbath day. Further, Saul unceremoniously broke bread twice that same night, i.e., he ate two different meals (Acts, 20:7, 11). These meals were never defined as the Eucharist and there is no suggestion that his discourse to those assembled on that night was anything more than parting words to those who had continued with him after the Sabbath day’s meeting, which day had ended with the previous sunset. That Saul was merely held over to continue his discourse on the messiah and Scriptures is demonstrated by the fact that he walked cross-country to Assos to meet up with those journeying with him, who, at Saul’s instructions, had set sail earlier than Saul’s leaving (Acts, 20:13f). 15 Didache, 14:1. It has been popular to force the words of the Didache to refer to a weekly observance of the Sovereign’s day, but to do so it requires the substitution kaqΔ hJmevran de; kurivou for the MS reading of Hierosolymitanus 54, which gives kata; kuriakh;n de; kurivou (SP, 4, p. 419; LD, p. 240). The form found in the original text proves that Didache, 14:1, refers to the annual celebration of the Sovereign’s day of the resurrection. This point has been more than amply demonstrated by C. W. Dugmore (SNT, 6, pp. 272–281). Also see comments in AUSS, 3, pp. 87–91.

The Role of Pentecost on the Christian Phasekh

357

count—to break bread (i.e., take a meal) and to offer thanks (or Eucharist) in order to commemorate the resurrection of the messiah. The belief that a Eucharist could be partaken on any of the seven days of unleavened bread, especially when they gathered on the Sovereign’s day, opened the door to the Sunday-only celebration of Phasekh. Since one could give thanks with any meal and break unleavened bread and share wine during all seven days of the festival, the logic followed that the ceremony and mystery of the Eucharist could be re-enacted by zealous Christians on these other days as well. It merely became a matter of which day of convocation one should emphasize, and the West chose to elevate the day of the messiah’s resurrection. Subsequently, there developed a vital distinction between the early conservative Quartodeciman observance of an annual Sovereign’s day and the later practice of the western Christians. Though the early conservative Quartodecimans observed the first day of the week after the 14th as the Sovereign’s day, they nowhere ascribe to it the significance of a high festival or make it a day on which one should celebrate the Eucharist mystery of the Phasekh. However, they did observe that day by gathering for a meal and Eucharist. It was the first day in the 50-day count to the Festival of Pentecost and marked the anniversary of the messiah’s resurrection. For these reasons, the apostles, guided by Scriptures, had instructed the assemblies to continue its observance.

The New Symbolism The change in Phasekh for those in the West was assisted by the fact that the Eucharist bread and wine had become the new Christian symbol of the Phasekh victim, which in turn represented the messiah. As already demonstrated, for early Christians, while under Judaism, the messiah was represented by the Phasekh lamb; under the New Testament, he was also represented by the unleavened bread and wine of the Last Supper.16 Gregory of Elvira, accordingly, states, “Thus the mystery of the Phasekh . . . which is now celebrated in the bread of the sovereign’s body.”17 Augustine similarly writes of the “Phasekh, . . . which we receive in the body and blood of the sovereign.”18 Hilary of Poitiers remarks, “Without him (that is, Judas) the Phasekh is accomplished, when the chalice has been taken and the bread broken.”19 The Phasekh, as a result, was realized in the western Christian Eucharist.20 Following this line of reasoning, the Eucharist quickly became the new Phasekh meal rather than the dinner with the lamb. It therefore followed that the sacrifice and suffering of the messiah (now seen by those in the West as both his death and resurrection) could be associated with the Eucharist given on the Sovereign’s day. Athanasius of Alexandria, for example, who along Matt., 26:17–20, 26–29; Mark, 14:12–18, 22–25; Luke, 22:7–23; 1 Cor., 11:23–28. Gregory Elv., 9:1. Augustine, Let. Pet., 2:37. Hilary, 30. EEC, p. 205, #117, n. d, in reference to Gregory of Elvira’s statement about receiving “the Phasekh of his (the messiah’s) sacred body,” Raniero Cantalamessa comments, “If Christ’s Pascha was his passion on the historical plane, then on the liturgical plane the Church’s Pascha is realized in the Eucharist.” 16 17 18 19 20

358

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

with his brothers in the West observed the day of the resurrection for the celebration of the Phasekh Eucharist, identifies the heavenly supper with the Phasekh and the sacrifice of the messiah.21 As Raniero Cantalamessa notes, for these Christians, “the Christian Pascha is essentially the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ that is celebrated in the Eucharist.”22 What then of the Phasekh of the 14th of Abib? As Origen comments, for those holding to the western views, the original Eucharist celebrated by the messiah and his disciples served merely as “a symbol (foreshadowing) of which we keep the Phasekh.”23 It only established a type for a new Phasekh celebration and pointed to the triumph of the resurrection. Because of the connection made between the Eucharist, the seven days of unleavened bread, and the Phasekh, Paulinus of Nola (following System E) associates the mystery of the Eucharist with the Sovereign’s day resurrection. He writes: Yet the whole world with equal devotion everywhere venerates this lofty mystery of great love toward humankind in a particular month each year, when it celebrates the eternal king risen with a restored body.24

The Dividing Line As Raniero Cantalamessa so poignantly observed, Phasekh and Pentecost “designate the same mystery, but as seen from opposite sides: that of the passion and that of the glorification.”25 For the early Christians, the Phasekh of the 14th defined the time of the suffering and burial of the messiah. For those in the West it was only a time of great sadness and reflection. On the other hand, the day of the omer wave offering, being the first day of the 50-day Pentecost celebration, was also the day of the messiah’s resurrection. A dividing line was thus formed between the Phasekh of the suffering and the Phasekh of the joyous resurrection. There can be no doubt that Paul’s statement that the “messiah has been raised from out of the dead, firstfruit of those fallen asleep,”26 was connected by western Christians with the omer wave offering of firstfruits.27 In Scriptures, Pentecost is a time of rejoicing.28 In turn, the anniversary of the resurrection brought with it a message of joy and triumph. Augustine divides the Phasekh week, stating: Athanasius, Fest. Let., 42, excerpt from Cosmas, 10:8. EEC, p. 169, #62. Origen, Hom. Jer., 19:13. EEC, p. 154, #42, n. a. “In saying that the Church’s Pascha is a symbol of Christ’s Pascha, or of the Jewish Pascha which Christ observed, Origen certainly does not mean that it is a type of figure. Rather Origen would say that the Church’s Eucharistic Pascha is Christ’s Pascha, foreshadowed by the Jewish Pascha and in turn a foreshadowing of the heavenly Pascha.” 24 Paulinus, Poem, 27. In Paulinus, Epist., 31, the Phasekh is presented as the day in which the mystery of the torture-stake of the messiah is celebrated. 25 EEC, p. 21. 26 1 Cor., 15:20. 27 AUSS, 3, p. 86; FEPC, p. 238; BCal, pp. 225f. 28 Deut., 16:11. 21 22 23

The Role of Pentecost on the Christian Phasekh

359

The day that our sovereign Yahushua the messiah made sorrowful by dying he also made glorious by rising.29 For this reason the first day of the Pentecost celebration became the dividing line in the Phasekh celebration of the western assemblies. In this regard, we should take note that Origen (c.245 C.E.) is the first Christian writer known to call the first day of the 50-day Pentecost count the “Phasekh.”30 This new usage indicates the emphasis placed upon the first day of the Pentecost count for the celebration of Phasekh following the development of the System E construct under Victor, bishop of Rome, in 196 C.E. The Latin assemblies became even more precise with regard to the time that the joyous celebration of Pentecost and the Phasekh of the resurrection would begin. For them the “vigil on Saturday night is the end of the Pascha and the beginning of Pentecost.”31 Zeno of Verona (fl. 362–371 C.E.), for instance, makes the Phasekh of the resurrection “the great day,”32 “the day of salvation” which “bears the image of the mystery of the sovereign.”33 It is the turning point of the year when one celebrates both the suffering and the resurrection.34 He writes, “for at sunset it celebrates the suffering and at sunrise the resurrection.”35 Lactantius comments that during the nighttime portion of the Sovereign’s day they “celebrate by watching until morning on account of the coming of our king and deity.”36 It is clear by such evidence that the dividing line between the sadness of the suffering and the joy of the resurrection was at sunrise, the time when the announcement was made that the messiah had risen.37 This concept eventually led to the observance of Easter sunrise services.38 According to the Synoptic texts, the messiah was raised on the first day of the week during the days of unleavened bread.39 Therefore, from this day of resurrection, the advocates of the western views argued, the new Phasekh celebration must take its beginning. Gregory of Nazianzus (362 C.E.), for example, writes, “The day of resurrection, an auspicious beginning. Radiantly let us celebrate this festival, giving one another the kiss of peace.”40 The connection between the 50 days of Pentecost and the western calculation of Phasekh is undeniable. The noted historian J. Van Goudoever several times emphasizes this point in his study on biblical calendars. Identifying the Phasekh of the 14th as the Christian Passover and the Sunday Phasekh of the resurrection as Easter, he makes the following comments: Augustine, Serm. Morin, 5:1. Origen, Celsus, 8:22. EEC, p. 17. Zeno, 1:58. Zeno, 1:57. See comment in EEC, p. 196, #105. Zeno, 1:57. Lactantius, Div. Instit., 7:19:3. Matt., 28:1–7; Mark, 16:1–9; Luke, 24:1–7. The paganization of Phasekh was in part accomplished by identifying the messiah with the sun and then making his day the day of the sun, i.e., Sunday. See FSDY, 3. 39 Matt., 26:17, 27:57–28:7; Mark, 14:12, 15:42–16:9; Luke, 22:7, 23:50–24:7; John, 19:14f, 31, 38– 42, 20:1, 19–22. 40 Gregory Naz., Orat., 1:1; PG, 35, p. 396. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

360

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh The festival of the Western Church is Sunday being the first day of the fifty days.41 For Rome, Easter seems to be a continuation of this first day of the fifty days of harvest.42 The Christian Easter is a continuation of the celebration of the first day of the fifty days, and the Christian Passover is a continuation of the Israelite Passover.43 The Sunday of the Resurrection is the Christian continuation of the first day of the fifty days.44 C. W. Dugmore supports J. Van Goudoever’s conclusion, writing: The connection between the Lord’s resurrection and the first day of the fifty days is clear in Clement of Alexandria, and in Epiphanius. Thus, the Christian Easter was a continuation of the celebration of the first day of the fifty days, just as the Quartodeciman Christian Passover was a continuation of the Israelite Passover.45

Death Versus Resurrection Merely having a technique for establishing a new Phasekh celebration does not explain the philosophy of those in the West who desired to keep the Sovereign’s day to the exclusion of the 14th of Abib. The philosophical reasoning for moving Phasekh to the first day of the 50 days of Pentecost was the sadness associated with the death of the messiah versus the joy associated with the time of Pentecost and the resurrection of the messiah. To begin with, an important difference between the conservative Quartodeciman understanding of the Phasekh week and that which developed among the western assemblies had to do with the form of the annual celebration. The Quartodecimans continued to follow the Torah’s instruction to observe the 14th of Abib as the anniversary of the messiah’s death. They also celebrated the Sovereign’s day (the day of the omer wave offering) on the following Sunday. The western assemblies, on the other hand, decided on a different approach. As a remembrance of the messiah’s death, they chose to observe the day of the week upon which that suffering originally occurred, which they deemed to be Friday, regardless of which day of the month Friday fell. The reason for this western choice was a desire to retain their interpretation of the flow of the three days’ events between the death of the messiah and the day 41 42 43 44 45

BCal, p. 165. BCal, p. 170. BCal, p. 174. BCal, p. 182. SP, 4, p. 419.

The Role of Pentecost on the Christian Phasekh

361

of his resurrection, which was always celebrated on Sunday. Charles Joseph Hefele points out: When the 14th Nisan fell upon a Friday, the two parties were agreed about the time of the festival, because the day of the week and of the month coincided. But if, for example, the idV ·14th‚ fell upon a Tuesday, the Asiatics celebrated the death of Christ upon the Tuesday, and the Westerns on the following Friday; and if the idV fell upon a Saturday, the Asiatics celebrated the death festival upon that Saturday, whilst the Westerns kept it still on the Friday following.46 Yet even if the 14th fell upon a Friday, the doctrinal differences of how one was to treat the celebration of that day continued to separate the two groups. The conservative Quartodecimans followed the commands of the messiah and the Apostle Saul to keep the celebration of the unleavened bread and wine (the Eucharist) of the Last Supper in order to remember the messiah’s broken body and spilled blood, therefore, to remember his “death.” At the heart of their understanding was 1 Corinthians, 11:26, which reads, “For as often as you may eat this bread, and may drink this cup, the DEATH of the sovereign you announce until he has come.” For the Quartodecimans, as with the Jews, the sacrifice of the lamb was not a cause for mourning, but a time for rejoicing, “because by the blood of the sacrifice their lives were saved.”47 In the same sense, the Quartodecimans did not mourn over Yahushua’s death, because, “his death was for them the cause of their salvation.”48 Charles Joseph Hefele, in reference to their observance of the 14th of Abib, notes: The Orientals, on the contrary, rather considered this day, from its dogmatic or doctrinal side, as the day of redemption; and for this reason it was to them, not a day of mourning, but of joy, dating from the moment when Christ died, and had thus accomplished the work of redemption.49 The Occidentals, on the contrary, “considering the whole day as consecrated to mourning, continued the fast, a sign of mourning, and did not end it until the joyful morning of the resurrection.”50 Since the date that the messiah and his disciples kept the Eucharist was on the 14th of Abib, the same date that the messiah died, it was on that day that the Quartodecimans celebrated their Eucharist. As an example, in the Epistula Apostolorum (later half of second century C.E.), one of the few documents remaining that expresses a Quartodeciman view, one finds some statements attributed to the messiah and supposedly given to his apostles. These 46 47 48 49 50

HCC, p. 301. BCal, p. 158. Ibid. HCC, p. 302. Ibid.

362

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

instructions included the command to “celebrate the Phasekh” as a “remembrance of my death.”51 On the other hand, in the eyes of those following the western systems, despite the fact that there was no scriptural commandment or instruction for their view, the most important event of the story of Yahushua’s suffering was not the death but the resurrection of the messiah. Those following this newer concept, accordingly, believed in a celebration of the “resurrection” of the messiah and rejected the 14th as a joyous celebration of his “death.” They premised their view on the idea that the messiah’s death was too sad an occasion to be celebrated with the joy of the Eucharist. Anatolius, contrasting the Quartodecimans with the western view, explains: And the other party (the western), passing the day of the sovereign’s suffering as one replete with sadness and grief, hold that it should not be lawful to celebrate the sovereign’s mystery of the Phasekh at any other time but on the Sovereign’s day, on which the resurrection of the sovereign from death took place, and on which rose also for us the cause of everlasting joy.52 The importance of Pentecost and its connection with the day of the resurrection demanded, for the western views, that Christians annually “celebrate the mysteries,” i.e., the Eucharist, on the day of “the messiah’s resurrection.” It was always to be celebrated on the same day of the week (Sunday) and never on the 14th, the occasion of his death, and represented the cumulation of the events from his death until his resurrection.53 By the late second century, the western assemblies, by means of meetings and conferences with bishops, had established the doctrine “that the mystery of the sovereign’s resurrection from the dead could be celebrated on no day except the Sovereign’s day (Sunday), and that on that day alone we should celebrate the end of the Phasekh fast.”54 To do otherwise by celebrating the 14th day was to be accused of Judaizing and of keeping the Mosaic Law. This new interpretation soon gained momentum and at the Council of Arles in 314 C.E. the charge was given that the Phasekh of the sovereign’s resurrection should be observed “at one time and on one and the same day throughout all the world.”55 Shortly thereafter, this principle was sanctioned as the official practice of the Roman Church at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.56 At the Council of Antioch (341 C.E.) the added punishment of excommunication was sanctioned against anyone who held a contrary custom.57 Epist. Apost., 15. Also cf., the Ethiopic and Coptic versions (GJJA). Anatolius, 10. JTS, 25, pp. 268f. Cf., Leo, Serm., 70:1; Theodore Petra (DHT, p. 24). 54 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23. 55 Syn. Areles., 1, Can., 1. 56 Eusebius, Const., 3:14, 18–19; Theodoret, E.H., 1:9; Socrates Schol., 1:9; Sozomenus, 1:21; ACC, 2, p. 1150. 57 Conc. Antioch, Can., 1. 51 52 53

The Role of Pentecost on the Christian Phasekh

363

Accordingly, the Sovereign’s day, being the day of the omer wave offering, was a dividing line in the Phasekh week. It marked the division between a time of sorrow and a time of rejoicing.

A Time of Rejoicing In Scriptures, Pentecost was to be kept with rejoicing.58 Therefore, the days of Pentecost, from the day of the resurrection to the 50th day, were seen as a time of great rejoicing for western Christians.59 Resurrection day, as a result, became the first day of this joy and exultation, a day of celebration, the anniversary of Yahushua’s triumph over death. Tertullian (c.200 C.E.), for example, tells us that the 50-day “season of Pentecost” is marked by a “joyous celebration.”60 In another place he writes that Christians spend these 50 days in “exultation.”61 Eusebius makes it as a time of refreshment: Wherefore we are not allowed to toil during this festival; rather we are instructed to bear the likeness of the refreshment we hope for in heaven.62 Beginning with the Sovereign’s day, it was forbidden to mourn, to fast, or to kneel in worship during the Pentecost season.63 In the Constitutiones Apostolicae, one is “guilty of sin who fasts on the Sovereign’s day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival day to the sovereign. For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn.”64 The Didascalia similarly states, “It is not lawful for you to fast on the first (day) of the week, because it is my resurrection.”65 We find the same concept in the Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (c.215 C.E.).66 Eusebius similarly writes: Consequently, we neither bend the knee at prayers nor afflict ourselves with fasting. For those deemed worthy of the resurrection according to the deity should never again fall to the ground, nor should those who have been freed from their passions suffer the same things as those still enslaved.67 The Sovereign’s day, being the first of the 50 days and the occasion of the resurrection, was a particularly special time of rejoicing. As such, it was deemed the appropriate time to celebrate Phasekh. Archaeus, for instance, states: Deut., 16:11. BCal, pp. 182–191. Tertullian, de Orat., 23:1–2. Tertullian, de Jejun., 14:2. Eusebius, Pas., 6. E.g., Tertullian, de Orat., 23:1–2; Epiphanius, Expos. Faith, 22 (PG 42, 828A); Basil, Spir. Sanc., 27:66; Coptic Lectionary (see DCA, p. 960); Gregorian Kanonarion (see OC [NS], 6, p. 224; BCal, p. 183). 64 Apost. Constit., 5:20. 65 Didas. Apost., 21:5:13. 66 Hippolytus, Apost. Trad., 29:3. 67 Eusebius, Pas., 6. 58 59 60 61 62 63

364

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh The Phasekh should be celebrated on the Sovereign’s day; for it was then that the joy of the Catholic Assembly was accomplished and everyone was destined to eternal life. For on that day, the mystery of the resurrection, of unchangeable hope, and of inheriting the kingdom was established.68

Augustine similarly states, “we embrace his resurrection, let us rejoice. This is our yearly festival, and our Phasekh.”69 Rupert describes the Phasekh of the resurrection as “obviously a great cause for a festival and for joy in our hearts.”70 Abbot Ceolfrid (c.710 C.E.) writes: But at the dawn of the morning, being the Sovereign’s day, they should celebrate the first day of the Phasekh festival. For that is the day wherein the sovereign opened the glory of his resurrection to the disciples to their manifold joy at the merciful revelation.71 As part of this rejoicing, the day of the resurrection became an important time for many Christians to baptize new members. Water baptism represented the death and resurrection of the messiah.72 Therefore, since the resurrection and the season of Pentecost, especially the day of the resurrection, were considered a time of joy, it was deemed an appropriate time to perform baptisms. Hippolytus and Gregory of Nazianzus both connect the time of baptism with Phasekh Sunday and the Pentecost season.73 Augustine speaks of the time from Phasekh Sunday to the following Sunday inclusively as octo dies neophytorum (the eight days of the newly-baptized).74 The Christians of Thessaly went so far as to only baptize during Phasekh. It became an unfortunate circumstance for some who died before they could receive their baptism.75 Basil (fl. 370–379 C.E.) writes of the Sovereign’s day: The day is a memorial of the resurrection, and baptism is a power for resurrection. Therefore we shall receive the grace of the resurrection on the day of the resurrection.76 Zeno (fl. 362–371 C.E.) states that many were baptized at the dawn of the day of the Phasekh of the resurrection: Through it (the day of the resurrection) the gift of future bliss is promised us, and it will confer the 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Archaeus, Frag. (PG, 5, p. 1490). Augustine, Serm. Morin, 5:1. The yearly festival is named as opposed to the daily Eucharist. Rupert, 6:26. Bede, Hist., 3:21. See for example Rom., 6:3–6; Col., 2:12; Matt., 20:20–23; Mark, 10:35–40. Hippolytus, Apost. Trad., 21; Gregory Naz., Orat., 40:24. Augustine, Epist., 55:17 §32. Socrates Schol., 5:22. Basil, Hom., 13:1.

The Role of Pentecost on the Christian Phasekh

365

same upon our candidates for baptism—those whom the happy evening now invites to plunge into the milky depth of the sacred ocean, and from it to arise rejuvenated with the new day, and with us to attain to the glory of immortality.77 Tertullian notes that the Phasekh of the resurrection affords a more solemn day for baptism, “since the suffering of the sovereign, in which we are baptized, was accomplished (then).”78 He adds: After this, the Pentecost is AN EXTREMELY HAPPY PERIOD for conferring baptisms, because the sovereign’s resurrection was celebrated among the disciples and the grace of the sacred ruach was inaugurated and the hope in the sovereign’s coming indicated, because it was then, when he had been taken back into heaven, that the angels told the apostles that he would come exactly as he had gone up to heaven—meaning, of course, during the Pentecost.79

Conclusion As we have seen, what had begun in the early Quartodeciman assemblies as a celebration of the Phasekh and Eucharist in observance of the 14th day of the first moon had later developed in the West into an observation of the 14th as the Phasekh of death and sorrow. The West chose in its place to observe the following first day of the week as a Phasekh of joy and rejoicing. This transformation was accomplished by utilizing the expanded meaning of Phasekh and then stressing the Eucharist of the Sovereign’s day. For those in the West, the suffering of the messiah was interpreted as a sad occasion, while the Pentecost season was a time of rejoicing. It became merely a matter of dividing the seven days of unleavened bread at the first day of the joyful Pentecost season, being the day of the omer wave offering as well as the day of the resurrection. 77 78 79

Zeno, 1:57. Tertullian, de Bapt., 19:1. Tertullian, de Bapt., 19:2.

Chapter XXIV

A Time for Mourning

n important influence on the transformation of the Christian Phasekh was the western interpretation of the meaning of the days just preceding Phasekh Sunday. For Systems D and E these days represented a time of mourning. They were the days in which the messiah was sought out by his enemies, delivered up to execution, tortured, suffered death, and was buried. Therefore, it was considered a time of sorrow, a period meant for fasting, one which Anatolius describes as “replete with sadness and grief.”1 As a result, the western assemblies came to believe that it was inappropriate to joyously celebrate the Eucharist and the salvation it represents at the time of the messiah’s suffering. Instead, they held “that it should not be lawful to celebrate the sovereign’s mystery of the Phasekh at any other time but on the Sovereign’s day, on which the resurrection of the sovereign from death took place,” being the cause of “everlasting joy.”2 As part of the process to eliminate the celebration of the Phasekh Eucharist from the 14th of Abib, the advocates of System E and those following System F expanded the number of days for Phasekh to 15. In doing so, they defined the first week as the Phasekh of the suffering and constructed a new Christian period of unleavened bread (though they never abandoned the scriptural seven days of unleavened bread to determine the Sunday Phasekh). Meanwhile, they had already developed the days of the Triduum, the three days representing the suffering, burial time in the grave, and resurrection of the messiah, extending from Good Friday to Phasekh Sunday. In time the Triduum replaced the 15 days of Phasekh, producing what is today celebrated as Good Friday and Easter.

The Pre-Phasekh Fast In the eyes of many early Christians, one demonstrates his mourning and sorrow with fasting and solemn reflection. Yet there is no commandment in Scriptures, except for the Day of Atonement, to fast.3 The association of fasting with the Phasekh was created for four reasons: • The general requirement that one must be purified prior to partaking the Phasekh supper.4 1 2 3 4

Anatolius, 10. Ibid. Lev., 23:26–32. Cf., Philo, Spec., 2:32; Jos., Antiq., 3:10:3. THP, pp. 139f.

367

368

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh • The connection of fasting with prayer and reaching out to Yahweh.5 • The need for one to humble himself.6 • The statements from the messiah notifying his disciples that after he had left mankind they would be fasting,7 as well as his explanations of how one should fast.8

Yet these above references are only with regard to personal fasting. There simply was no direct command in the Torah of Moses or any New Testament passage requiring a Christian to fast prior to the Phasekh, let alone how many days. To the contrary, the messiah actually ate fish and bread just prior to the day of the Phasekh supper.9 In reality, the pre-Phasekh fast developed by Christians finds its roots in Jewish tradition and was merely borrowed by the early Christian assemblies.10 No doubt fasting was brought to Christianity by many of its Jewish converts who carried on the tradition. Because there was no scriptural support for a pre-Phasekh fast, Socrates Scholasticus concludes: Since however no one can produce a written command as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one to his own free will in the matter (of fasting), to the end that each might perform what is good not by constraint or necessity.11 Regardless of this lack of authority, the issue of fasting became the source of much controversy among early Christians. Irenaeus reports: For the controversy is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast; for some think that they ought to fast one day, others two, others even more, some count their day as forty hours, day and night. And such variation of observance did not begin in our own time, but much earlier, in the days of our predecessors who, it would appear, disregarding strictness maintained a practice which is simple and yet allows for personal preference, establishing it for the future.12 Socrates Scholasticus gives us a similar description: The fast before Phasekh (Sunday) will be found to be differently observed among different people. Those at Rome fast three successive weeks before Phasekh, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Matt., 17:21; Mark, 9:29; Acts, 13:2f, 14:3; 2 Cor., 7:5. Ps., 35:13, 69:10. Matt., 9:14ff; Mark, 2:18–20; Luke, 5:33–35. Matt., 6:16–18. Also see 1 Cor., 7:5; 2 Cor., 6:5, 11:27. John, 6:4–15. EWJ, pp. 216f. Socrates Schol., 5:22. Quoted in Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:12f.

A Time for Mourning

369

excepting the Sabbath day (Saturday) and the Sovereign’s day (Sunday).13 Those in Illyrica and all over Greece and Alexandria observe a fast of six weeks, which they term “the 40 days’ fast.” Others commencing their fast from the seventh week before Phasekh (Sunday), and fasting three (periods of) five days only, and that at intervals, yet call that time “the 40 days’ fast.” It is indeed surprising to me that thus differing in the number of days, they should both give it one common appellation; but some assign one reason for it, and others another, according to their several fancies. One can see also a disagreement about the manner of abstinence from food, as well as about the number of days.14 Among the conservative Quartodecimans, who ate the Phasekh supper and Eucharist on Abib 14, “it was necessary to finish the fast on that day (Abib 14), whatever day of the week it might be.”15 Their guide was Saul’s command, “Let us keep the festival,” and his instruction to eat “the sovereign’s supper.”16 For them, Saul did not say, “Let us keep the fast.”17 At the same time, most of the assemblies of this period fasted prior to their celebration of Phasekh. Those holding to the Roman assembly view argued that “the mystery of the sovereign’s resurrection from the dead could be celebrated on no other day save the kuriakh``~ (kuriakes; Sovereign’s) day, and that on that day alone we should celebrate the end of the Phasekh fast.”18 Using as their reason the fact that the messiah was raised on the first day of the week, the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum and Constitutiones Apostolicae both condemned fasting on the Sovereign’s day.19

The Fifteen Days of Phasekh The modern term Easter is generally used only to signify Phasekh Sunday, i.e., the resurrection day of the messiah. In the ancient Roman Catholic assembly, as Joseph Bingham points out, the term Phasekh was taken “in a larger sense, to denote as well the Pasch of the crucifixion, as the Pasch of the resurrection.”20 To divide the scriptural seven days of unleavened bread to reflect the newer western arrangement, those in the west and their supporters in the east together developed what the Justinian Code calls “the fifteen days of Phasekh.”21 These 15 days of Phasekh were divided into three parts: pavsca Except the Sabbath day in the Triduum. See our discussion below, pp. 374–378. Socrates, 5:22. The “40 days’ fast” is now called Lent. The present limits of Lent appear to have been fixed in the seventh century (ADCA, 1, pp. 972–977). Augustine notes that, “The observance of forty days before Phasekh rests on the decree of the (Roman) assembly” (Epist., 55:17 §32). 15 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:1. 16 1 Cor., 5:6–8, 11:20–27. 17 JTS, NS, 24, p. 80. 18 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:2. 19 Didas. Apost., 21, 5:20:11; Apost. Constit., 5:20. 20 ACC, 2, p. 1148. 21 Justinian, Code, 3: Tit. 12, de Feriis, Leg. 8. 13 14

370

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

staurwvsimon (paskha staurosimon; Phasekh of the torture-stake), Phasekh Sunday (the Sovereign’s day), and pavsca ajnastavsimon (paskha anastasimon; Phasekh of the resurrection).22 The Constitutiones Apostolicae, for example, refers to these days as, “The sacred week of suffering, the day of the resurrection, the Phasekh-octave.”23 The seven days before Phasekh Sunday were described as “the Phasekh of the torture-stake (English, ‘Phasekh of the Cross’).” The Peregrinatio Aetheriae calls this week septimana paschalis (the week of Phasekh).24 This became the official time to recognize the suffering of the messiah as the Phasekh lamb. It was a time for fasting. Phasekh Sunday (the Sovereign’s resurrection day) immediately followed the fast (commemorating the time of the messiah’s suffering). On this day the Eucharist was celebrated for the Phasekh of both the suffering and resurrection. It began the joyous 50 days of Pentecost. Phasekh Sunday was itself followed by the seven days called “the Phasekh of the resurrection” or “the Phasekh-octave.” According to the Constitutiones Apostolicae, the last day was counted as a festival day for the following reason: After eight days you are again to have a sumptuous feast, the eighth day itself—on which he (the messiah) convinced me, the unbelieving Thomas, of his resurrection, having shown me the marks of the nails and the lance-wound in his side.25 This authority is based upon a misinterpretation of a story about the apostle Thomas found in John, 20:19–29. It is assumed that since the disciples were gathered together on the day that Thomas felt the holes in the messiah’s hands that it gave authority to have a festival on that day. It also incorrectly assumes that this day was a Sunday.26 The special solemnity of this Sunday was the laying aside of the white baptismal robes used during the week’s celebration by the newly baptized.27

The Christian Days of Unleavened Bread No matter upon which of the scriptural seven days of unleavened bread Phasekh Sunday would fall, by construct those seven days would always Examples are furnished by TE, 1, p. 304, 2, p. 1014. Apost. Constit., 7:16. Egeria, 30. Apost. Constit., 5:20:1. Unfortunately for this late view, the story as recorded in the book of John is very exact in its count and does not agree with the interpretation. The story begins with the fact the apostles were gathered together, due to their fear of the Jews, late on “the first day of the week,” being the day of the messiah’s resurrection (John, 20:19; cf., Luke, 24:33–35). At that time the messiah appeared to them (John, 20:19–23). The apostle Thomas was not among the others on that occasion and refused to believe in the resurrection until he saw for himself the marks in Yahushua’s hands and side (John, 20:24f). The story continues, “kai; meqΔ hJmevra~ ojktw` (kai meth hemeras okto; and AFTER eight days)” the apostles were once more gathered together. This time Thomas was with them (John, 20:26). The messiah once more appeared and Thomas was able to feel the wounds in Yahushua’s hands and side (John, 20:26–27). Two facts are evident. First, “after eight days” from the previous “first day of the week” brings us to Monday, not Sunday. Second, nowhere does it state that on the occasion of this appearance to Thomas that the apostles were gathered for a festival. 27 ADCA, 1, p. 597. 22 23 24 25 26

A Time for Mourning

371

occur within the 15 days of the western Christian Phasekh. Yet there was a problem. Mourning was connected with unleavened bread. At the same time, the period from Phasekh Sunday forward was determined to be a time of rejoicing. This conflicted with the fact that part of the seven days of unleavened bread would usually fall on Phasekh Sunday and after. This circumstance demanded a new approach. The solution was to make the week commemorating the messiah’s suffering (the Phasekh of the torture-stake) the first seven days of the 15-day celebration. These seven days became the week of the Christian days of unleavened bread. The unleavened bread in this instance was the messiah as represented by the Phasekh sacrificial lamb. To demonstrate, unleavened bread is called the “bread of yn[ (anay; affliction).”28 The Hebrew term yn[ (anay), a form of hn[ (anah), means to be “depressed,” “afflicted,” or “humbled.”29 The verb of this same term is used in the prescriptions for the Day of Atonement,30 where it means “you shall afflict yourself by fasting.”31 Epiphanius, while using the Syriac Didascalia as authority, notes that the Jews are in mourning when they are “eating unleavened bread with bitter herbs.”32 How then, if it is a time of mourning, can those Christians following the Roman approach observe with joy those scriptural days of unleavened bread which come with Phasekh Sunday and after? The answer was to separate the seven days of unleavened bread as found commanded in the written Torah and used by Christians to determine Phasekh Sunday from a new order of Christian days of unleavened bread meant only for mourning. They began with the premise, as stated by Socrates Scholasticus, that the saviour suffered in the days of unleavened bread.33 On this issue all agreed. The day of the messiah’s death, accordingly, was a day of mourning. What then of the other days that followed? To rearrange the Torah system, the Christians of System E and their eastern allies of System F turned to following a late Pharisaic custom.34 In this custom the eating of unleavened bread was only obligatory on the first of the seven days (i.e., the 15th of Abib), while during the remaining six days it was voluntary.35 These Christians then understood that the day of the resurrection was the day after the end of the required Christian days of unleavened bread. Under the western system, that would mean the 16th of Abib (Phasekh Sunday) was no longer a time of mourning. Conforming with this view, the Syriac Lectionary (fifth century C.E.) calls the week before Phasekh Sunday “the Great Week of Unleavened Bread.”36 This Great Week of Unleavened Bread, of course, was the first week of the Christian 15 days of Phasekh. Epiphanius, in fact, calls these seven days before Phasekh Sunday “the seven days of Phasekh.”37 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Deut., 16:3. SEC, Heb. #6031, 6040, 6041; HEL, p. 197. Lev., 23:17, 32. BCal, p. 11. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:11; PG, 42, p. 359b. Socrates Schol., 5:22; based upon Matt., 26:2; Mark, 14:1; Luke, 22:1. BCal, p. 176f. Mekilta, Piskha, 17:34–36. PBA, 10, p. 307. Epiphanius, Expos. Faith, 22; PG, 42, p. 828A.

372

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Yet there was still another issue. It was not allowed under the western interpretation to fast on the first day of the week.38 To address this problem the Didascalia turned to Exodus, 12:3–6, paraphrasing it as an interpretation of the week of the messiah’s death: But they (the Jews) made payment to Judas on the 10th of the month, on the second day of the week; wherefore they were accounted by the deity as though they had seized him (as the lamb) on the second day of the week, because on the second day of the week they had taken counsel to seize him and put him to death; and they accomplished their malice on Friday, as Moses had said concerning the Phasekh, thus: “It shall be kept by you from the 10th until the 14th, and then all Israel shall sacrifice the Phasekh.”39 Clement of Alexandria likewise claimed that Phasekh begins on the 10th day of the first moon.40 Since the 14th of Abib in the year of the messiah’s death was determined under the western systems to be a Friday, the 10th of Abib that year was Monday. Then, by transferring the name Phasekh to this period by means of the allusion to the Phasekh lamb, these became the days of Phasekh. These Christians then added the interpretation that the same sequence of days of the week must be repeated every year for Phasekh. The Didascalia adds: Therefore you shall fast in the days of Phasekh from the 10th, which is the second day of the week, and you shall sustain yourselves with bread and salt and water only, at the ninth hour, to the fifth day of the week (Thursday). But on the Friday and on the Sabbath fast wholly, eating nothing.41 Altogether, these make six days of fasting—four limited fast days consuming only bread, salt, and water, and two days of complete fasting, beginning at the ninth hour on Thursday. Epiphanius states: The Assembly takes care to keep the Festival of Phasekh, that is to say, the week appointed by the Apostles themselves in the Constitution (Didascalia), even from the second day of the week, when the purchase of the lamb takes place.42 Yet another problem arose. What if the 14th fell on Sunday? Aphraates (System F), the Persian writer, addresses this issue when he states: 38 39 40 41 42

See above n. 19. Didas. Apost., 21, 5:17:1. Clement, Strom., 2:51:1. Didas. Apost., 21. Epiphanius, Pan., 70:12:12; PG, 42, p. 364.

A Time for Mourning

373

When Phasekh (the 14th) falls on a Sunday, we must keep it on a Monday, so that the whole week can be celebrated with his suffering and with his unleavened. Because after Phasekh (the 14th) there follow seven days of unleavened bread, to the 21st day. When the Phasekh falls on another day of the week (than Sunday), we will not be troubled by it.43

The Use of Unleavened Bread The late Christian reinterpretation of “unleavened” soon played a role on the use of unleavened bread at the Eucharist. The transition away from using unleavened bread is clearly portrayed in Syria during the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. During this period, with the creation of System F and the adoption of the Roman model for the seven days of unleavened bread, the use of unleavened bread was replaced with leavened bread for the Eucharist. As Raniero Cantalamessa notes, “The Syrian Church used leavened bread in the Eucharist.”44 For example, Pseudo-Ephraem (sixth century C.E.) attempts to paraphrase the narrative of Yahushua’s suffering (passion) found in the synoptic texts. In pressing his doctrinal view, he has the messiah telling his disciples: This is for me the last Phasekh that I will celebrate among the Jews. Let it not sadden you that I say: I shall not eat the Phasekh again. For you it is profitable and useful that I give you a new Phasekh to eat. I give you leavened bread to eat. Renounce this unleavened bread.45 Pseudo-Ephraem adds, “This leavened Phasekh abolished the unleavened Phasekh.”46 Similarly, Ephraem the Syrian (mid-fourth century C.E.) “polemicized vigorously against those who wished to use unleavened (bread).”47 Of course, the most ancient tradition of using unleavened bread continued with vigor and there was still a great deal of resistance against using leavened bread for the Phasekh. Nevertheless, there was also a strong anti-Jewish sentiment among many Christians that came to believe that even eating unleavened bread at Phasekh was an act of Judaizing. The debate over the use of leavened bread continues to this day. Some Christian sects who continue the Eucharist use leavened bread while others use unleavened bread. Generally, either leavened bread or unleavened bread has been allowed by the Roman Catholic Church. W. F. Dewan reports their present view: Again, although either unleavened or leavened bread is valid, the Church prescribes for liceity that a priest follow his own rite . . . thus unleavened bread must 43 44 45 46 47

Aphraates, Dem., 12:8. EEC, p. 189, #90, n. b. Ps.-Ephraem, 2, . 609–616. Ps.-Ephraem, 2, . 567f. EEC, p. 190, #90, n. b.

374

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh be used in the Latin Church. The Passover meal was supposed to employ unleavened bread. However, there is no surety that Our Lord used it at the Last Supper, and in fact the early Church was accustomed to use leavened bread.48

W. F. Dewan’s words must be clarified to this point. The early Church of which he speaks was not the primitive Assembly, which was Quartodeciman and always used unleavened bread. Rather, his reference is to the early western assemblies that took root in the second century C.E. It is no small point that there remains a hesitancy among the more conservative elements in the Latin Church to abandon unleavened bread for use in the Eucharist.

The Triduum The 15 days of Phasekh proved to be but one more transitory phase for the western Christian Phasekh system. The Roman assembly had already developed a form of celebration that would survive centuries of use. This form of Phasekh was based upon what theologians like Origen and PseudoChrysostom call the Triduum,49 the three days of Phasekh extending from Good Friday to Phasekh Sunday. These three days represent the transformation of the messiah from death to resurrection. Tertullian calls them dies paschae (the days of Phasekh).50 The Roman assembly considered that the only fast which Christians ought to observe was that on the days “in which the bridegroom was taken away from them,”51 i.e., the days of the death and burial of Yahushua. Though, for the sake of unity, the Triduum was originally subjoined as part of the 15 days of the Christian Phasekh, it eventually became the only period of the Christian Phasekh, the 15 days having been allowed over the centuries to degenerate in practice into just Good Friday and Easter Sunday. The Triduum system was built upon the statements in the New Testament that the messiah would be resurrected after three days,52 a matter of many varying opinions.53 A further interpretation was then made that the messiah NCE, 5, p. 601. Origen, Hom. Exod., 5:2; Ps.-Chrysostom, 7:4. Tertullian, de Cor., 3, and de Orat., 18. Tertullian, de Jejun., 2, cf., 13. Matt., 12:38–40, 16:21, 17:22f, 20:17–19, 27:62–64; Mark, 8:31, 9:31f, 10:32f; Luke, 9:21f, 18:32f, 24:6f; Acts, 10:39–41; 1 Cor., 15:3f. 53 It is manifest by the statements that the messiah would spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (see above n. 52) that the time from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning does not meet the requirement. Yet western Christians and those in the East following the same doctrines still tried to make this arrangement work. Three approaches dominated the discussion. (1) In the East those following System F tried to include the period of darkness that covered the land the day the messiah died from the sixth until the ninth hour (noon until three o’clock) and the daylight that followed until sunset as another full day (e.g., Aphraates, Dem., 12:6–8, 12). (2) Some began to count the three days and nights from the hour that the messiah sat down with his disciples to eat the Last Supper (e.g., Gregory Nys., Three-Day). (3) Others ignored the definition of three days and three nights and simply counted three days: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The Quartodeciman-based groups, meanwhile, argued that the messiah died on the 14th and was raised on the 17th of Abib, being the first day of the week (e.g., Anatolius, 8, 11). They thereby place the messiah’s death on a Thursday. For an in-depth discussion see FSDY, 2. 48 49 50 51 52

A Time for Mourning

375

suffered death on a Friday and was raised on the following Sunday. It was also the western belief that this sequence of death, burial, and resurrection should be repeated every year on the same days of the week, disregarding the actual day of the moon. The determination of Friday as the day of the messiah’s death was based upon the scriptural statements that the messiah died on “the preparation day of the Jews” (i.e., a Jewish day to prepare for a Sabbath) and was buried as a great Sabbath day was coming on.54 For these Christians, this Sabbath day was the weekly Sabbath. The statements in John, 19:14, that this preparation day was the “preparation for the Phasekh” and John, 19:31, that the following day was not just a Sabbath but “a high day,” or high Sabbath, was then superimposed on top of the weekly Sabbath day. In effect they made the 15th of Abib, being the day of the Jewish state Phasekh supper, fall on the weekly Sabbath day. These three days of the Triduum were then described as (1) the day of the messiah’s suffering, (2) the day of his burial in the heart of the earth and descent into hades (sheol),55 and (3) the day of the resurrection.56 Origen, for example, while mentioning these three days under the labels of the Phasekh, the Preparation day, and the Sovereign’s day,57 writes: For us, the first day is the suffering of the saviour; the second, on which he descended into hades; and the third, the day of the resurrection.58 Pseudo-Chrysostom similarly states: Therefore, in the same fashion, the sovereign, having once worked the recapitulation by suffering on Friday, and having finished the works by which fallen man is reformed, rests on the seventh day and remains in the heart of the earth having, moreover, bestowed on those in hades (sheol) the freedom deriving from his suffering . . . on the first day of the week he reveals the light of the resurrection.59 Augustine gives the Latin view: Pay attention, therefore, to the sacred three days of the crucified, buried, and resurrected one. Of these three the cross is the one whose meaning we realize in the present life, while the burial and the resurrection signify something we believe and hope for.60 Matt., 27:57–62; Mark, 15:42; Luke, 23:54; John, 19:31–42. The Greek word a/{dh~ (hades) is a translation of the Hebrew word lwaç (sheol) (CS, 1, p. 24), the state of being dead (CHAL, p. 356; HEL, p. 257f; SEC, Heb. # 7585). 56 EEC, p. 209, #125, n. a, while comparing the Greek and Latin interpretations, states, “The Greeks have exactly the same interpretation of the Triduum, except that in the case of Saturday, the accent is on the descent into hell rather than on the burial.” 57 Origen, Celsus, 8:22. 58 Origen, Hom. Exod., 5:2. 59 Ps.-Chrysostom, 7:35, 36. 60 Augustine, Epist., 55:14 §24. 54 55

376

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Two Parts of the Triduum Following the tradition of the western assemblies, the three days of the Triduum were divided into two parts. Due to the death and burial of the messiah, the first two days were set aside for mourning and fasting. The last day, Phasekh Sunday, because of the resurrection, was a day of rejoicing, thereby continuing the Pentecost scenario. That the Roman assembly emphasis and obligation was placed upon the Friday and Saturday fast is expressed in several ways. Eusebius, for example, observes that, “Friday should be a fast for us, a sign of grief, on account of our former sins and to commemorate the saving suffering.”61 Augustine states that it was “the day that our sovereign Yahushua the messiah made sorrowful by dying.”62 Tertullian writes: Thus, too, on Good Friday, when fasting is a general and, as it were, a public religious obligation, we rightly omit the kiss of peace, having no anxiety about concealing that which we are doing along with everyone else.63 The Sabbath day of the burial was the only Sabbath in the entire year during the first few centuries C.E. on which fasting was permitted.64 Gregory of Nyssa, meanwhile, discusses the Sabbath day of the Triduum by stating: Behold the blessed Sabbath of the first creation of the world, and in that Sabbath recognize this Sabbath, the day of the repose, which the deity has blessed above the other days. For on this day the only-begotten deity truly rested from all his works, keeping Sabbath in the flesh by means of his death; and, returning to what he was before through his resurrection, he raised up with himself all that lay prostrate, having become life and resurrection and the East and the dawn and the day “for those in darkness and in the shadow of death” (Luke, 1:79).65 Amphilochius of Iconium similarly emphasizes this Sabbath day of the burial when he writes: Today we celebrate the festival of our saviour’s burial. He, with the dead below, is loosing the bonds of death and filling hades with light and awakening the Eusebius, Pas., 11. Augustine, Serm. Morin, 5:1. Tertullian, de Orat., 18:7. Apost. Constit., 7:23. This view changed by the fourth council held at Orleans (541 C.E.), which enjoins the observance of Lent by adding a rule that Saturdays are to be included in the fast (Syn. Aurel., 4, Can., 2). The special significance once given to the weekly Sabbath by the early assemblies was later suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church (see FSDY, 3). Yet the solemnity once granted to both the Sabbath day (Saturday) and the Sovereign’s day (Sunday) still finds an expression in countries where both Saturday and Sunday are seen as non-working days. 65 Gregory Nys., Three-day. 61 62 63 64

A Time for Mourning

377

sleepers, while we, upon earth, have the resurrection in mind and rejoice.66 Augustine would add to this celebration of the Saturday fast the vigil on Saturday night (being the first hours of the first day of the week): Dearest brethren, we keep vigil on this night, on which we recall that our sovereign was buried. We ought to keep vigil during that time in which, for our sakes, he slept. . . . On this night he also rose; our hope keeps watch for his resurrection.67 Likewise, the Didascalia Apostolorum reports: You shall come together and watch and keep vigil all the night with prayers and intercessions, and with reading of the Prophets, and with the good news (New Testament) and with psalms, with fear and trembling and with earnest supplication, until the third hour in the night after the Sabbath; and then break your fasts. For thus did we also fast, when our sovereign suffered, for a testimony of the three days.68 Theologians of the Roman Catholic Church enjoined fasting until after midnight under the theory that the messiah would return and accomplish the redemption of his Assembly and triumph over his enemies at that hour.69 The joy accomplished by the messiah’s death, therefore, was postponed until Phasekh Sunday. Rupert remarks: As we have already said, this joy was postponed from Good Friday until this (Sovereign’s) day. On Good Friday our saviour effected that redemption through his cross and the shedding of his blood.70 The two parts of the Triduum format was demonstrated even in the observance of the 15 days of Phasekh. In the Didascalia Apostolorum, as we have already quoted above, this arrangement is expressed by its emphasis on complete fasting during Friday and Saturday: But on the Friday and on the Sabbath fast wholly, eating nothing. . . . Especially incumbent on you therefore is the fast of the Friday and of the Sabbath (day); and likewise the vigil and watching of the Sabbath, Amphilochius, Orat., 5:1. Augustine, Serm. Morin, 4:2. Didas. Apost., 21, 5:19:1f. E.g., Jerome, Com. Matt., 4, on 25:6; Lactantius, Div. Inst., 7:19. The Apost. Constit., 5:18, enjoins fasting until the cockcrow. The Syn. Auxerre in 578 C.E. (Can., 11) forbids the breaking of the fast until the second hour of the night. The 89th Trullan canon (Conc. Quinisext.) limits fasting up until midnight (ADCA, 1, p. 595). 70 Rupert, 6:26. 66 67 68 69

378

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh and the reading of Scriptures, and psalms, and prayer and intercession for them that have sinned, and the expectation and hope of the resurrection of our sovereign Yahushua, until the third hour in the night after the Sabbath.71

Therefore, it was especially incumbent on those following the lead of the western Roman Catholic system to wholly fast on Friday and Saturday and to keep vigil during the hours after the Sabbath for the morning of the resurrection. Yet it was forbidden to fast on Phasekh Sunday after the time of the resurrection.72

Narrowing Phasekh Just as those of the Roman Catholic Church had permitted an expansion of the days of the Phasekh to 15 days, early on they also had set in motion the process that would once again narrow Phasekh to just the Triduum. Ultimately, as with many present-day Christian assemblies, it has been for all intents and purposes reduced to one day—Phasekh (Easter) Sunday. Up until the fifth century C.E., the western idea of Phasekh was unified. There was one festival of Phasekh, though it encompassed different phases. For example, as late as Theodoret of Cyrrhus (431 C.E.), the suffering and resurrection were still united as the single content of Phasekh.73 On the very day of the saving suffering, on which we solemnized the memory BOTH of the suffering and of the resurrection of the sovereign.74 Augustine similarly writes, “the suffering and resurrection of the sovereign is the true Phasekh.”75 Yet the tendency to separate the components of the Christian Phasekh into two parts and then emphasize Phasekh Sunday was also gaining momentum. As Raniero Cantalamessa points out, “At about this time in other places the two mysteries are found distributed between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.”76 In another place he adds: The distinction between the Day of the Passion and the Day of the Resurrection first becomes clear in 364 with Gregory of Nazianzus’ oration 1.77 Later, at the Council of Ephesus (449 C.E.), this separation is reflected in the words: The day of the saving suffering has come, and the sacred night, and the Festival of the Resurrection.78 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Didas. Apost., 21, 5:18, 5:19:6. Didas. Apost., 21, 5:20:11. EEC, p. 179, #82, n. a. See also Theodoret, Epist., 63 and 64 (SC, 98, pp. 142f). Theodoret, Cure, 9:24. Augustine, Cat. Rud., 23:41:3; CChr.SL, 46, p. 166. EEC, p. 179, #82, n. a. EEC, p. 162, #52, n. c. ACO, 2, 1, 1; p. 187, . 15.

A Time for Mourning

379

Once the day of the messiah’s suffering (passion) was separated from the Phasekh of the resurrection, the importance of the day of his suffering and the Sabbath day that he rested in the grave were reduced. The 40-day period of Lent before Phasekh Sunday, as decreed by the Roman Catholic assembly, came to replace any formal period of fasting.79 Today, Roman Catholics still continue Lent and some still observe Good Friday as a fast. Most other Christian assemblies, neverthless, ignore Lent, let alone any fast period. Some still keep Good Friday. When compared to the practice among the early Christian assemblies, Pentecost, though still significant, has faded. Among the laity, Christmas, which has no basis in Scriptures, now overshaddows it in importance. Today, Phasekh Sunday (Easter) is the only attempt at an original scriptural festival observed by the earliest Christian assemblies that still has any real prominence. The faithful regard this day as one of great spiritual importance. Nevertheless, what had begun as the most important festival in the Christian world, a day over which many debates and conflicts were fought, has itself been reduced to a celebration of less gravity. It once was a time for baptism, freeing slaves, relieving the poor from taxes, and freeing people from prison. Serious fasting was followed by a period of joyous celebration to mark its season. Then came the trend toward mediocrity. It began in the time of Pope Vigilius (537-555 C.E.). Vigilius ordained that the Catholic mass on Phasekh Sunday should be the same as that on any other day, “ordine consueto (the usual order),” with the exception of the addition of “singula capitula diebus apta (individual [scriptural] chapters suited for the day).”80 This reduced importance for Phasekh is reflected by the attachment of pagan customs and rites, as well as the pagan name Easter, to what was once seen as a precious celebration of truth. In the earliest assemblies, Easter bunnies, colored eggs, basket hunts, and Easter sunrise services would have been treated as an anathema. Now they have become an accepted part of the Christian Phasekh celebration.

Conclusion What had begun in the earliest Christian assemblies as the observance of the 14th of Abib as Phasekh had in time been transformed by the western assemblies into the observation of the Sovereign’s day Phasekh. To accomplish this transition, the western view divided Phasekh into two parts: a period of mourning and fasting, which preceded Phasekh Sunday, and a period of joyous celebration that began the Pentecost season with Phasekh Sunday. To accommodate several other assemblies, the Roman Catholic Church expanded the Phasekh season to 15 days, long enough to cover any arrangement using one of the seven days of unleavened bread for Phasekh Sunday. The first week of these 15 days became the Phasekh of his suffering, the time of 79 Augustine notes, “The observance of 40 days before Phasekh rests on the decree of the (Roman Catholic) assembly, and by the same authority the eight days of the neophytes are distinguished from other days, so that the eighth harmonizes with the first” (Augustine, Let., 55:17 §32). 80 Vigilius, Epist., 2:5; SCRE, 5, p. 313.

380

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

mourning and fasting. The next eight days, beginning with Phasekh Sunday, became the Phasekh of the resurrection, a time for rejoicing and an excellent time for baptism. This rejoicing continued throughout the Pentecost season to the day of the festival of Pentecost Sunday. Built into this system was the Triduum, which consists of Good Friday (the day of suffering), the Sabbath day of the burial (when Yahushua was still lying in the grave), and the day of the resurrection. In time, the 15-day season of Phasekh was shed, leaving only the Triduum. Then the Triduum moved beyond a single unified definition of Phasekh and became two separate occasions: Good Friday (the day of his suffering) and the Phasekh. This movement has resulted in the present celebration of Easter with its varying forms of practice. For example, some keep Good Friday, others do not; some keep Lent, others do not. In either case, the connection between the present-day celebration of Phasekh and the original form celebrated by the early Quartodeciman assemblies has, for the most part, been lost in the pages of antiquity.

Summation to Volume I

ur first volume has accomplished several important tasks. To begin with, it has established the fact that the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh are required under grace. They are a statutory condition of the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise (the Torah of Trust), under which those saved by grace are subject. At the same time, since the death of the messiah, we find that Christians are no longer under the Torah of Moses (Old Covenant). Accordingly, though there are four dogmasin that favor us that are still in force, Christians are not obligated to follow those dogmasin that are against us, as found in the Torah of Moses. Therefore, even though the Torah of Moses is good, just, and of the ruach, its augmentations to the festivals and sacred days, which do not favor us, are no longer required. Yet, the handwritten Torah itself will remain with mankind until heaven and earth pass away, for within its pages lay the knowledge of what constitutes sin for the Torah of Trust—i.e., the breaking of the commandments, laws, and statutes kept by Abraham. Next, the various views regarding the Festival of Phasekh and Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Shabuath (Pentecost) have been exposed. We find seven basic Jewish and Christian constructs for Phasekh (Systems A through G) and four for Pentecost. The very fact that there have been so many different ways of understanding what Scriptures have commanded with regard to these festivals and sacred days demonstrates the complexity of the issues. We have also learned that, based upon the qualification found in Joshua, 5:10–12, only two of the four Shabuath, or Pentecost, systems are viable: the Aristocratic and Hasidic. At present, the Orthodox Jews continue the Hasidic method and the mainstream Christians continue the Aristocratic form. The issues surrounding Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread are more difficult. Today, the two most practiced of the Phasekh theories are System B, the Jewish reckoning, and System E, the Roman Catholic assembly reckoning, which is followed by almost all mainstream Christian groups. There are very few advocates left for hybrid System C, chiefly because the neo-Samaritans and Karaites are in a state of near extinction. At the same time, System C is in reality only a slight variation of System B and is an obvious attempt to combine the Aristocratic and Hasidic views. Similarly, the old Syrian hybrid, System F, has few if any Christian advocates remaining. It is by-and-large only a variant of System E and, like its Jewish counterpart System C, it is an obvious attempt to mend the breach between System A (advocated by the Quartodecimans) and the Hasidic-based Roman assembly System E. The only hybrid system having any real following 381

382

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

in our present time is System G, which combines the Aristocratic view that the 14th is the date of the true Phasekh supper and the Hasidic view for the seven days of unleavened bread, i.e., from the 15th until the end of the 21st of Abib. Our first volume has likewise brought to light the most ancient and important of all the Phasekh systems, System A, the Aristocratic view. System A looms on the horizon, concealed in the pages of history, yet profound in its far-reaching implications. The evidence proves that it is the oldest system known and was used by the earliest elements of both Judaism and Christianity. It was advocated by the royal Zadokite high priests of Yahweh. They governed the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem ever since the first was built under King Solomon and, again, after it was rebuilt in the late sixth century B.C.E. System A was subsequently continued by the conservative branch of the Zadokites, who formed the Sadducean and Samaritan religious parties. In the second century B.C.E. the family of Zadok lost the high priestship at Jerusalem to the Hasmonaeans, but, due to the Sadducees, who were close allies of the Hasmonaeans, the System A practice continued. It was finally suppressed in Jerusalem by the Pharisees during the early part of the first century C.E. System A was also practiced by the earliest of the Christian assemblies, the Quartodecimans. That the first Christian assemblies would continue the Aristocratic systems for both Phasekh and Shabuath is not only revealing but points to a heretofore unexplored consideration. Is it possible that System A is the original scriptural practice? Most modern scholars have only noticed System A as a footnote in history. For the most part, they have failed to investigate its true structure and doctrine. Accepting the long-standing victories of the Hasidic Systems B and E as a fait accompli, they have passed over any in-depth study of System A. At the time it seemed unnecessary. This neglect is largely based upon the pre-inclination of interested Jewish and Christian scholars to accept the long-standing practices of their own respective groups as original, despite the evidence to the contrary. Yet, it cannot be ignored that System A has all along been the real focal point of opposition for the ancient populist Hasidic systems, such as Systems B and E. This historical detail alone should have raised a red flag. Nevertheless, System A answers questions that are otherwise an enigma for the present Christian Phasekh (System E). For example, Yahushua was under the Torah of Moses at the time that he kept the Phasekh supper on the 14th of Abib. He also commanded his disciples to keep the Phasekh with him on that date. Yet under System E the 14th is supposedly the wrong date for the legal Phasekh. The problem created by Yahushua’s actions is that if the 14th had been incorrect, then Yahushua, the author of the Torah, would have broken (i.e., sinned against), and caused others to sin against, the very Torah by which he was to receive the Abrahamic inheritance as the seed of Abraham. He would have lost his right to the eternal inheritance. For System E, Yahushua’s actions form an unsolvable paradox. No excuse that the Last Supper was a pre-enacted parable can explain his willful act of breaking the Torah by keeping Phasekh on the wrong date. No matter how one tries to explain it, Yahushua is specifically said to have been under the

Summation to Volume I

383

Torah.1 Further, he had no power as a man under the Torah to change its conditions. Indeed, once the contract had been made with Abraham, no one, not even Yahweh himself, could change it.2 When one breaks but one point in the Torah of Moses he has broken the entire agreement.3 The result of such a rebellious act would have rendered Yahushua unable to pass on to others the eternal inheritance via grace. Yet if System A is correct, Yahushua was keeping the true Phasekh, as the Quartodecimans—and even the quasi-Quartodecimans, like System D—had argued from the beginning days of Christianity. This circumstance demands that, along with the other systems, the validity of System A must be thoroughly tested. Our first volume has left us with several important outstanding questions about the Phasekh and Shabuath: • By what authority did the various Christian assemblies derive their interpretations for the Phasekh? • What was the underlying motive for Christians to abandon their original Quartodeciman system? • What is the correct definition of arab and byn ha-arabim, being the time of the Phasekh sacrifice? The answer to this question will determine when the legal Phasekh supper should be celebrated—either on the night of the 14th or the night of the 15th of Abib. • When does one begin to correctly count the 50 days of Pentecost? • What is the scriptural evidence for the correct ancient Israelite practice of Phasekh and the seven days of unleavened bread? In volumes two and three of this series our attention will shift to answering these and other such questions. As we proceed in this effort, we shall begin to solve many of the long-standing, perplexing and intricate problems associated with the festivals and sacred days of Yahweh.

1 2 3

Gal., 4:4. Gal., 3:15–17. James, 2:10.

Appendix A

The Preexistence of the Messiah

ahushua the messiah preexisted as the eloah or ruach being called Yahu Yahweh.1 In Scriptures he is one of two ruling eloahi, being the son of father Yahweh, with whom he is dja (akhad; unified).2 Together they are called Yahweh eloahi (a collective noun).3 It was in his ruach form as the angel Yahu Yahweh that Yahushua made the Covenants of Promise with Abraham. When speaking with Moses, this angel called Yahweh said, “I am the eloahi of your fathers, the eloahi of Abraham, the eloahi of Isaak, and the eloahi of Jacob.”4 At the time that the angel sent Moses to the Israelites in Egypt, he told him, “Thus shall you say unto the sons of Israel, Yahweh eloahi of your fathers, the eloahi of Abraham, the eloahi of Isaak, and the eloahi of Jacob, has sent me See Intro. to Three Vols., pp. 2f, n. 4; Chap. I, pp. 7f, p. 7, n. 4; and App. C. Cf., Deut., 6:4, “Hear Israel Yahweh our eloahi, Yahweh is akhad (unified), 10:17, “for Yahweh your eloahi, he is the eloahi of the eloahim”; Zech., 14:9, “In the day there shall be Yahweh akhad (unified), and his name akhad (unified).” For this reason Yahushua said, “I and the father are one (unified)” (John, 10:30, 17:11, 21, and so forth). This form of oneness (akhad) is as in a marriage, e.g., Gen., 2:24, where Adam and Eve were akhad (one) flesh; cf., 1 Cor., 6:16f, 11:2f; Eph., 5:22–24. The early Ante-Nicaean Christians also recognized two Yahweh’s, one uncreated and the other created. To demonstrate, Origen, Dial. Heracl., 1f, speaks of the uncreated father and created son and notes that they are distinct from one another, yet they are one. Origen writes, “And the two deities become a unity.” Heraclides agreed that this was the Christian view and Origen gives the example of Adam and Eve being one in the flesh as a type of this unity (Origen, Dial. Heracl., 2f). Also see Hippolytus, Noetus, 7, which notes that this oneness in the deity refers to two persons (the father and the son), and one power (the spirit). 3 The Hebrew generic term for deity is hla (eloah; mighty being). The plural and collective noun forms are yhla (eloahi) and μyhla (eloahim)—a collective noun being a collection of persons or things regarded as a single unit (e.g., family, army, and so forth). These terms and the title la (el; mighty one) have been indiscriminately glossed into English by the single word God. Each term actually has its own unique meaning (see SNY, chap. i). For example, eloah is singular and eloahi is plural. When eloahi is used in reference to the two Yahwehs, it becomes a collective noun, the two eloah being dja (akhad; “united” into one unit, unified) (HEL, p. 10; SEC, Heb. #258, 259), the same word used when a husband and wife are united in a marriage (Gen., 2:24; cf., Eph., 5:33– 32; 1 Cor., 6:15–17), i.e., “Yahweh eloahi is akhad (unified)” (Deut., 6:4; Zech., 14:9). As a body of beings ruled by father Yahweh the collective noun eloahim is used, i.e., ”Yahweh is the eloahi of the eloahim” (Deut., 10:17). The following are two examples, out of many, proving the existence of two Yahwehs: In Genesis, 19:24f, we read, “And YAHWEH RAINED upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, brimstone and fire FROM YAHWEH out of the heavens.” Two Yahwehs are named—one Yahweh was on the earth, speaking to both Abraham and Lot (cf., Gen., 18:1–19:23); the other Yahweh was in the heavens. The Yahweh on the earth brought fire and brimstone down on the sinful cities FROM the Yahweh who was in the heavens. In Zech., 10:12, we are told that it is Yahweh who is speaking. This Yahweh then reports, “And I will strengthen them in Yahweh and in his name they shall walk, says Yahweh.” In this passage Yahweh the son is speaking. He notes that he will strengthen the Israelites in Yahweh the father and in his (father Yahweh’s) name they shall walk. One Yahweh, accordingly, is speaking of another Yahweh who has ownership of the sacred name. Also see above n. 2, and see SNY, chap. i; and TTY. 4 Exod., 3:2–6. Though he is called Yahweh in Exod., 3:4, 7, he is described as an angel in Exod., 3:2, and Acts, 7:30–35. 1 2

385

386

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

(Moses) unto you. This is my (the angel Yahweh’s) name for world-age) and this is my memorial unto all generations.”5

μl[ (olam, the

Proof of His Preexistence There are eight areas of proof demonstrating that Yahushua preexisted as the angel Yahu Yahweh.6 •

First, Yahushua is said to have preexisted. John the baptist notified his followers that Yahushua existed “before me,”7 this despite the fact that John was conceived six months prior to Yahushua.8 Yahushua himself told the Jews that he existed “before Abraham,”9 and in a prayer to father Yahweh just prior to his death, Yahushua asked father Yahweh, “now glorify me father with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was.”10

•

Second, Yahushua is specifically identified as an eloah (qeov~; deity) “manifested in flesh.”11 Thomas, for example, calls him, “my sovereign and my eloah.”12 The apostle John, in reference to Yahushua as the logov~ (logos; innermost expression, word),13 writes: In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with eloah (the father), and the logos was an eloah. He was in beginning with eloah (the father) . . . And the logos became flesh, and tabernacled among us.14

Saul twice makes the claim that Yahushua is one of the two eloah called Yahweh (i.e., Yahweh eloahi). Saul, bondman of Yahweh and the apostle of Yahushua the messiah according to the trust of the elect of Yahweh and the knowledge of the truth which is according to piety; in the hope of eternal life, which eloah (the father) who cannot lie promised before the ages of time, but manifested in its own Exod., 3:15. For the large body of evidence that Yahushua the messiah is the angel Yahu Yahweh see TTY. John, 1:29–34. Luke, 1:24–35. John, 8:56–58. John, 17:4f. 1 Tim., 3:16. Also see above Chap. I, p. 9, n. 25. John, 20:28. That the term lovgo~ (logos) refers to the innermost thought as spoken, see ILT, Lex., p. 60, “used by John as a name of Christ, the Word of God, i.e., the expression or manifestation of his thoughts to man”; SEC, #3056, “something said (including the thought) . . . spec. (with the art. in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ).” Logos is the Greek translation of the Hebrew term rbd (debar) (see CS, 2, pp. 881–886). Debar means, “a word; by impl. a matter (as spoken of) or thing; adv. a cause” (SEC, Heb. #1697). If the reference was merely to speaking or answering then the Hebrew term rma (amar) suffices (SEC, Heb. #559–562). Debar is the active thought of that which is spoken. It arises from one’s innermost thought. Therefore, as an example, the Ten Commandments are called the ten μyrbd (debarim; innermost thoughts, the plural of debar) (Exod., 34:28; Deut., 4:13, 10:4; cf., the LXX Exod., 34:28, Deut., 10:4, which gives lovgou~, plural logos).aa 14 John, 1:1–2, 14. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

The Preexistence of the Messiah

387

seasons his logos (word, innermost expression = the messiah) in the proclamation which I was entrusted with according to the commandment of our saviour eloah (Yahushua).15 For the grace of eloah (father Yahweh) which brings salvation appeared for all men, instructing us that, having denied impious and worldly desires, discreetly and righteously and piously we should live in the present age, awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great eloah and saviour, Yahushua the messiah.16 Yahu is similar in kind to father Yahweh,17 i.e., he is also an eloah or ruach (spirit) being who exists in the image of father Yahweh18—a phrase referring to an offspring,19 and especially in this case a son who is sinless as father Yahweh is sinless.20 Finally, both Yahushua’s followers and others, as demonstrated by the ancient Shem Tob Hebrew edition of Matthew, either recognized or ridiculed his claim as μyqla ˆb (ben eloqim; son of eloahim), μyqlah ˆb (ben ha-eloqim; son of the eloahim), qwlah ˆb (ben ha-eloq; son of the eloah), and lah ˆb (ben ha-el; son of the el).21 All of these terms, whether singular or collective nouns, were translated into the Greek of the New Testament as singular forms of the Greek word for deity, namely, qeou` (theou), qeo~ (theos), etc.—thereby, calling him the ”son of the deity,” knowledge of which was basic scriptural doctrine.22 Indeed, Yahushua not only claimed that he was “the son of eloahim”23 but also reported, “I and the father are one (akhad in Hebrew, i.e., unified).”24 At hearing his claim, the Jews wished to stone him.25 The grounds for this stoning Titus, 1:1–4. Titus, 2:11–13. John, 5:17f, Yahushua “called eloah his own father, making himself i[son (ison; similar in kind) to the eloahi.” The term i[son (ison) means, “similar (in amount of kind),” ”equal to, the same as,” “equal, like” (SEC, Gk. #2470; GEL, p. 384). 18 2 Cor., 4:4; Col., 1:15–20. 19 Cf., Gen., 5:3. 20 The father is perfect (Matt., 5:48) and Yahushua, like him, never sinned (1 John, 3:5; 1 Pet., 1:19, 2:21f; Heb., 4:15, 7:26, 9:14; 2 Cor., 5:21). 21 ST, Matt., 4:3, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, 26:23, 27:40, 43, 54. In ST, the forms μyqla (eloqim) and qwla (eloq) are used for μyhla (eloahim) and hwla (eloah). Pious Jews often used q to deform the generic names of the deity (CAIB, p. 39, n. 3). 22 E.g., Matt., 14:33, 16:15–17; John, 1:34, 49, 11:27; as basic doctrine see 1 John, 4:15, 5:1–5, 12. 23 John, 10:34–36, quoting Ps., 82:6. John, 19:7, “he made himself the son of eloah.” 24 See above n. 2. 25 John, 10:22–40. This passage reflects the fact that the Jews understood that when the messiah made the claim that he was the son of eloahim (i.e., the son of the deity) that he was claiming to be one of the eloahi. For example, the angel Yahweh is called the “son of ˆyhla (eloahin; Aramaic for eloahim)” in Dan., 3:25. In the LXX the Aramaic collective noun ˆyhla (eloahin) is rendered by the singular “qeou` (theou; deity).” That the Jews recognized that the son of the deity was the angel who possessed the divine name see the discussion of the Jewish writer Philo (mid-first century C.E.), Conf., 28 §146, 147, Mig., 31 §174, Heir, 42 §205f. Another example of the doctrine of the lesser Yahweh among the Jews is found in the Apocalypse of Abraham, composed sometime between 70 C.E. and the end of the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 C.E. (OTP, 1, p. 683). While dealing with the story in Gen., 15:1–17, where we read that Yahweh revealed himself to Abraham and made a covenant with him, the Apocalypse of Abraham reports that this deity identified himself as “the angel Yahu-el (Yahu is el)” (Ap. Ab., 13:1, 10:3–8). The angel Yahu-el adds that he possessed “the ineffable name” (Ap. Ab., 10:3, 7f). 15 16 17

388

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

were twofold. The first charge was blasphemy,26 because Yahushua said, “I am the son of eloahim.”27 Since Yahushua was also saying that he was akhad with father Yahweh, the Jews understood his claim as “the son of eloahim” to mean that Yahushua was proclaiming himself to be the archangel carrying the sacred name, i.e., the second or lesser Yahweh. To demonstrate the Jewish understanding during this period, the mid-first century C.E. Jewish priest and writer Philo writes: But if there be any as yet unfit to be called the son of the qeou` (theou; deity) let him press to take his place under his (the deity’s) first-born, the logos (word, innermost expression), who holds the eldership among the angels, their archangel as it were. And many names are his, for he is called, “the beginning,” and (having) THE NAME of the deity (i.e., the name Yahweh), and (being) his logos, and the man after his image, and “he that sees,” that is Israel.28 Philo refers to this archangel as our “controlling guide, the divine logos (word, innermost expression)”29 and adds: For as long as he (mankind) falls short of perfection, he has the divine logos as his leader; since there is an oracle which says, “Lo, I send my angel before your face, to guard you on your road, that he may bring you into the land which I have prepared for you: give heed to him, and hearken to him, disobey him not; for he will not withdraw from (i.e., pardon) you;30 FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM (Exod., 23:20f).”31 The last line in the Hebrew text more precisely reads, “for he will not forgive your transgressions; for my name is within his midst.”32 The Jews, therefore, were fully aware of the archangel known as the son of the deity and the logos of father Yahweh. They clearly understood that he was the angel discussed in 26 The Jewish charge of a blasphemy worthy of the death penalty was derived from their interpretation of an unauthorized use of the sacred name, see SNY, chap. xiii. 27 John, 10:33, cf., 36–38. Also see Matt., 26:63, where the high priest and leaders of the Jews asked Yahushua if he was claiming to be “the messiah, the son of qeou` (theou; the deity—the ST has ha el)” (Matt., 27:40–43; Luke, 22:70). The angels and demons made a similar pronouncement (e.g., Matt., 8:29; Mark, 3:11, 5:7; Luke, 1:30–35, 4:41, 8:28). 28 Philo, Conf., 28 §146. 29 Philo, Mig., 12 §67. 30 Philo and the LXX both read, “ouj ga;r mh; uJposteivlhtaiv se (ou gar me upostiletai se).” The word uJposteivlhtaiv (upostiletai) means, “draw back . . . take away, remove . . . shrink from” (GEL, 1968, pp. 1895f). The sentence refers to the angel not drawing back from punishing the disobedient. C. D. Yonge, accordingly, translates this verse to read, “for he will not pardon your transgressions” (Yonge, Philo, loc. cit.). 31 Philo, Mig., 31 §174. 32 Exod., 23:21, “wbrqb ymç yk μk[çpl açy al yk.” The Heb. word brq (qereb), which is used in this verse, means, “the inward part of body, considered the seat of laughter . . . thoughts Je 414. . . body, corpse (of cows) Gn 4121 . . . womb (of pregnant woman) . . . inner parts of sacrificial animal Ex 129; interior, middle . . . in (the midst of)” (CHAL, p. 324). Therefore, the name of Yahweh is more than just on this angel, it is inside of him, i.e., part of his very being.

The Preexistence of the Messiah

389

Exodus, 23:20–23, who carried Yahweh’s name, could forgive sins,33 and to whom the Israelites were to be obedient. On this point both Jews and Christians of the first century C.E. agreed. The Jews differed from the Christians in that they did not believe that Yahushua, who they saw as only a mortal man, was this archangel Yahweh. This disagreement brings us to the second charge made by the Jews against Yahushua: “AND because you, being a man, you make yourself a deity (i.e., one of the eloahi).”34 That is, by claiming that he and the father were akhad (one, unified), Yahushua was also making the claim that he was one of the Yahweh eloahi, for Yahweh eloahi is akhad.35 Many Jews felt that his claim was impossible. How could Yahushua, since he was merely a man and mortal, be the angel Yahweh, the son of eloahim (eloah, el), that is, the son of the deity? The early Christians, of course, argued with the Jews that this preexistence of Yahushua as the angel Yahweh was precisely the case.36 • Third, Yahushua was the creator.37 By means of Yahushua, father Yahweh created all things.38 It is said of father Yahweh, “because you did create all things, and for your will they are, and were created.”39 Therefore, father Yahweh was speaking to Yahushua (Yahu Yahweh) when he commanded in Genesis, “Let us make man in our image.”40 These verses prove that father Yahweh did the creating, but the statement, “Let us make man in our image,” also shows that there was another being involved in the project. As Ephesians and Hebrews observe, the father created the world “through Yahushua the messiah.”41 Therefore, the one providing the power and the instructions was father Yahweh and the one carrying out these orders was his son, the angel Yahu Yahweh, who later became Yahushua the messiah. As a result, Yahushua had to preexist as an eloah being and as part of the eloahi of the eloahim.42 These 33 After the death of the messiah, and in an effort to oppose the Christian argument, the rabbinic Jews reinterpreted the words of Exod., 23:21. By using a rather strained exegesis, they now denied that the angel Yahweh could forgive sins (CTM, pp. 289f). 34 John, 10:33. 35 See above n. 2. 36 E.g., Justin Mart., Trypho, 56:4, 58:3; Tertullian, Marc., 5:19:3; Eusebius, D.E., 5:5, 6:1, P.E., 7:12; Origen, Prin., Pref., 1:4; Hippolytus, Noetus, 5, 8, 14. These debates are even recorded in Jewish sources, e.g., B. Sanh., 38b (that these minim or heretics here were Christians see TS, pp. 138f; CTM, pp. 285–290). 37 That the creator being was Yahweh, see Gen., 6:7; Isa., 42:5f, 43:1, 45:6–8, 54:6–17. It was the creator Yahweh who rested on the seventh day (Gen., 2:1–3; cf., Exod., 31:17). 38 John, 1:3f, 10; Col., 1:15–18; Heb., 1:1f; Eph., 3:8f. 39 Rev., 4:1–11, esp. v. 11, and cf., 10:5f. 40 Gen., 1:26. 41 Eph., 3:8f; Heb., 1:1f. 42 Deut., 10:17, “for Yahweh your eloahi, he is the eloahi of the eloahim.” This statement reveals that the eloahi (a collective noun when used for the two Yahwehs) ruled over the eloahim, or body of ruach (spirit) beings (Ps., 104:4; Heb., 1:7). That the collective noun eloahim includes the ruach angels (cf., Heb., 2:5–9, and Ps., 8:5) is even affirmed by EJ, 2, p. 957. They are the sons of the eloahim (see Job, 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, cf., LXX; Gen., 6:2–5, cf., Jos., Antiq., 1:3:1; Alex. LXX and Philo, Gig., 2, “the angels of the sovereign (i.e., Yahweh),” called “Watchers” by the book of Jub., 4:15, 22, 5:1; “the angels, the children of heaven,” by 1 En., 6:2, and the “angels” who had “fallen away” from eloah in the discussion by the second century Christian writer Justin Mart., Trypho, 79:1). As a result, biblical scholars like R. A. Stewart, in the NBD, conclude that the expression sons of (the) eloahim “means simply angels” (NBD, p. 37). Ruach angels can behold the face of father Yahweh (Matt., 18:10) and are exceedingly numerous (Matt., 26:53; Heb., 12:22; Rev., 5:11; Ps., 68:17).

390

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

eloahi of the eloahim, who are also simply called eloahim, created the world and all the things in it.43 • Fourth, Yahushua is identified with Yahu Yahweh. In a direct reference to Yahushua, John the baptist cites Isaiah, which states, “The voice of one calling in the wilderness, Prepare the road of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our eloahi.”44 John’s comment, and his recognition that Yahushua had previously existed,45 reveals that John the baptist knew that Yahushua was Yahu Yahweh, the son of Yahweh. Indeed, this fact is also revealed by Yahushua’s earthly names, Yahushua and Immanuel.46 Yahushua means, “Yahu saves,”47 for Yahushua was to save his people Israel,48 and Immanu-el means, “el is with us,”49 Yahu Yahweh being the el (mighty one) of Israel.50 In addition, Yahushua was the eloah called Yahweh that was seen by Abraham and the other patriarchs. This detail is uncovered by the fact that father Yahweh is the only being who has always been innately immortal. No human, except for the preexistent messiah, has either seen father Yahweh and his actual form or heard his actual voice at any time.51 No earthly man is capable of seeing him because father Yahweh dwells in unapproachable light.52 On the other hand, the Yahweh with whom the patriarchs had contact was both personally seen by men,53 even in his divine form,54 and his Gen., 1:1–2:4, 5:1–2; Deut., 4:32; Mal., 2:10. Isa., 40:3, quoted in Matt., 3:3; Mark, 1:3, cf., 14f. John, 1:29–34. Matt., 1:21–23. See above Chap. 1, p. 7, n. 4. Christian writers until Eusebius, for example, define the Hebrew name [çwhy to mean “ΔIaw; swthriva (Iao soteria; Yahu saves)” (Eusebius, D.E., 4:17:23). 48 Matt., 1:21. 49 Matt., 1:23; cf., Isa., 7:14, 8:8. Also see SEC, Gk. #1694, Heb. #6005 (from #5973 and 410). 50 For the numerous references to both Yahwehs as el see YAC, p. 411, under #2. Mighty one, la el. 51 John, 1:18, 5:37, 6:45, cf., 3:13. Visions of the father, on the other hand, would not be included (e.g., Dan., 7:9–14, cf., 7:1, 13; Rev., 4:1–5:10, cf., 1:4f; Luke, 9:28–36, esp. v. 35; Mark, 9:2– 10, esp. v. 7; Matt., 17:1–9, esp. v. 5 and 9; which also explains the voice heard in Matt., 3:17, Mark, 1:9–11; Luke, 3:21f). Visions are only images and imitated sounds. They are not reality. 52 1 Tim., 6:13–16. 53 Yahweh the father dwells in unapproachable light. This lesser Yahweh, on the other hand, could be approached: his human, manifested physical form could be seen as well as part of his innermost divine self. This could not be possible if it was father Yahweh. One Yahweh personally appeared to men. The Hebrew term used for “appeared” is har (raah), which means, “to see . . . seeing, i.e. experiencing” (SEC, Heb. #7200, 7202). The approachable Yahweh told Moses, “I am Yahweh, and I APPEARED TO (i.e., was seen by) Abraham, to Isaak, and to Jacob as el shaddai (the all powerful el).” These appearances could either be in vision or in personal form. The following are some examples of a Yahweh appearing in personal form, thereby proving that this Yahweh was not father Yahweh: Yahweh appeared to Abraham (Gen., 12:6–9, 17:1–22 [v. 22, after Yahweh finished talking with him, “eloahim ascended from Abraham”], 18:1–33). Yahweh appeared to Isaak (Gen., 26:1–5, 23f), to Jacob (Gen., 35:9–15, 48:3), to Moses (Exod., 3:2–4:17 [esp. notice 4:1]), to both Moses and Joshua (Deut., 31:14–16), and to King Solomon (2 Chron., 7:12–16). Yahweh also appeared to the Israelites (Lev., 9:1–24). A list of other examples are as follows: Gen., 3:8–19, Yahweh was in the Garden of Eden and talked with Adam and Eve. Gen., 19:27, Abraham stood at the face of Yahweh. Exod., 24:9–11, Yahweh ate with the 70 elders of Israel, “and they saw the eloahi of Israel.” Num., 14:14, Yahweh was seen eye to eye by the Israelites. Deut., 34:10, And never since has a prophet like Moses arisen in Israel, whom Yahweh knew face to face. Deut., 5:4f, Yahweh talked to you (the Israelites) face to face at the mountain in the midst of the fire. You were afraid of the face of Yahweh. 54 Exod., 33:12–23. Moses saw the back of Yahweh’s dbk (kabad; splendor, glory) (SEC, Heb. #3519; HEL, p. 120), therefore, his innermost being, i.e., the form as he appears before the throne of Yahweh and not as when he is manifested to men. 43 44 45 46 47

The Preexistence of the Messiah

391

voice was heard by men.55 At the same time, Yahushua claimed that he and Abraham personally saw each other.56 Accordingly, Yahu was the eloah who made the Covenants of Promise containing the inheritance of eternal life with Abraham. He was the angel Yahweh,57 the “angel of the covenant.”58 As a point of interest, the Ante-Nicaean Christian fathers not only argued that Yahushua was the angel Yahweh, calling him the second or lesser Yahweh, but also proclaimed him to be the lesser deity of the eloahi.59 As another example, Yahushua, while healing a paralytic, forgave him of his sins. The Jews watching this immediately charged Yahushua with blasphemy, stating, “Who is able to forgive sins, except eloahi alone?” Yahushua retorted by reaffirming his claim, stating that he forgave the man so that ”you may know that the son of man has authority on the earth to forgive sins.”60 We know that the collective noun form “eloahi” is the correct translation of the Greek word qeov~ (theos; deity) in the above passage because the Jews were fully aware that both the angel Yahweh, as well as father Yahweh, could forgive sins.61 Indeed, only those who have the power to pass on something in a 55 See for example the following: Exod., 33:11, “And Yahweh would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” Gen., 18:10–15, Yahweh spoke to Sarah and Abraham. Gen., 18:17–33, Yahweh spoke to Abraham (esp. v. 33). Num., 16:20, Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron. Deut., 4:36, “He (Yahweh) made you hear his voice out of the heavens, that he might correct you; and he made you to see his great fire upon the earth; and YOU DID HEAR HIS WORD out of the midst of the fire.” Josh., 1:1, Yahweh spoke to Joshua. 56 John, 8:56. 57 For the Yahweh who was called an angel see the following examples: Yahweh, the angel who made the covenant with Abraham (Gen., 15:1–21, 17:1–27, 26:1–5, 28:1–22, 35:9–15; cf., Exod., 6:2; Judg., 2:1–2; 2:19f; Mal., 3:1). Hagar and the angel Yahweh, who is an el (Gen., 16:6–14; cf., Jos., Antiq., 1:10:4; Exod., 33:23). Yahweh was one of the three angels who met Abraham and later went to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen., 18:1–19:29; cf., Jos., Antiq., 1:11:2, 4). The angel Yahweh was at the attempted sacrifice of Isaak (Gen., 22:1–19; cf., Jos., Antiq., 1:13:4). The angel, Yahweh eloahi, was in the vision of the ladder (Gen., 28:10–18; cf., Gen., 31:11–13, 35:1, 7). Jacob wrestled with the angel named Yahweh (Gen., 32:24–32; cf., Hos., 12:3–4; Gen., 35:9–15; Exod., 6:1–4; Jos., Antiq., 1:20:2). Yahweh was the angel in the burning bush who met Moses (Exod., 3:1–15; cf., Philo, Moses, 1:12–14 §65–84; Jos., Antiq., 2:12:1–4). Yahweh was the angel in the pillar of cloud (Exod., 13:17–14:24; cf., Philo, Moses, 1:29). In the MT of Exod., 4:24, Yahweh met Moses on the road, while in the LXX version it is said that the a[ggelo~ kurivou (aggelos kuriou; angel of the sovereign) met him. 58 Mal., 3:1. 59 See for example the following early Christian writers, Justin Mart., Trypho, 34:2, 56:1–57:4, 58:3, 10, 59:1–60:4, 61:1 (cf., Josh., 5:13–15), 126:1, 127:4, 128:1, 129:1, 1 Apol., 63; Tertullian, Marc., 2:27:3, 2:27:6f, 5:19:3, 3:24:10; Irenaeus, frag., 23, 53, 54, Ag. Her., 3:6:1, 4:5:2 (citing Exod., 6:3, and the discussion of this verse in Matt., 22:29), 4:5:4, 4:5:5, 4:9:1, 4:10:1, 4:13:4, 5:15:4; Eusebius, D.E., 5:8, 11, 6:1, P.E., 7:12, H.E., 1:2:2–16, 3:27:3; Clement, Exhort. Gks., 1:7f. Hippolytus describes the two Yahwehs and sacred ruach as “two persons,” a father and a son, and “one power” and as “two deities” and an “economy” (Hippolytus, Noetus, 7, 14). The view of a lesser Yahweh who was given the sacred name by father Yahweh was even acknowledged by some of the early Gnostic groups. The fourth century C.E. GN Truth, for example, states, “And the name of the father is the son. He it is who at the first gave the name to him who proceeded from him and who was himself. And he has begotten him as son. He has given him his name” (TJC, pp. 73f). One must not confuse this earlier doctrine of the Christians, about the relationship between father Yahweh and Yahushua, with the Trinity doctrine established later at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. For the transformation from the original Christian belief in a supreme being (father Yahweh), a lesser deity named Yahweh (who became Yahushua), and the father’s power (the sacred ruach [spirit], which was a thing and not a person) to the idea of three co-equal persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) as one deity see TTY. 60 Mark, 2:1–12, esp. v. 7; Luke, 5:17–26, esp. v. 21; Matt., 9:1–8. 61 Based upon Exod., 23:20–23. For Jewish knowledge of the angel with Yahweh’s name see above n. 25. Also see TTY.

392

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

covenant contract can forgive those who sin under that covenant. As John notes, “If we confess our sins, faithful he (Yahushua) is and righteous, that he may forgive our sins, and may cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”62 These statements clearly identify Yahushua with the angel Yahweh, who was the eloah who made the covenants with Abraham and the Israelites. He could forgive sins against these contracts because he authored them. • Fifth, Yahushua (Yahu Yahweh) was sent by father Yahweh out of heaven to do his will among men. Yahushua is several times reported to have been sent to earth by father Yahweh.63 Yahushua, for example, states: For I have come down out of the heaven, not that I should do my will, but the will of him who sent me.64 In the book of Zechariah we read that one Yahweh will be sent to mankind by the other Yahweh. Sing and rejoice daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I WILL DWELL IN YOUR MIDST, SAYS YAHWEH; and many nations shall be joined to Yahweh in that day, and they will be to me for a people and I WILL DWELL IN YOUR MIDST, and you shall know that YAHWEH OF HOSTS HAS SENT ME TO YOU.65 In this passage, Yahweh the son will dwell in our midst. In that day many nations shall be joined to Yahweh the father and we shall know that Yahweh of hosts, i.e., father Yahweh, has sent him (Yahweh the son) to us. Likewise, in Isaiah we once more find Yahweh speaking of another Yahweh.66 Yahweh states: Come near to me; hear this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From the time of its being there I was; and now my sovereign YAHWEH HAS SENT ME, and (has sent) his ruach. Thus says Yahweh your redeemer, the sacred one of Israel, I am Yahweh your eloahi who teaches you to profit, leading you on the road you should go.67 This passage reveals that Yahweh existed at the beginning of creation,68 and now Yahweh his sovereign (i.e., the father Yahweh) has sent Yahweh and his ruach. The one being sent is, by definition, less than the one sending him. For this reason, Yahu Yahweh is often referred to as an angel (dispatched 1 John, 1:7–9. E.g. John, 3:17, 30–35, 4:34, 5:21–24, 30, 36–38, 6:38–40, 44, 57, 8:16, 18, 12:49, 14:24, 7:18–25, 20:21; Acts, 10:36; Gal., 4:4; 1 John, 4:9f, 14; cf., Matt., 10:40; Mark, 9:37; Luke, 9:48. 64 John, 6:38. 65 Zech., 2:10f. 66 Isa., 48:1–17, and cf., 44:6 with 48:12. 67 Isa., 48:16. 68 Cf., the Hebrew in Gen., 1:1. 62 63

The Preexistence of the Messiah

393

messenger),69 for he has been dispatched by father Yahweh to give humankind his messages. Further, as Yahushua points out, “The servant is not greater than his sovereign nor a messenger greater than he who sent him.”70 For that reason Yahushua reports, “my father is greater than I,”71 and when someone called him good he retorted, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, eloah (father Yahweh).”72 A servant and a messenger do not go out to do their own work or send their own message. Instead, they do the work of their sovereign and speak the message of the one sending them. Yahushua, for example, notes, “For he whom eloah sent speaks the words of eloah.”73 Therefore, it is no surprise that Yahushua clarifies his own position relative to father Yahweh when he said, “the father who sent me himself gave me the commandment of what I should say and what I should speak.”74 He reported back to father Yahweh, “for the words which you have given me I have given them.”75 With regard to the work Yahushua performed, he clearly stated that the many good works he showed were “from my father” and challenged those opposing him by saying, “If I do not do the works of my father do not trust me; but if I do, even if you do not trust me, trust the works.”76 The evidence proves that father Yahweh had sent the angel Yahu Yahweh out of heaven down to earth to do his work and to bring his message to men. Since no man has been in the third heaven, where father Yahweh dwells, this can only mean that Yahushua preexisted as the angel Yahu Yahweh, sent from heaven to do the father’s bidding. • Sixth, Yahushua was sent by father Yahweh out of the heavens to become a new type of fleshly man. To begin with, Yahushua described himself as the one “whom the father sanctified and sent into the world.”77 He tells us: And no one (of human flesh) has gone up into the heavens EXCEPT HE WHO OUT OF THE HEAVENS has come down, the son of man who was in the heavens.78 Not that anyone (of human flesh) has seen the father, except he who is from Yahweh, he has seen the father.79 There is no scriptural statement, whatsoever, that Yahushua, while he was a fleshly man living on the earth, ever visited father Yahweh, who resides in 69 The word angel, ˚alm (malak) in Hebrew and a[ggelo~ (aggelos) in Greek, means someone who is “dispatched as a deputy; a messenger; spec. of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher):—ambassador, angel” (SEC, Heb. #4397–4398, Gk. #32). That there was an angel called Yahweh who acted in father Yahweh’s name see above ns. 4, 25, 32, 53, 57, and below n. 102. Also see TTY. 70 John, 13:16. 71 John, 14:28. 71 Matt., 19:16f (ST has la [el], which may be the original or might indicate a circumlocution for Yahweh); Mark, 10:17f; Luke, 18:18f. 73 John, 3:34. 74 John, 12:49, cf., 8:28, 14:10. 75 John, 17:8. 76 John, 10:32, 37. 77 John, 10:36. 78 John, 3:13. 79 John, 6:46.

394

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

the third heavens.80 Indeed, as a flesh and blood human he would be incapable of such a feat.81 Only the angels (ruach beings) can behold father Yahweh’s face.82 The comment that Yahushua is from the father, the unapproachable eloah, and has seen him points to the fact that he preexisted and saw father Yahweh while he lived as one of the eloahi and an archangel in the heavens. It was only after Yahushua was resurrected and quickened that he ascended again to see father Yahweh and sit at his right hand.83 That Yahushua came out of heaven is also testified to by Saul. He writes: So also it has been written, the first man, Adam, was made into a living nephesh; the last Adam into a quickening ruach. But the ruach (man) was not first, but the nephesh (man), then the ruach (man): the first man out of the earth, made of dust; the second man, the sovereign, OUT OF HEAVEN. Such as he made of dust, such also are those made of dust; and such as the heavenly, such also the heavenly.84 This passage shows that Yahushua came out of heaven to become a man. Yahu Yahweh’s eloah or ruach angel form was altered into that of a human being. Saul writes: For let this mind be in you which is also in the messiah Yahushua; who, in the form of eloahi (qeou`; theou; a deity) subsisting, esteemed it not a thing to be grasped to be like eloah (qew`/`; theo = father Yahweh); but EMPTIED HIMSELF, A BONDMAN’S FORM HAVING TAKEN, IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN HAVING BECOME; and in figure having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even death of the (torture-)stake.85 By saying that Yahushua had emptied himself and took on a form in the likeness of men, we have here a clear statement that Yahushua preexisted in a different form and then was altered to resemble fleshly man. This point is reinforced by the apostle John, who states: 80 2 Cor., 12:1–4; cf., Rev., 2:7, 22:2 (in context with 21:1–22:5). That there is more than one realm of “μymç (shamayim; heavens),” also written “ymç (shamay; heaven),” see Deut., 10:14; 1 Kings, 8:27; Pss., 68:34, 115:115f, 148:1–4; 2 Chron., 2:6, 6:18; and Neh., 9:6. The first heavens is the atmosphere around the earth (Gen., 1:6–8, 20, 7:11, 23, 8:2, 27:39; Dan., 5:21, 7:2, 13, 8:8, 11:4; 1 Kings, 18:45; Pss., 104:12, 147:8; Matt., 26:64; Mark, 14:62; Deut., 28:12; Acts, 14:17; James, 5:18; Zec., 2:6, 8:12; Job, 35:11, 38:29; Isa., 55:10; Jer., 15:3: Hos., 7:12). It was to this first shamayim (heavens) that Genesis makes reference when discussing the creation of “the shamayim and the earth” (Gen., 1:1–2, cf. 1:6–8; also see Exod., 20:11, 31:17; 2 Chron., 2:12; Ps., 146:6; Jer., 32:17, 51:48; Matt., 5:18, 24:35; Mark, 13:31; Luke, 21:33, Acts, 14:15). Within the bounds of the second heavens set the moon, planets, sun, and stars (e.g., Deut., 4:19; Ps., 8:3; Jer., 8:2; Job, 9:9; Amos, 5:8). In the third realm called shamayim, father Yahweh presently makes his home (e.g., Matt., 5:16, 45, 6:9, 8:21, 12:50, 16:17, 18:14; Mark, 11:25–26; Luke, 11:2; Pss., 8:2, 11:4, 103:19; Deut., 26:15; 1 Kings, 8:39; Job, 22:12; Isa., 66:1). 81 John, 3:13. 82 Matt., 18:10. 83 John, 20:17; Acts, 7:54–57; Rom., 8:33f; Eph., 1:20; Col., 3:1; Heb., 8:1, 10:11–13; 1 Pet., 3:21f. 84 1 Cor., 15:45–49. 85 Phil., 2:5f.

The Preexistence of the Messiah

395

And the logos (innermost expression, word)86 BECAME FLESH, and tabernacled among us, and we discerned his glory, a glory as a monogenou`~ (monogenous; united, beloved one)87 with the father, full of grace and truth. John witnesses concerning him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I said, He who after me comes has precedence of me, for he was before me.88 Saul notes that “eloah (father Yahweh), having sent his own son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the requirement of the Torah should be fulfilled in us, who not according to flesh walk, but according to ruach.”89 A Psalm predicts that one of the eloahim, called the son of Adam (being the messiah), would be made into a fleshly man. What is a male that you remember him, and the son of Adam that you visit him? And you made him lack a little from eloahim (angels);90 and glory and honor have crowned him. You made him rule over the works of your hands; you have put all under his feet.91 According to the epistles of Saul, this passage refers to the messiah, the son of man, who was made a little lacking from angels, then later raised to a high position over the works of Yahweh.92 • Seventh, Yahushua was both the ancestor and a descendant of King David. In Revelation, 22:16, for example, the messiah states, “I am the root and the offspring of David.”93 This statement brings together the fact that Yahweh was both the ancestor of David (i.e., Adam, the ancestor of David, was the son of Yahweh eloahi)94 as well as David’s offspring.95 This circumstance is true only if Yahushua was the creator Yahweh who later joined with the egg See above n. 13. The Greek word monogenou`~ (monogenous), “only born” (SEC, Gk. #3439), “only-begotten, single” (GEL, p. 518), is derived from mono (mono), “remaining, i.e. sole or single” (SEC, Gk. #3441), and genou`~ (genous), a form of givnomai (ginomai), “a prol. and mid form of a prim. verb; to cause to be (“gen”–erate), i.e. (reflex.) to become (come into being)” (SEC, Gk. #1096). The LXX at Gen., 22:16, renders the Hebrew word dyjy (yakhid), “prop. united, i.e. sole; by imp. beloved; also lonely” (SEC, Heb. #3173), as “beloved son.” The original Hebrew word indicates an offspring that is united with his father and his beloved. The translation monogenou`~ (monogenous) for dyjy (yakhid) is found in Jos., Antiq., 1:13:1, and Heb., 11:17. The Greek and Hebrew terms do not refer to an “only son,” as so often asserted. Isaak, for example, was the monogenous offspring of Abraham, despite the fact that Abraham had several other sons, including Ishmael, the older brother of Isaak (Heb., 11:17; cf., Gen., 16:15, 17:19–27, 25:1–6). Rather, monogenous refers to the fact that this particular son is the only qualifying heir that has been begotten (cf., Jos., Antiq., 20:2:1, esp. 20:2:1 §20), and therefore the “favourite,” and “best-beloved” son (ZRG, 5, pp. 335–365). 88 John, 1:14–18. 89 Rom., 8:3f. 90 Ps., 8:4–6, give eloahim, while Heb., 2:7f, translates this word as “angels.” 91 Ps., 8:5–6. 92 Heb., 2:5–9; 1 Cor., 15:24–28; Eph., 1:20–23. 93 Cf., Rev., 5:5, the lamb, or messiah, equals the root of David. 94 Luke, 3:31–37. 95 Luke, 3:23–31. 86 87

396

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

of Mariam, the descendant of David, to become Yahushua—a combined human and ruach being.96 As another example, while teaching at the Temple in Jerusalem, Yahushua answered a question from the Jewish Pharisees—the response being in front of a large crowd. During this conversation, Yahushua asked the Pharisees, “What do you think concerning the messiah? Whose son is he?” They responded, “David’s.” Yahushua (speaking Hebrew) then inquired of them about the puzzle their answer created. Quoting Psalm, 110:1, Yahushua asked them: How then does David in the ruach call him ynda (adeni; my foundation)?,97 saying, ”A declaration of hwhy (Yahweh) to ynda (adeni; my foundation), Sit at my right hand until I set your enemies as a stool for your feet.” If therefore David (who wrote the Psalm) calls him ynda (adeni; my foundation), how can he be his son? 98 None of his opposition was able to solve the riddle. Yet the answer is obvious: Yahushua preexisted as Yahu Yahweh, one of the eloahi who created Adam—i.e., Yahu Yahweh was the progenitor and foundation of Adam, the ancestor of David. As Yahushua the messiah, Yahu Yahweh was also the descendant of King David. • Eighth, Yahushua died in order to pass on an inheritance left in a covenant will Yahweh made with Abraham. Saul wrote of this inheritance, “to Abraham, through promise, eloahi granted it (the inheritance).”99 Yet, as the book of Hebrews points out, for this inheritance to be of any value, the one making the will must first die: And for this reason he (Yahushua) is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions of the first covenant (i.e., the Old Covenant or Torah of Moses), the promise of the eternal inheritance they who have been called might receive. For where there is a diaqhvkh (diatheke; covenant will) it is necessary for the death of the testator to come about.100 This issue has been completely discussed in Part I of our present study and its accompanying appendices. For now, we need only point out that the angels of heaven cannot die.101 Yet the angel Yahweh who left Abraham the covenant will had to die, otherwise the promised inheritance is of no value. That Yahweh became the fleshly descendant of Abraham see App. C. See App. H. Matt., 22:44; Mark, 12:36; Luke, 20:42f. That this is a quote from Ps., 110:1, using the name Yahweh, see SRB, pp. 1031, n. k, 1062, ns. x, y, 1105, ns. j, k; AB, NT, pp. 35, 70, 122; NJB, pp. 1646, 1678, 1724. 99 Gal., 3:18. 100 Heb., 9:15–18. 101 Luke, 20:35f. 96 97 98

The Preexistence of the Messiah

397

By Yahu Yahweh becoming the man Yahushua, he could die and pass on this inheritance. For our purpose here, the very fact that Yahushua died in order to pass on an inheritance left by Yahweh eloahi in the Covenants of Promise to Abraham proves that Yahushua preexisted as one of the eloahi named Yahweh (more specifically, Yahu Yahweh). As a result, it was Yahushua the messiah who personally knew Abraham and left the promise of an inheritance to Abraham and his seed. If Yahushua was not “the angel of the covenant,” as he is called in Malachi,102 i.e., one of the eloahi named Yahweh who promised the inheritance to Abraham, then his death was meaningless. For if the Yahweh who gave the Abrahamic Covenant did not die then no one can ever receive any of the eternal inheritance. The plan works only if Yahushua preexisted as Yahu Yahweh. 102 Mal., 3:1. The NJB footnotes this statement in Mal., 3:1, by saying, “It is most probably an enigmatic designation of Yahweh himself, derived from Ex 3:2; 23:20, see Gn 16:7c. Mt 11:10 implies its application to Jesus.” Most scholars recognize that the angel Yahweh (no word for “of” actually appearing in the Hebrew) is identified in Scriptures with Yahweh eloahi (i.e., as deity). While speaking of the angel in Exod., 23:20–23f, M. Noth comments, “The ‘angel’ is the ambassador of Yahweh (cf., ‘my angel,’ v. 23) who represents Yahweh himself and in whom Yahweh himself is present; the latter is expressed in v. 21 by saying that the ‘name’ of Yahweh is present in the ‘angel’ as the name represents the one who bears it” (EAC, p. 193; and quoted in YDNB, p. 15). NBD, p. 38, speaks of the angel Yahweh by noting, “In many passages he is virtually identified with God as an extension of the divine personality, and speaks not merely in the name of God but as God in the first person singular.” MDB, p. 29, reports, “Many angelic references in the OT speak of ‘the angel of the Lord’ or ‘the angel of Yahweh.’ In some of these texts, such as Exod 3:2–4, this particular angel is virtually indistinguishable from Yahweh himself. . . . In this case and others (Gen 21:17–21; 22:11–14), the term ‘angel of the Lord’ seems to be a reference to God as he is perceived by human beings.” EJ, 2, p. 957, similarly states, “A further ambiguity is due to the fact that the Bible does not always distinguish clearly between God and His messenger.” NIDB, p. 47, comments, “In almost every case, this messenger is regarded as deity and yet is distinguished from God (Gen 16:7–14; 22:11–18; 31:11, 13; Exod 3:2–5; Num 22:22–35; Judg 6:11–23; 13:2–25; 1 Kings 19:5–7; 1 Chron 21:15–17). These references show that the Angel is the Lord himself adopting a visible form (and therefore a human appearance) for the sake of speaking with people (e.g., Judg 13:6, 10, 21). While himself holy as God is holy (e.g., Exod 3:2–5), the Angel expresses the Holy One’s condescension to walk among sinners (·Exod.,‚ 32:34; 33:3).” That the anteNicaean Christian writers identified the angel Yahweh, the second Yahweh, with Yahushua the messiah see above n. 59. Also see TTY.

CHART M COVENANTS OF YAHWEH Yahu Covenant

Before the Foundation of the World 1 Pet., 1:17–21; Eph., 1:3–5

Adamic Covenant

After Adam’s Creation

Noachic Covenant

After Noah’s Flood

Gen., 2:15f, 3:1–23

Gen., 8:13–9:17

Abrahamic Covenants

2054/2053–2004/2003 B.C.E.* From Abraham’s migration to Kanaan at age 75 until his offering of Isaak Gen., 12:1–22:18

Abrahamic Covenants given by an oath to Isaak Abrahamic Covenants confirmed to Jacob as a statute

1869/1868 B.C.E. Gen., 35:6–20; Ps., 105:8–10; 1 Chron., 16:14–18 430 years before the Torah given at Mount Sinai

1439/1438–1400/1399 B.C.E.

Old Covenant (Torah of Moses)

From the Torah at Mount Sinai to the TransJordan Covenant recorded in Deuteronomy Exod., 20:1–Deut., 31:26

Davidic Covenant

Four Dogmasin for Us Continue

1954/1953 B.C.E. Gen., 26:1–5; Ps., 105:8–10;

992/991 B.C.E. Ps., 89:1–4, 34–37; 2 Sam., 7:4–29; 1 Chron., 17:3–27

Dogmasin Against Us Annulled at Yahushua’s Death

Phasekh 30 C.E. Eph., 2:11–17; Col., 2:13–15; Acts, 15:1–29, 16:4

*All dates are Abib reckoning (i.e., from the

To Present Time

spring of one year to the spring of the next)

398

Appendix B

The Yahu Covenant

here exists a special eternal covenant between father Yahweh and the archangel Yahu Yahweh (who later became the man Yahushua the messiah). Yahu always obeyed father Yahweh and has never sinned—whether under the Yahu Covenant, or any angelic covenant (for angels can sin),1 or, after becoming a man, under the Adamic Covenant and its extensions, the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise and the Torah made at Mount Sinai.2 Yahushua notes, “I have kept my father’s commandments, and abide in his love.”3 For this reason, Yahu has received the promises contained within all of these covenant agreements.

An Akhad Covenant The Yahu Covenant agreement with father Yahweh is much like that of a senior and junior partner in a company or husband and wife in a marriage covenant. Father Yahweh is the head of the messiah, as the husband is the head of the wife in a human marriage, or as the messiah is the head of the Assembly.4 Yahweh eloahi is dja ( akhad; unified as one)5 in the ruach,6 just as Adam and Eve were akhad in the flesh.7 For this reason Yahushua and father Yahweh are said to be akhad—and we shall one day be akhad with them.8 In this covenant partnership, as with a marriage covenant, both parties share as joint owners of all the assets, but the junior partner is subject to the senior partner (as the wife is subject to her husband). The junior partner continues in this arrangement only as long as he does not transgress the agreement. At the same time, both partners are allowed to leave their right, title, and interest as an inheritance. Yet those receiving this inheritance must themselves live by the conditions of the original covenant (the Yahu Covenant). The agreement to leave an inheritance to their children, whether Adam, Abraham, the Israelites at Mount Sinai, or anyone else, can be made by either E.g., 2 Pet., 2:4; Jude, 1:6. 1 Pet., 2:21f; 2 Cor., 5:21; Heb., 4:14f; 1 John, 3:5. John, 15:10. 1 Cor., 11:3–12; Eph., 1:19–23, 4:15f, 5:22–27; Col., 1:18, 2:16–19. The Hebrew word dja (akhad) means much more than the cardinal number “one,” as it is so often translated. Its primary meaning is to be “united, i.e. one,” “to unify” (HEL, p. 10; SEC, Heb. #258, 259; CHAL, p. 9). The same word is used when a husband and wife are united in a marriage (Gen., 2:24; cf., Eph., 5:33–32; 1 Cor., 6:15–17). The Hebrew dja (akhad) is translated into the Greek of the LXX as ei`~ (eis), by its neut. form e[n (hen), and by its fem. form miva (mia), gen. eJnov~, mia`~, etc. (e.g., Deut., 6:4; Zech., 14:9; Gen., 2:24). These forms all mean “one” as in an individual or one unified group (GEL, 1968, pp. 491ff; GEL, pp. 231, 257, 512; SEC, Gk. #1520, 3391). 6 Deut., 6:4; Zech., 14:9; 1 Cor., 6:16f. 7 Gen., 2:24; Matt., 19:4–6. 8 John, 10:30, 17:11, 20–23; 1 Cor., 16:16f; Eph., 5:28–32; 1 Cor., 15:8; etc. 1 2 3 4 5

399

400

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

eloahi. Nevertheless, only one of the eloahi in the original agreement is required to die in order to pass on their interest in the inheritance. Further, only the interest of the eloah being who dies is being transferred. The father, who cannot die, never loses any share in the ownership of all things because Yahushua’s share is always subject to that of father Yahweh’s. Yahu was given authority over all things, except father Yahweh.9 This authority included the power to create,10 and even the use of the sacred name.11 The conditions of the Yahu Covenant for retaining this authority included the agreement that Yahu Yahweh would leave an inheritance by making the Adamic Covenant with Adam, by making the Covenants of Promise with Abraham, and by ordaining the marriage agreement (the Torah of Moses) with the Israelites. One of the major agreements in the Yahu Covenant was Yahu’s promise to become a fleshly man, to be born under the conditions of the handwritten Torah of Moses, and to qualify as an heir under all of the covenants made with mankind. He then had to subject his sinless life to death in order to pass on the inheritance contained in those agreements. In return for Yahu not sinning against the Yahu Covenant, father Yahweh promised to resurrect Yahu from the dead, quicken him into a higher form, and return him to his former glory. He also promised, among other things, to perfect him into a higher sinless form, give him life within himself, and to subject all things under him, except for father Yahweh.

From the Foundation The messiah’s death was “foreknown before the foundation of the world.”12 This detail reveals that Yahushua had agreed to become a fleshly man and to leave an inheritance to the family of Adam before Adam was ever created. For this reason, in Revelation, Yahushua is called “the Lamb slain from the founding of the world.”13 Further, Yahushua will not enter into his rest until the seventh day (millennium),14 “though verily the works from the foundation of the world were done.”15 In fact, father Yahweh “appointed him heir of all things, through whom also he made the world-ages,”16 thereby indicating Yahu’s appointment as his own heir prior to our present world-age. In the same manner, the plan involving the messiah and the salvation of human kind was also known from the foundation of the world: Blessed be the eloah and father of our sovereign Yahushua the messiah, who blessed us with every ruach (spiritual) blessing in the heavenlies with messiah; according as he chose us in him (the messiah) before the foundation of the world, for us to be sacred and 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 Cor., 15:24–28. John, 1:3f, 10; Col., 1:15–18; Heb., 1:1f; Eph., 3:8f. E.g., Exod., 23:20–23; and see App. A. 1 Pet., 1:17–21. Rev., 13:8. Heb., 3:7–4:13; cf., Rev., 20:4–8; 2 Pet., 3:3–13; Ps., 84:10, 90:4. Heb., 4:3. Heb., 1:1f.

The Yahu Covenant

401

blameless before him in love; having predetermined us for adoption through Yahushua the messiah unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.17 Yahushua informs us that those blessed of father Yahweh shall “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”18 Saul told Titus of “the hope of eternal life, which Yahweh, who cannot lie, promised before the ages of time.”19 A promise indicates an agreement. There are also those whose “names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.”20 Saul informed Timothy that Yahweh “shall save and call us with a sacred calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in messiah Yahushua before the ages of time.”21 The “mystery” of this plan for eternal salvation to all nations, as he writes elsewhere, “has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now was made manifest to his sacred ones.”22 These statements demonstrate that the inheritance granting eternal life by means of grace can only come about through the death and resurrection of the messiah. At the same time, for those who do not qualify, the end result is eternal death. Accordingly, eternal death for the wicked was also part of the agreement that existed prior to the creation of Adam and our world. Yahu was required by his agreement with father Yahweh to make a covenant will with Adam and, later, with a descendant (Abraham). The fact that Yahushua is heir to all things defines the agreement as a will;23 and, as such, this will demands the death of the testator of the will in order for the inheritance to pass on.24 Yahu must himself come under the Adamic and Abrahamic agreements, as well as the Torah of Moses which was attached thereto, in order to receive back his authority over all things after his death and resurrection.

Yahu Subject to Yahweh To be heir of all things means that under their covenant, father Yahweh gave Yahu all things in order that he could leave them as an inheritance. Since the inheritance contains eternal life, the contract is an eternal covenant. But an inheritance to all things is allowed only when the recipient does not sin. This heirship of the messiah likewise defines his role in the Adamic Covenant as the tree of life,25 and his subsequent obedience unto death. It also reveals that Yahu entered into this agreement with father Yahweh before any man walked upon the face of the earth. In speaking of his impending death, the messiah remarks, “I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it once more. THIS COMMANDMENT I RECEIVED FROM MY FATHER.”26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Eph., 1:3–5. Matt., 25:31–34. Titus, 1:2. Rev., 17:8. 2 Tim., 1:9. Col., 1:26. Heb., 1:2. Heb., 9:13–18. See App. E. John, 10:18.

402

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

As a result of Yahu keeping his part of the agreement, father Yahweh raised the messiah and quickened him into eternal life,27 gave him immortal life within himself,28 and returned him to the right hand side of the heavenly throne.29 It was also by means of his covenant with father Yahweh, which was made before the foundation of the world, that Yahu (Yahushua) was resurrected and quickened into immortality before any other human. That Yahu was not raised from the dead in accordance with the Abrahamic Covenants is made manifest by the fact that not one of the promises provided in that inheritance has yet been granted.30 As we demonstrate in Chapter II, not one of the Abrahamic promises has yet been given. Yet Yahushua was already under the Yahu Covenant, which allowed him to receive certain rewards prior to the resurrection of Abraham and the elect and the rest of the world under the Adamic Covenant and later Abrahamic Covenants of Promise. Father Yahweh’s separate contract with Yahushua explains why the Scriptures only number two great resurrections for all mankind: 31 • The First Resurrection. It consists of the justified elders (Abraham, Isaak, etc.), the apostles, and the elect of Israel. These will be raised when the messiah returns at the beginning of the great Sabbath millennium (the seventh day) and shall reign with him as priests and kings during 1,000-year period before the Judgment Day.32 • The Second Resurrection (i.e., the general resurrection). It consists of the vast majority of mankind (both justified and unjustified) who did not qualify for the First Resurrection. These will be raised in the early part of the 1,000-year Judgment Day (the eighth day).33 The messiah’s resurrection, quickening into eternal life, and perfection cannot be counted among the resurrections of mankind because it came by means of the much earlier contract with father Yahweh and not via the Adamic or Abrahamic covenants. Per their agreement, it was father Yahweh who raised the messiah and gave him eternal life.34 On the other hand, to receive eternal salvation, we must obey the messiah, 35 he is our eloah (deity). 36 It is by means of Yahu Yahweh (Yahushua the messiah) and the covenants he made with mankind that the rest of mankind receive their resurrection from the dead, 37 as well as their reception of eternal life, 38 and their baptism by ruach and fire. 39 We receive these things directly E.g., 1 Pet., 1:21; Acts, 2:32, 4:10, 13:32–34, 17:31; Rom., 10:9; 1 Cor., 6:14. John, 5:26. E.g., Ps., 110:1; Matt., 22:41–44, 26:64; Mark, 14:62, 16:19; Luke, 20:42, 22:69; Acts, 2:34, 7:54– 56; Rom., 8:34; Eph., 1:20; Col., 3:1; Heb., 1:3, 13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; 1 Pet., 3:21f. 30 See above Chap. III, pp. 47–51. 31 Rev., 20:4–15. 32 Heb., 3:7–4:13; cf., Rev., 20:4–8; 2 Pet., 3:3–13; Pss., 84:10, 90:4. 33 2 Pet., 3:3–13; cf., Rev., 20:11–21:8, in contrast with Rev., 20:4–8. Also cf., Pss., 84:10, 90:4. 34 E.g., 1 Pet., 1:21; Acts, 2:32, 4:10, 13:32–34, 17:31; Rom., 10:9; 1 Cor., 6:14. 35 Heb., 5:9. 36 E.g., Titus, 1:3f, 2:11–13; John, 20:28. 37 John, 11:24f; Acts, 4:1f; 2 Cor., 4:14; cf., Rom., 8:11; 1 Cor., 6:14; John, 2:19–21. 38 John, 3:15, 5:39f, 6:54, 10:27f, 17:1f; cf., Rom., 6:23. 39 Matt., 3:11f; Luke, 3:16f. 27 28 29

The Yahu Covenant

403

from the messiah because our contract is with him. The messiah received certain things from father Yahweh because his contract was with the father. At the same time, both the messiah and all of mankind are subject to father Yahweh, because our covenant agreement with Yahushua is itself subject to Yahushua’s covenant agreement with father Yahweh. This information reflects the fact that it was the son, Yahu Yahweh, who made the Adamic Covenant with mankind and the Abrahamic Covenants with Abraham. Yahu Yahweh, after becoming Yahushua the messiah, a descendant of Abraham, also came under the same covenants made with Adam and Abraham. The Old Covenant Torah made with the entire family of the Israelites after the Exodus was binding upon Yahushua as well, for during his life he was under the handwritten Torah.40 The order of the covenants made so far, each attached as part of the previous ones, are as follows (Chart M): • The Yahu Covenant • The Adamic Covenant (Torah of Trust)41 • The Noachic Covenant42 • The Abrahamic Covenants (Torah of Trust)43 Two covenants are independently attached to the Abrahamic Covenants: • The Torah at Mount Sinai and its augmentations (the works of the Torah)44 • The Davidic Covenant45 In the future there shall be further covenants made, including the New Covenant that is promised to the House of Israel and the House of Judah within the Covenants of Promise made with Abraham.46

Why Do It This Way? Why did Yahu Yahweh have to die at all in the Yahu Covenant? Instead of a will, why not merely grant eternal life as a gift? The necessity of Yahu going through this process is revealed in Hebrews, 2:5–18. This passage notes that the world to come is not subject to angels (for men will judge angels).47 Messiah was made lower than eloahim (i.e., angels)48 when he became a fleshly man, but by dying and then obtaining the inheritance, all the works of father Yahweh become subject to him. But not all at once. The passage in Hebrews continues: Gal., 4:4f, cf., 3:23. Gen., 1:26–30 (cf., 5:2), 2:8f, 3:1–3, 17–19, 22–24; Isa., 24:4f; Hos., 6:6f; and see our discussion above in Chap. VI, pp. 87–91. 42 Gen., 8:22, 9:1–17. 43 Gen., 12:1–3, 7, 13:14–17, 15:1–12, 17–21, 17:1–14, 18:16–19, 21:9–13. 44 The original content of the Torah covenant is found in Exod., 20:1–24:8; and the numerous augmentations are located in the subsequent chapters of Exodus and on through until the end of Deuteronomy. 45 Ps., 89:1–4, 34–37; 2 Sam., 7:4–29; 1 Chron., 17:3–27. Cf. Isa., 9:6f; Luke, 1:31–33. 46 Jer., 31:31–34; Heb., 8:3–13. 47 1 Cor., 6:2f. 48 Ps., 8:4–7; cf., Heb., 2:5–9. 40 41

404

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him; but we see Yahushua, who was made a little lower than angels, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUFFERING OF DEATH, with glory and with honor crowned; SO THAT BY THE GRACE OF ELOAH HE MIGHT TASTE DEATH. For it was becoming to him, through whom came all things and through whom are all things, many sons to bring to glory, THE LEADER OF THEIR SALVATION, THROUGH SUFFERINGS TO BE MADE PERFECT. For both he who sanctifies and those being sanctified are all out of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare your name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will sing praises to you. And again, I will be trusting in him. And again, Behold, I and the children which Yahweh gave me. Since therefore the children have partaken of flesh and blood, also he in like manner took part in the same, that THROUGH DEATH HE MIGHT ANNUL HIM WHO HAS THE DOMINION OF DEATH, THAT IS, THE DEVIL; and he might set free those whosoever by fear of death through all their lifetime were subject to bondage. For not indeed of angels does he take hold, but of the seed of Abraham he takes hold. Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like his brethren, that a merciful and trustful high priest he might be in things relating to eloah, for to make propitiation for the sons of the people; FOR IN THAT HE HAS SUFFERED HIMSELF BY HAVING BEEN TEMPTED, HE IS ABLE TO HELP THOSE BEING ENTICED.49

Several important points are established: • Yahushua had to experience different sufferings, including the suffering and tasting of death, in order for him to be made perfect, as father Yahweh is perfect.50 He could not experience these things as an eloah being. Neither could he reach this higher perfection himself without suffering even unto death. • By dying Yahushua was able to open a pathway to freedom for mankind, who at present are under the bondage of death and the authority of Satan, the one who has the dominion of death. • Yahushua declared the sacred name to his disciples.51 49 50 51

Heb., 2:8–18. Matt., 5:48. Cf., John, 17:6, 26.

The Yahu Covenant

405

• By dying Yahushua was able to annul Satan. That is, by dying and passing on the inheritance to himself, he has opened a path for us to escape the rulership of Satan in this world-age. We also are able to circumvent the need to come under the handwritten Torah. With the inheritance in his hands, grace appears, giving us another way to eternal life, one within our realm of possibility. • Having been tempted himself and knowing our experience in being enticed, Yahushua is now able to assist us. It is for this reason that Yahushua did not judge anyone in our present condition, for that would be unfair. Yet, having experienced what it is to be a man and suffering death, he has now qualified to judge men during the great Judgment Day.52 His sacred ones (the elect of Israel), having also suffered unto death in this world, shall be raised up in the First Resurrection. Under the leadership of the messiah, they shall also judge men and angels.53 The evidence proves that Yahu had to be raised to a higher level of perfection himself. Indeed, he even obtained life within himself from father Yahweh.54 Yet to gain those things, Yahushua had to experience temptations, sufferings, and even suffer death. At the present time, while in a state of perfection, he can plead for us, and assist us toward our own perfection. Yahu’s experience as a human being and his present quickened condition qualify him as the “ajrchgo;n (archegon; chief leader)” of our salvation.55 Yahu Yahweh (Yahushua the messiah) will deliver us from the curse of death because he was faithful to the Yahu Covenant. 52 53 54 55

John, 12:47f; 2 Tim., 4:1, 8; Acts, 10:40–43; 2 Cor., 5:10. 1 Cor., 6:2f; Rev., 20:4–6. John, 5:26. Heb., 2:10.

Appendix C

Why Yahu Yahweh Became Flesh

t was Yahu Yahweh who came out of the third heavens where father Yahweh dwells and became the flesh and blood man known as Yahushua the messiah.1 Two questions arise, “Why did Yahu become flesh?” and, “Why specifically did he have to become the fleshly descendant of Abraham?” There are four reasons: (1) Yahu was the testator of a will given to Abraham, which gave eternal life and great possessions. The will had no value unless the testator died. (2) After his death and resurrection, in order to receive back his power and possessions, which were left to Abraham and his seed as an inheritance, Yahu needed to be an heir in his own will. He could only qualify as an heir if he was the fleshly seed of Abraham. (3) The kingly line promised in the inheritance passed through King David, the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, Yahushua also had to be the descendant of King David. (4) Yahu needed to suffer unto death while continuing not to sin in order to attain perfection and to be capable of assisting us in our own temptations.

Testator of the Will The legal reason for Yahu Yahweh to become a fleshly man was the requirement for one of the eloahi to die. As demonstrated in our main study, mankind receives eternal life from Yahu Yahweh by means of an inheritance left in a will. Yet nothing from this inheritance can be received unless there is the death of the testator. For where there is a diaqhvkh (diatheke; covenant will)2 it is necessary for the death of the testator to come about. For a covenant will is affirmed upon death, since in no way is it of force when the testator is living.3 John, 3:13, 6:46; 1 Cor., 15:45–49. Also see App. A and B. The word diaqhvkh (diatheke) is “prop. a disposition, i.e. (spec.) a contract (espec. a devisory will:—covenant, testament” (SEC, Gk. #1242); “a disposition of property by will, a will, testament . . . an arrangement between two parties, covenant” (GEL, p. 187). 3 Heb., 9:16f. 1 2

407

408

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Father Yahweh cannot die for he alone possesses immortality and life within himself from eternity.4 Therefore, in order to pass on the eternal inheritance, Yahu Yahweh, the author of the “covenant will” with Abraham, was the eloah being that had to die. Since Yahu could not die as a sinless ruach (spirit) being,5 he had to become mortal. Mortality required that Yahu take on a form that could die. Therefore, by the eloah Yahu Yahweh becoming a fleshly descendant of Adam, he brought upon himself the ability to die, though he had never himself sinned, for the entire family of Adam had been cursed with death in the flesh. To demonstrate, in scriptural thought, all of a man’s descendants, before they are born, are counted as participating in the actions of their parent or ancestor.6 As a result, by one man, Adam, “sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and thus TO ALL MEN DEATH PASSED, for that all sinned.”7 Therefore, “it is apportioned to men once to die.”8 Because Yahu had joined himself with the flesh of the descendants of Adam, Yahushua is called the son of man, a description which is often used in close association with the discussions of his sufferings and death.9 Accordingly, due to the requirement of his death as the testator of the covenant will, the eloah Yahu became the fleshly man Yahushua the messiah. Saul writes: For let this mind be in you which is also in the messiah Yahushua; who, in the form of eloahi (qeou`; theou) subsisting, esteemed it not a thing to be grasped to be like eloah (qew`;/` theo = father Yahweh); but emptied himself, a bondman’s form having taken, in the likeness of men having become; and in figure having been found as a man, he humbled himself, HAVING BECOME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH, even death of the (torture-)stake.10 By saying that Yahushua had emptied himself and had taken on a form in the likeness of man, we have here a clear statement that Yahushua preexisted and then was altered into the form of a fleshly man.11 The apostle John also tells us that the preexistent eloah, whom he calls the lovgo~ (logos; innermost thought, word), was manifested in a fleshly form. He writes: 1 Tim., 6:16; John, 5:26. Compare Rev., 12:7–12, with Luke, 20:35f, which show that only the angels of heaven cannot die. The wicked and sinning angels, on the other hand, are cast out of heaven and do eventually die (cf., 2 Pet., 2:4; Matt., 25:41). 6 Heb., 7:4–10; Deut., 29:14. 7 Rom., 5:12. 8 Heb., 9:27. 9 E.g., Mark, 8:31–38, 9:30–32, 10:33f, 14:21, 41; Luke, 18:31–34; Matt., 20:18f, 26:45; etc. Also see Mark, 13:26, 14:62; Luke, 17:24, 21:27, and so forth, for the son of man in glory. The son of man came to save (Luke, 19:10) and to give life (Matt., 20:28). 10 Phil., 2:5f. 11 Cf., 1 John, 4:2f, “by this you know the ruach of Yahweh: every ruach which confesses Yahushua the messiah (i.e., Yahweh the angel) came in the flesh, is out of Yahweh; and any ruach which does not confess Yahushua the messiah (i.e., Yahweh the angel) came in the flesh, is not out of Yahweh; and this is the power of the anti-messiah.” Everyone will admit that Yahushua was a fleshly man, even those Jews who do not believe he was the messiah. Accordingly, this passage 4 5

Why Yahu Yahweh Became Flesh

409

(Yahushua) who was from the beginning, who we have heard, who we have seen with our eyes, upon whom we have gazed and our hands have handled, concerning the logos of life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, who was with the father, and was manifested to us.12 Speaking of this logos, John elsewhere reports: In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with eloah (father Yahweh), and the logos was an eloah. He was in the beginning with eloah (father Yahweh). All things through him came into being, and without him came into being not one thing which has come into being. In him was the life, and the life was the light of men.13 Then, after making this statement of preexistence, John adds: And the logos BECAME FLESH, and tabernacled among us, and we discerned his glory, a glory as a monogenou`~ (monogenous; only born heir)14 with the father, full of grace and truth. John (the baptist) witnesses concerning him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I said, He who after me comes has precedence of me, for he was before me.15 The fact that Yahu Yahweh (the logos and son of the deity) was to suffer and die in order to fulfill the Yahu Covenant and pass on the inheritance was known from the foundation of the world.16 The book of Hebrews, for example, informs us that, “it was necessary, from the foundation of the world, for him (Yahushua) to have suffered often”; 17 and the book of Revelation calls Yahushua, “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”18

Heir The problem with leaving all one’s right, title, and interest in a will and then dying and passing on that inheritance is that, upon the subsequent resurrection only makes sense if we understand that by coming in the flesh it means that Yahu Yahweh, the testator of the covenant will, came in the flesh as Yahushua the messiah. Those claiming that Yahu did not come in the flesh are of the anti-messiah, that is, they are followers of the messiah who is anti (the one standing “opposite” to) the true messiah (GEL, 1996, p. 153). 12 1 John, 1:1f. 13 John, 1:1–4. That life was in the logos and the logos was with the father deity in the eloahim; cf., Gen., 1:26–27. 14 For the Greek word monogenou`~ (monogenous), meaning “only born heir” or “favourite son,” see above App. A, p. 395, n. 87. 15 John, 1:14–18. 16 For the Yahu Covenant see App. B. That Yahu Yahweh is the logos and the son of eloahim (the deity) see above App. A, pp. 386–395. 17 Heb., 9:26. 18 Rev., 13:8.

410

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

of the testator, he no longer has any claim to that which is being inherited. The dead neither own nor inherit anything. If a man declared legally dead, for example, suddenly reappears years later and finds his former wife remarried, he no longer has any rights as her husband. She now legally belongs to another man.19 Herein lies an elementary point. Since the messiah left all things to the heirs of the covenant will, upon his resurrection back to life he would own nothing. In order to solve this dilemma, Yahu had to become his own heir. As a result, the Scriptures specifically designated the messiah as an heir in his own will.20 For example, in reference to the promises given in Genesis, 13:15, and 17:7, Saul tells us: But to Abraham were spoken the promises, and to his seed. He does not say, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to your seed, which is the messiah.21 Another point is that Yahu had to become a lower form of being in order to attain a higher position. To demonstrate, we read in Psalm 8: What is a male that you remember him, and the son of Adam that you visit him? AND YOU MADE HIM LACK A LITTLE FROM ELOAHIM; and glory and honor have crowned him. You made him rule over the works of your hands; you have put all under his feet.22 This passage refers to the messiah, the son of man, who was made a little lacking from or less than eloahim. He was then raised to a higher position over the works of Yahweh.23 Three phases are included: • The first phase is when the messiah (Yahu Yahweh) was part of the eloahim. In this form he gave the promises to Adam and Abraham. • In the second phase Yahu Yahweh became a fleshly human, i.e., one who is lacking a little from eloahim. • Third, he was crowned with glory—i.e., per the Yahu Covenant,24 he was resurrected and quickened into a higher form of ruach being, and then was returned to his position next to father Yahweh. We find the passage from Psalm 8 further explained in the book of Hebrews. Not for angels did he (father Yahweh) subject the habitable world which is to come, of which we speak; but one fully testified somewhere saying, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, 19 In Scriptures the husband has authority over the body of his wife and the wife has authority over the body of her husband (1 Cor., 7:4f). The wife is to submit herself to her husband in all things, for he is the head of the wife (1 Cor., 11:3; Eph., 5:22–24). 20 Heb., 1:1f; Rom., 8:16f. 21 Gal., 3:16. 22 Ps., 8:4–6. 23 Cf., Heb., 2:5–9; 1 Cor., 15:24–28; Eph., 1:20–23. 24 See App. B.

Why Yahu Yahweh Became Flesh

411

that you visit him? You did make him a little lower than angels (eloahim); with glory and honor you did crown him, and did set him over the works of your hands; all things you did subject under his feet.” For in subjecting to him (Yahushua) all things, nothing he (father Yahweh) left unsubject to him. But now, not yet do we see all things subjected to him; but we see Yahushua the messiah, who was made a little lower than the angels ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUFFERING OF DEATH, crowned with glory and honor; so that by the grace of Yahweh for every one HE MIGHT TASTE DEATH.25 These passages prove that Yahu Yahweh was made lower than an angel’s form (for the angels will not subject the world to come), but instead he laid hold of the form of a man (for men shall subject the world to come).26 From that stage, having not sinned, he was quickened back again into a ruach being, but of a higher form than that of an angel (who can sin),27 for he now became like the father and is incapable of sin. The evidence cited above demonstrates that, even though Yahu Yahweh changed his substance (i.e., being transformed from a ruach being to a composite ruach and flesh form), his mental life or “self” continued. That is, he never died during this process in order to become a man, he only was transformed into a man. Yahu was still the personality he had previously been, though his power and position had been reduced. That Yahushua retained his previous knowledge as an eloah being is demonstrated by an event which occurred at the Temple when Yahushua was only twelve years old. He amazed the rabbis with his knowledge of Scriptures, though Yahushua had never been trained in Scriptures by any of the rabbinical schools.28 Afterward, Yahushua told his parents, Joseph and Mariam, “Did you not know that it behooves me to be in the affairs of my father (Yahweh)?”29 Yahushua merely restrained himself in his abilities until after his symbolic baptism in the Jordan river by John the baptist, at which time Yahushua received the sacred ruach, began his ministry, and began making preparations for his impending death.

The Seed of Abraham Through David In order to receive the eternal inheritance from the will, Yahu had to become a fleshly descendant (seed) of Abraham, through whom the promises came, and, with the advent of the handwritten Torah, come under the conditions of that Torah. For this reason Saul writes: Heb., 2:5–9. 1 Cor., 6:3, “Do you not know that we shall judge angels?” That angels can sin see 2 Pet., 2:4. Satan is also accused of sinning from the beginning, see 1 John, 3:8. 28 Luke, 2:41–47. 29 Luke, 2:48–51. 25 26 27

412

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh But when came the fullness of the time, Yahweh sent forth his son, genovmenon (genomenon; came into being)30 OUT OF A WOMAN, genovmenon (genomenon; came into being) UNDER THE TORAH.31

These conditions had set the stage for Yahu to become Yahushua the messiah. Further, the jyçm (meshiakh; messiah, the anointed one) and the kingship were promised to the tribe of Judah and specifically through the line of King David.32 Therefore, in order to inherit the kingship and to fulfill the word that the messiah must come out from Judah, Yahu not only had to become the physical seed of Abraham but the descendant of King David. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Yahushua was recognized as a descendant of King David by both Judahites and foreigners alike. He is called such by the blind men who lined the road, by a Kanaanite woman, and even by the Pharisees.33 Upon his triumphant entry into the city of Jerusalem just prior to his death, the people leading the procession also declared him to be the son of David.34 Yahushua’s status as the descendant of King David was not just by poetic license. He was considered the fleshly descendant of both Abraham and David. Keep in mind that all the fleshly descendants of a man are in Scriptures counted as part of their progenitor before their birth.35 David was by genealogy the son of Abraham,36 while Joseph, the father of Mariam (the mother of Yahushua), is traced back to David.37 Yahushua was by flesh—i.e., that part of him provided by the seed (egg)38 of his mother—a descendant of King David of Judah, a descendant of Abraham, with whom Yahu Yahweh made the covenant of the eternal inheritance. 30 The Greek word genovmenon (genomenon), a form of givnomai, “to cause to be (“gen”-erate), i.e. (reflex.) to become (come into being)” (SEC, Gk. #1096), “to come into being . . . to be produced” (GEL, p. 164). 31 Gal., 4:4. 32 The kingship is promised to Abraham in Gen., 17:6. This kingship is made to come from his grandson, Jacob Israel, in Gen., 35:11, and specified through the line of Judah in Gen., 50:8–12, and 1 Chron., 5:1f. David was anointed (i.e., became the messiah) as king at a very young age (1 Sam., 16:1–13) and he was promised that the line of kings were to come from him in 2 Sam., 7:4–29, and 1 Chron., 17:3–27. 33 Matt., 9:27, two blind men called Yahushua the son of David; Matt., 15:21f, a Kanaanite woman called Yahushua the son of David; Matt., 20:29–31; Mark, 10:47–52; Luke, 18:36–42, two other blind men call Yahushua the son of David; and Matt., 22:41–46; Mark, 12:35–37; Luke, 20:41– 44, where the Pharisees identified the messiah with the son of David. 34 Matt., 21:6–17. 35 See above n. 6. 36 Matt., 1:1–6. 37 Luke, 3:23–34. Mariam’s genealogy must not be confused with that of her husband, who was also named Joseph. As reported in Matt., 1:1–16, Joseph, the husband of Mariam, came from a different line of David. The reason that both genealogies were listed is due to the fact that Mariam is not reported to have had any brothers. The family’s rights of inheritance in such cases would pass to the daughter, and then on to her first-born son (Num., 27:1–11, “If a man die, and have no son or brother, you shall assign his inheritance to his daughter”). Yet for her first-born son to receive his inheritance, she must be married to someone from her own tribe, i.e., in this case from the tribe of Judah (Num., 36:1–13). For this reason, the genealogy of Mariam’s husband (Joseph) was provided as proof of Yahushua’s right to inherit. 38 Scriptures often speak of the seed of a woman, i.e., her egg (e.g., Gen., 3:15, 16:10; Isa., 57:3; Rev., 12:17).

Why Yahu Yahweh Became Flesh

413

Yahushua’s fleshly descent on his mother’s side is basic scriptural doctrine and required if Yahushua was to inherit as the seed of Abraham. For example, the book of Hebrews notes: For indeed not of angels (form) did he (the messiah) take hold, but of the spevrmato~ (spermatos, plural seed)39 of Abraham HE TAKES HOLD.40 In this passage the messiah takes hold of the plural seed of Abraham, meaning that he joins himself to them (i.e., the plural seed represents the generations descended from Abraham). This act of taking hold was accomplished at Mariam’s conception, when the messiah united with the seed in her womb. Mariam was told, “You shall conceive in your womb,”41 i.e., her seed (egg) would become fertile. Therefore, when Mariam conceived Yahushua (i.e., when her egg became fertile), she did so without her egg joining with the seed of a man, thereby fulfilling the prophecy that she would conceive as a maiden (virgin).42 This feat was accomplished by the sacred ruach, being “the power of the most high.”43 Nevertheless, this was no mere act of self-fertilization. What the sacred ruach did was to combine the angel Yahweh, who had poured himself out, with Mariam’s fleshly egg, altering the angel’s form so that he was merged with flesh and blood. The following scriptural passages firmly establish the point that Yahushua was the fleshly descendant, and therefore the seed, of the tribe of Judah and King David: For it is manifest that OUT OF JUDAH HAS SPRUNG OUR SOVEREIGN, as to which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood.44 Of this man’s (David’s) spevrmato~ (spermatos; PLURAL SEED) eloah raised up to Israel, according to the promise, a saviour, Yahushua.45 Does not the scripture say that OUT OF THE spevrmato~ (spermatos; PLURAL SEED) OF DAVID, and from Bethlehem the village where David was, the messiah comes?46 Remember Yahushua the messiah, raised from out of the dead, OUT OF THE spevrmato~ (spermatos; PLURAL SEED) OF DAVID, according to the good news.47 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

That spevrmato~ is plural, cf., LXX at Gen., 17:7, 10 Heb., 2:16. Luke, 1:31. Isa., 7:14; Matt., 1:23. Luke, 1:35. Heb., 7:14. Acts, 13:23. John, 7:42. 2 Tim., 2:8.

414

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

If any question yet remains, the apostle Saul adds clarification by plainly stating that Yahushua was “of the seed of David ACCORDING TO FLESH.”48 The messiah’s fleshly descent from Abraham and David was even admitted by the ante-Nicaean fathers.49 Finally, Yahushua was both the ancestor and the descendant of King David. In Luke the genealogy of Yahushua goes back through David and Abraham to Adam, the son of the deity (eloahi).50 In Revelation Yahushua is called “the lion which is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David,”51 and later is quoted as making the claim, “I am the root AND the offspring of David.”52 Likewise, the passage from Psalm, 110:1, was used by Yahushua to pose the enigma to the Jewish religious leaders, asking them how the messiah could be both the foundation and the offspring of King David.53 Therefore, Yahu Yahweh was both the ancestor of David (because Adam, the ancestor of David, was the son of Yahweh)54 and the descendant of David.55 This circumstance is only possible if Yahushua was the creator being named Yahu Yahweh who later merged with the seed (egg) of Mariam, the descendant of David, thereby becoming the composite man and ruach being known as Yahushua.

Perfection The final reasons that Yahu was required to become flesh were so that he could attain perfection and could help other humans who are being tempted. Rom., 1:3. E.g., Ignatius (about 105 C.E.) writes, “He (the messiah) who forms all men in the womb, was himself really in the womb, and made for himself A BODY OF THE SEED OF THE VIRGIN, but without any intercourse of man” (Ignatius, Tral., 10). Irenaeus (about 188 C.E.), writes, “Therefore there is one and the same deity, who was proclaimed by the prophets and announced by the glad tidings; and his son, who was THE FRUIT OF DAVID’S BODY, THAT IS, OF THE VIRGIN OF DAVID” (Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:9:2), and again, “who FROM THE FRUIT OF DAVID’S BODY was Emmanuel, the messenger of great counsel of the father” (Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:9:2). He also notes that the monogenes logos, “who is always present with the human family, united to and mingled with his own creation, according to the father’s pleasure, and who became flesh, is himself Yahushua the messiah, our sovereign” (Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:16:6). In still another place Irenaeus adds, “He performed the part of one indicating that he whom the deity promised David that he would raise up FROM THE FRUIT OF HIS BELLY an eternal king, is the same who was born of the virgin, herself of the lineage of David” (Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:21:5, also see Ag. Her., 3:21:9–3:22:4). Irenaeus likewise says the following, “. . . the logos of the father and the ruach of the deity, having become united WITH THE ANCIENT SUBSTANCE OF ADAM’S FORMATION . . .” (Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 5:1:3), and, “Now this blood (of the messiah’s) could not be required unless it also had the capability of being saved; nor would the sovereign have summed up these things in himself, UNLESS HE HAD HIMSELF BEEN MADE FLESH AND BLOOD AFTER THE WAY OF THE ORIGINAL FORMATION (of man), saving in his own person the end that which had in the beginning perished in Adam” (Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 5:14:1f). Hippolytus (early third century C.E.) writes, “the logos deity came down from heaven (and entered) into the sacred virgin Mary, in that, TAKING THE FLESH FROM HER, and assuming also a human (form), by which I mean a rational life, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin” (Hippolytus, Noetus, 17). He adds, “for in that he (Yahushua) had the heavenly (form and nature) of the father (Yahweh), as the logos and the earthly (form and nature), AS TAKING TO HIMSELF THE FLESH FROM THE OLD ADAM BY THE MEDIUM OF THE VIRGIN, he now, coming forth into the world was manifested as a deity in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man” (Hippolytus, Noetus, 17). 50 Luke, 3:23–38. 51 Rev., 5:5. 52 Rev., 22:16. 53 Matt., 22:41–46; Mark, 12:35–37; Luke, 20:41–44; and see App. H. 54 Luke, 3:31–38. 55 Luke, 3:23–31. 48 49

Why Yahu Yahweh Became Flesh

415

Only by suffering while continuing not to sin could the angel Yahu Yahweh reach this higher level. The book of Hebrews states, “it was necessary, from the foundation of the world, for him (Yahushua) to have suffered often.”56 This text also states: For in subjecting to him (Yahushua) all things, nothing he (father Yahweh) left unsubject to him. But now, not yet do we see all things subjected to him; but we see Yahushua the messiah, who was made a little lower than the angels on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; so that by the grace of Yahweh for every one he might taste death. For it was becoming to him, through whom are all things, and by means of whom are all things, bringing many sons to glory, the leader of their salvation TO MAKE PERFECT THROUGH SUFFERING.57 Yahushua’s suffering also gave him insight into helping those of mankind who are being tempted. The book of Hebrews continues: For not indeed of angels (form) does he take hold, but of the seed of Abraham he takes hold. Wherefore it behoved him in all things to his brethren to be made like, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to Yahweh, for to make propitiation for the sins of the people; for in that he has himself suffered, having been tempted, he is able to help those being tempted.58 Keph (Peter) argues that we too must suffer before we can be made perfect. He writes: But the eloah of all grace, who called us to his eternal glory in Yahushua the messiah, after (you) have suffered a little while, may he perfect you, may he establish, may he strengthen, may he give (you) foundation.59 How by suffering can anyone reach perfection? The apostle Keph begins to answer this question when he writes: For this is acceptable if, by being suneivdhsin (suneidesin; conscious, aware)60 of Yahweh, anyone endures griefs, suffering unjustly. For what glory is it Heb., 9:26. Heb., 2:8–10. Heb., 2:16–18. 1 Pet., 5:10. The Greek term means, “co-perception, i.e. moral consciousness” (SEC, Gk. #4893); “to be conscious or aware of, to understand . . . to be conscious to one’s self” (ILT, Lex., p. 96). The NJB translates this verse to read, “in awareness of God,” and NTB gives, “when from a sense of God.” 56 57 58 59 60

416

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh if sinning and being buffeted you endure? But if you endure doing good and suffering, this is acceptable with Yahweh. For this you were called; because also the messiah suffered for us, leaving us a model that you should follow after in his steps; who did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who, being railed at, railed not in return; (while) suffering, threatened not; but gave himself over to him who judges righteously; who our sins he bore in his body on the tree, that, to sins being dead, to righteousness we may live; by whose wounds you were healed.61

Therefore, merely enduring various griefs and suffering unjustly is not in itself acceptable to Yahweh. The key is “being suneivdhsin (suneidesin; conscious, aware) of Yahweh” when you are suffering for doing Yahweh’s will. To this point Keph adds: Finally, all be of one mind, sympathizing, loving the brethren, tender hearted, friendly, not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing; but on the contrary, blessing, knowing that to this you were called, that a blessing you should inherit. . . . But the face of Yahweh is against those doing evil. And who is he that shall injure you, if imitators you should be of that which is good. But IF ALSO YOU SHOULD SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (JUSTIFICATION), YOU ARE BLESSED; but with their fear you should not be afraid, neither should you be troubled; but sanctify the sovereign Yahweh in your innermost selves, and always be ready for a defence to everyone that asks you an account concerning the hope in you, with meekness and respect; a good conscience having, that whereas they may speak against you as evil doers, they may be ashamed who calumnate your good manner of life in the messiah. For it is better that you do good, if the will of Yahweh wills, and to suffer than doing evil; because the messiah indeed once for sins suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to Yahweh; having been put to death, indeed, in the flesh, but quickened by the ruach.62 Suffering, while having awareness of Yahweh, because you are doing Yahweh’s will, therefore, creates a higher nature in a person. The book of Hebrews tells us that, because Yahushua had suffered in the flesh while continuing not to sin, he was brought to ultimate perfection by learning obedience. It reports: 61 62

1 Pet., 2:19–24. 1 Pet., 3:8–18.

Why Yahu Yahweh Became Flesh

417

(Yahushua) who in the days of his flesh having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him (father Yahweh) who was able to save him from death, with strong crying and tears, and having been heard in that he feared; though being a son HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE FROM THE THINGS WHICH HE SUFFERED, and having been perfected because to all those who obey him, the author of eternal salvation, having been saluted by Yahweh as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.63 Yahweh’s reward for those learning this type of obedience is to make them perfect. We are to be perfect as father Yahweh is perfect.64 This perfection includes being sinless and having total control over oneself.65 As a result of Yahushua suffering unto death while not sinning in his lower human form, father Yahweh not only resurrected him back to life but gave Yahushua life within himself, as father Yahweh has life within himself (perfection).66 Yahushua now has eternal life and, as a result of having life within himself, has the power to give eternal life,67 that we might have life within ourselves.68

Conclusion These points demonstrate that there were important reasons for Yahu Yahweh to become a fleshly descendant of Abraham. If Yahu, the testator of the “covenant will,” did not die, how could the eternal inheritance be passed on to his heirs (followers)? Further, since he existed as a sinless eloah being, he was not capable of experiencing death. This circumstance required that he change his form into one that gave him the ability to die. Further, if he was to receive the eternal inheritance and the kingship back to himself he had to be the fleshly seed of Abraham and King David. There was also a deeper reason that father Yahweh planned the death of the messiah before the foundation of the world. Only by suffering while being conscious of father Yahweh and continuing not to sin can anyone truly learn obedience to father Yahweh. Once Yahu learned this obedience, father Yahweh honored the Yahu Covenant by resurrecting Yahushua back to life, quickening him into immortality with the divine nature, and perfecting him in the ultimate form (life within himself). In this perfected form he is able to assist us while we are being tempted. For us to attain to the divine nature and perfection, we too must learn obedience by continuing to obey Yahweh; and, while being conscious of Yahweh, we must endure suffering without committing sin. Heb., 5:7–10. Matt., 5:43–48. James, 3:1–12. And see, for example, Rom., 6:15, 23, 14:23; 1 Cor., 15:34; Eph., 4:26; Heb., 4:15. John, 5:26. By definition you cannot have life within yourself if you are capable of dying. Therefore, Yahushua could not receive life within himself like father Yahweh until after he was resurrected. 67 John, 3:15, 5:39f, 6:54, 10:27f, 17:1f; cf., Rom., 6:23. 68 John, 6:53. 63 64 65 66

Appendix D

Circumcision

ne of the most confusing issues with regard to what statutes one must keep or not keep from the Torah is the matter of fleshly circumcision. Some maintain that men must still have the foreskin of their flesh circumcised in order to be saved. Usually two reasons are given: • Abraham was circumcised and he was commanded to circumcise all the males of his household. • Fleshly circumcision is required in the written Torah. The apostle Saul, on the other hand, argues that fleshly circumcision is no longer applicable since we are no longer under the handwritten Torah but under grace and obligated only to the verbal Torah of Trust. One might also add that the requirement for fleshly circumcision as a means of salvation would place women in a different category, fleshly circumcision not being applicable to them. Since the requirement of fleshly circumcision in the written Torah is for males only, it calls into question the format that there is to be no difference between males and females as heirs to eternal life.1 The confusion arises from the misinterpretation that fleshly circumcision was somehow part of the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise. Such a view is at odds with Saul’s statements that one does not need to be circumcised in the flesh, yet he is obligated to the Torah of Trust and to walk as Abraham walked. These two ideas form an apparent contradiction, for if one has to be circumcised in the flesh to be part of the Abrahamic Covenants why would the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem and the apostle Saul, who reiterates the point a number of times, all deny the importance of fleshly circumcision?

Testimony of the New Testament The apparent contradiction about the need for fleshly circumcision begins to be unravelled within the explanations provided by the New Testament. We begin this inquiry with the events that brought this issue to the forefront. In Acts, 15, we read that certain followers of the messiah were teaching, “Unless you be circumcised after the custom of Moses you cannot be saved.”2 Those teaching this doctrine were described as “certain (men) from the heresy of the Pharisees who believed (in the messiah).”3 They argued, “It is necessary to circumcise them (the converts) and charge them to keep the Torah of Moses.”4 This teaching caused a great disturbance among members of the 1 2 3 4

Gal., 3:25–29. Acts, 15:1. Acts, 15:5. Acts, 15:5.

419

420

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

early assembly. It was the cause for convening the Council of Jerusalem in 49 C.E. With all of the apostles in attendance, Jacob (James), the brother of the messiah and first bishop of Jerusalem, issued the unanimous edict: Wherefore I judge not to trouble those who from the nations turn to Yahweh; but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and porneia (sexual misconduct), and (the eating of) that which is strangled and blood.5 In the epistle sent by the apostles to the assemblies we read: The apostles and the elders and the brethren, to those in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, brethren from out of the nations, greeting. Inasmuch as we have heard that certain ones from among us having gone out troubled you by words, upsetting your lives, saying, Be circumcised and keep the Torah; TO WHOM WE GAVE NO SUCH COMMAND; it seemed good to us having come with one accord, chosen men to send to you, with our beloved Barnabas and Saul, men who have given up their lives for the name of our sovereign, Yahushua the messiah. Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, themselves also by word telling the same things. For it seemed good to the sacred ruach and to us, no further burden to lay upon you than these necessary things: to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from (the eating of) blood and that which is strangled, and from porneia; from which keeping yourselves you will do well. Farewell.6 Accordingly, by the agreement of all the apostles and elders, circumcision of the flesh was not considered a requirement for salvation. Addressing this issue Saul writes the following: Was anyone called having been circumcised (of the flesh)? Let him not be uncircumcised. Anyone being called in uncircumcision (of the flesh)? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping Yahweh’s commandments is (something).7 For indeed, circumcision (in the flesh) profits if you do the (written) Torah; but if a transgressor of the Torah you are, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the 5 6 7

Acts, 15:19f. Acts, 15:23–29. 1 Cor., 7:18–20.

Circumcision

421

justification of the Torah, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? And the uncircumcision by nature, fulfilling the Torah, shall judge you who with letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the Torah.8 For in the messiah Yahushua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but trust working through love.9 The overall resolution to this issue is fully discussed in Part I of our present text. Nevertheless, for clarification, we shall address some of the important issues in this appendix. We begin with James, 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole (written) Torah, and yet offend in one (point), he is guilty of all. The first problem arises with the fact that no one can keep the entire written Torah, for, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of Yahweh.”10 Also, “If we should say that we have not sinned, we make him (Yahweh) a liar, and his word is not in us.”11 Sin is defined as “transgression of the Torah.”12 Only the messiah was without sin.13 Therefore, we must conclude that only the messiah has qualified to receive the inheritance under the written Torah. We are not capable of qualifying because all of us, by nature, have transgressed and sinned against this agreement. Second, we are not justified by the works of the Torah14—i.e., the sacrifices, cleansing rites, dress codes, and so forth. Circumcision of the flesh is nothing more than a fleshly work of the Torah meant to teach a higher point.15 For these reasons, Saul writes: Behold, I Saul say unto you, that if you are circumcised (to be saved), the messiah shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised (in the flesh), that he has become a debtor to do the whole Torah. Messiah has become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Torah; you have fallen from grace. For we through the ruach wait for the hope of justification by trust. For in Yahushua the messiah neither circumcision is of any force, nor uncircumcision; but trust which works by love.16 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Rom., 2:25–27. Gal., 5:6. Also see Rom. 4:9–12; Gal. 5:6–11, 6:15; Col. 2:11–14, 3:11. Rom., 3:23; cf., 1 John, 1:8; Isa., 64:6; Ps., 53:3; 1 Kings, 8:46. 1 John, 1:10. 1 John, 3:4. 1 Pet., 1:19, 2:21f; Heb., 4:15, 7:26; 2 Cor., 5:21; John, 8:46; Isa., 53:9. Gal., 2:16. Eph., 2:11–15. Circumcision in the flesh points to circumcision of the innermost self. Gal., 5:2–6. Cf., Rom., 3:19–24.

422

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Outside of the messiah, no other human is saved or qualifies to receive the inheritance by means of the handwritten Torah of Moses. When you sin you lose all rights. It is for this reason that we do not seek to be justified under the Torah but under grace.17 We receive the eternal inheritance as an act of grace from the messiah, who qualified under the written Torah, for he is the sole recipient of the promises contained in the Abrahamic Covenants of inheritance to which the Torah was attached.18 Under grace we by-pass the written Torah, our sins can be forgiven, and we can be accepted into the eternal inheritance as joint-heirs with the messiah. Those requiring Yahwehists to be circumcised of flesh in order to be justified to receive the eternal inheritance are attempting to be justified by doing the fleshly works of the Torah. They fall under the condemnation and curses attached to these said fleshly works. Saul explains: You see how large a letter I have written unto you with my own hand. As many as desire to make a fair showing in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the (torture-)stake of messiah. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the (written) Torah; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But Yahweh forbid that I should glory, save in the (torture-)stake of our sovereign Yahushua the messiah, by whom the world is killed on a (torture-)stake unto me, and I unto the world. For in messiah Yahushua neither circumcision is of any force, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of Yahweh.19 We are not under the Torah of works.20 Therefore, we are not obligated to be circumcised of flesh, because Abraham was not under the Torah of works.21 Rather, we are under the Torah of Trust,22 and we are justified by this trust,23 as Abraham was under the Torah of Trust. Abraham, remember, was justified to receive the eternal inheritance of the covenant by “righteousness (justification) apart from works (of the Torah).”24 Saul asked the key question when he wrote: Is this blessedness then on the circumcision, or also on the uncircumcision? For we say the trust was counted to Abraham for righteousness (Gen. 15:6). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Rom., 6:14f; Gal, 4:21–31, 3:22–25, 5:18. Gal., 3:15–29. Gal., 6:11–16. Rom., 3:28. Rom., 4:1–5. Rom., 3:27. Gal., 2:15f. Rom., 4:6.

Circumcision

423

How then was it counted? Being in circumcision (of the flesh), or in uncircumcision (of the flesh)? Not in circumcision, BUT IN UNCIRCUMCISION!”25 Abraham was not in circumcision of the flesh when he received the covenant of the eternal inheritance but was justified by trust. It is true that fleshly circumcision was later introduced but not as a requirement of the covenant. It was a token (sign) of his trust. Saul writes: And he received A SIGN OF CIRCUMCISION (as) a seal of the righteousness of trust (while) in uncircumcision, for him to be a father of those believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be counted to them also, and a father of circumcision to those not of circumcision only, but also to those WALKING IN THE STEPS OF THE TRUST OF OUR FATHER ABRAHAM DURING UNCIRCUMCISION. For the promise was not through the (written) Torah to Abraham, or to his seed, (for) him to be the heir of the world, but through a righteousness of trust. For if those of the Torah are heirs, trust has been made of no effect, and the promise has been destroyed. For the Torah works out wrath; for where no Torah is, neither is there transgression. On account of this, it is of trust, that it be according to grace, for the promise to be made sure to all the seed, not to that of the Torah only, but also to that of the trust of Abraham, who is father of us all.26 Again Saul writes: Even as Abraham trusted Yahweh, and it was reckoned to him for justification, know then that they that are out of trust, these are the sons of Abraham; and the scripture foreseeing that out of trust Yahweh justifies the nations, before announcing the good news to Abraham: “In you shall all nations be blessed (Gen., 12:3).” So that those out of trust are being blessed with trusting Abraham.27 James adds: Was not our father Abraham justified by works (of trust) offering up his son Isaak on the altar (Gen. 22:9)? You see that trust was working with his works; and out of the works (of trust) trust was perfected. 25 26 27

Rom., 4:9–10. Rom., 4:11–16. Gal., 3:6–9.

424

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh And the scripture was fulfilled, saying, “And Abraham trusted Yahweh, and it was counted for justification to him;” and he was called, a friend of Yahweh.28

In summary, it is clear that we cannot qualify (i.e., be justified) under the written Torah and the works of the Torah attached thereto. Accordingly, it is necessary for us to by-pass the Torah of Moses and come under grace. As Saul reports in the book of Galatians, “for if by the (handwritten) Torah is the inheritance, it is no longer by promise; but to Abraham through promise Yahweh granted it.”29 One who is under grace is under the Torah of Trust, as Abraham was. As a result, we must walk as Abraham walked. Abraham kept the commandments, laws, and statutes of Yahweh,30 but he was never under the works of the Torah. The commandments, laws, and statutes that Abraham followed are nevertheless revealed in the handwritten Torah and prophets and are called the righteousness (justification) of the Torah and the justification of eloah, which is attained by trust.31 Because of the fleshly works found in the written Torah, the written Torah was not made to justify or give life; rather, it was only meant to give the knowledge of what sin is.32 For example, in the written Torah we find the knowledge of the Ten Commandments, which are part of the justification of the Torah. Meanwhile, under the written Torah you are required to keep both the Ten Commandments and works of the flesh, such as fleshly circumcision and sleeping in tents during the Festival of Tabernacles. Under the Abrahamic Covenants you are required only to keep those things later described as the righteousness (justification) of the Torah (e.g., the Ten Commandments and the Festival of Tabernacles itself). Therefore, we are still required to keep the Ten Commandments,33 but we no longer need to concern ourselves with sleeping in tents during the Festival of Tabernacles (a work of the Torah) or with being circumcised of flesh.

Testimony from the Old Testament We will now confirm the words of the New Testament by those of the Old Testament. A close examination of the book of Genesis, for example, reveals that fleshly circumcision was not a legal requirement of the original contract made with Abram (Abraham) in the Covenants of Promise. Let us demonstrate. Before the token of circumcision of the flesh was used by Abraham and his household (which did not come into effect until Genesis, 17), we read in Genesis, 12: And Yahweh had said to Abram, Go out from your land, and from your kindred, and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you. And I will 28 29 30 31 32 33

James, 2:21–23; cf., Gen., 15:6; Isa., 41:8. Gal., 3:18. Gen., 26:1. See the Greek text of Rom., 3:21–26, 9:30ff. 1 Tim., 1:9; Rom., 3:20; Gal., 3:21ff. Matt., 5:17–19, 19:16–19; 1 John, 5:2f.

Circumcision

425

make of you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great; and you will be a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, and curse the one despising you. And in you all families of the earth shall be blessed.34 These things were given to Abraham while he was yet uncircumcised in the flesh. Again, in Genesis, 12, it reports. And Abram passed through the land as far as the place of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And Yahweh appeared to Abram and said. “I will give this land to your seed.” And he built an altar there to Yahweh.35 The promise of land, therefore, occurred prior to Abram’s being circumcised in the flesh. Genesis, 13, states: Yahweh said to Abram, Now lift up your eyes and look northward and southward and eastward and westward from the place where you are. For all the land which you see I will give to you, and to your seed forever. And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can count the dust of the earth, then your seed also will be counted.36 Once more, we observe that these things were given to Abraham while he was uncircumcised in the flesh. Then, in Genesis, 15, we read that Yahweh would be a great reward to Abraham because Abraham “trusted Yahweh and it was counted to him for hqdx (tsadoqah; righteousness = justification),”37 i.e., he was justified to receive the eternal inheritance while he was still uncircumcised in the flesh. The events continue with the words of Yahweh: And he said to him, I am Yahweh who caused you to come out of Aur of the Kasadim (Ur of the Chaldees), to give you this land, to inherit it.38 The covenant of inheritance is at this very time confirmed with Abraham, promising that he and his seed (the messiah)39 would receive the inheritance of the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.40 This covenant assures to us eternal life (by owning the land eternally) and a resurrection from the dead (for no one can inherit unless he is alive). Importantly, this covenant was confirmed while Abraham was still uncircumcised in the flesh. This passage also confirms that the land was already promised to Abraham as an inheritance 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Gen., 12:1–3. Gen., 12:6f. Gen., 13:14–17. Gen., 15:1–6. Gen., 15:7. Gal., 3:15f. Gen., 15:12–20.

426

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

and he was justified by trust in that covenant at least 14 years before undergoing fleshly circumcision, Abraham’s being circumcised when he was 99 years old.41 The evidence proves that fleshly circumcision was not a requirement for Abraham in the Covenants of Promise. If fleshly circumcision had been required, Abraham would have been circumcised in the flesh at the age of 75, prior to Yahweh making any Covenants of Promise with him and before he would have been allowed to enter the Promised Land to dwell. Yet Yahweh did make this agreement with Abraham some 24 years prior to commanding his circumcision in the flesh.42 The resolution to our problem, therefore, is that there are two separate forms of circumcision listed in Genesis, 17:9–15. The important verse reads: This is my covenant which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. AND (i.e., besides this) you shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, and IT SHALL BE A TOKEN OF THE COVENANT between you and me. And every male among you shall be circumcised the eighth day for your generations born within your house or bought with money of any stranger, which is not from your seed.43 Two different circumcisions are specifically mentioned: (1) circumcision of the covenant AND (2) circumcision of the foreskin in the flesh, which is only a token of the covenant. The covenant of circumcision is circumcision of the lebab (innermost self), which is promised in the covenant agreement.44 Circumcision of the innermost self refers to the removal of sin. The males referenced here are the elect. Remember, as of yet, Abraham has not received even one of the promises. Therefore, this eternal circumcision cannot refer to any fleshly circumcision.45 Saul reports: For it is not he that is outwardly a Judahite, neither that which is outwardly in circumcision of the flesh; but he that is hiddenly a Judahite, and circumcision is of the innermost self, in ruach, not in letter (the written Torah); of whom the praise is not of men but of Yahweh.46 41 In Gen., 16, Sarai (Sarah) gives Abram (Abraham) her handmaid, the Egyptian woman named Hagar, who subsequently bears him a son, Ishmael. In Gen., 17, Abram becomes 99 years old and his son, Ishmael, is 13 years old. At this time, they are both circumcised in the flesh (Gen., 17:24–26). This data proves that at least 14 years had passed from Abraham being declared justified until the token of fleshly circumcision was first given. 42 Gen., 12:1–4. 43 Gen., 17:10f. 44 Cf., Deut., 30:6; Jer., 4:4; Rom., 2:28f; Phil., 3:2–11; Col., 2:11. 45 Heb., 11:13. 46 Rom., 2:28f.

Circumcision

427

In Genesis, 17:10–11, the mention of the token of fleshly circumcision follows the word “ w (AND).” It is made a separate item from the covenant of circumcision. This second circumcision was in the flesh and only a token. This token is not a condition of the covenant; it is merely a sign of agreement, as a wedding ring is a token of a marriage. Abraham’s fleshly circumcision was a token of his trust in this promised covenant of circumcision.47 The act was performed out of obedience. It was never a condition for the original inheritance, for which Abraham was already justified by trust. We are not justified by tokens but by the conditions laid out in the covenant itself. Further, the token of fleshly circumcision for Abraham continued only for “your (Abraham’s) generations born in your house.” The token would not apply to later generations born outside the household of Abraham. Next, as we have already said, when Abraham was circumcised in the flesh it was not done to abide by any statutes or torath (laws); rather it was followed under the guidance to “obey the voice of Yahweh.”48 For example, just because the messiah obeyed Yahweh and went out into the wilderness and fasted for 40 days does not mean that it is a requirement that we must all do likewise. Yet, if Yahweh personally commands us to go into the wilderness and fast, we must obey his voice. Therefore, Abraham’s fleshly circumcision was not a condition of the eternal covenant (i.e., a matter of statute or commandment) but rather a matter of Abraham obeying Yahweh’s voice. Further, the lack of importance of fleshly circumcision is demonstrated by Yahweh delaying the fleshly circumcision of the Israelites for 40 years during the wilderness sojourn after the Exodus49—this regardless of the fact that it was already commanded in Leviticus during the first year of their being in the wilderness for all males eight days old to be circumcised.50 It was merely a fleshly work attached to their entering the Promised Land, a teaching tool, holding prophetic significance by pointing to the greater circumcision of the lebab (innermost self). Since Abraham was not justified by works and was already found justified prior to the token of fleshly circumcision, Abraham’s justification by trust and his keeping of the commandments, laws, and statutes were not the works of the flesh found in the Torah. Works of the Torah were added to teach the Israelites because of their sin.51 Abraham was not required to do these added works because he obeyed Yahweh’s voice, and kept Yahweh’s statutes, laws, and commandments.52 Therefore, he was not subject to the penalty of sin by the addition of works and judgments. The works of the Torah (e.g., sacrifices, cleansing rites, washings, etc.) and the judgments began to be added at Mount Sinai because the Israelites sinned against the covenant agreement. They continually rebelled against Yahweh and would not listen to his voice. After the incident of the Israelites building 47 48 49 50 51 52

Cf., Rom., 4:11. Gen., 26:5. Josh., 5:2–8. Lev., 12:3. Gal., 3:6–20. Gen., 26:1–5.

428

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

the golden calf—thereby breaking their marriage agreement with Yahweh53— the angel Yahweh continued to augment the conditions of the covenant with commandments, statutes, and laws specifying with greater detail what was required. The continuing rebellious acts by the Israelites started a mounting list of augmentations which were against them.54 These augmentations were all legal within the Covenants of Promise—listen and obey the voice of Yahweh.55 They do not stand against the righteousness of the Torah,56 but they do intensify the original covenant for teaching purposes.

Conclusion To answer those who would demand fleshly circumcision for the followers of the messiah, we refer to Keph’s comment, “Now, then, why do you tempt eloah, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”57 Keph’s statement was made in response to the Pharisee converts to Christianity who wanted to require the early assembly members coming from among the nations to be circumcised in the flesh and to keep all the laws of Moses, i.e., including the works of the Torah which were against us (the dogmasin, such as animal sacrifices, cleansing rites, customs in food and clothing, fleshly circumcision, etc.).58 These dogmasin (public decrees), coming in the form of statutes and laws, were augmentations attached to the original requirements of the Covenants of Promise made with Abraham.59 With the manifestation of grace at the death and resurrection of the messiah, the fleshly regulations of the Torah had been nailed to the stake.60 On the other hand, the statutes, laws, and commandments observed by Abraham were not classified as works of the Torah.61 Therefore, they were not annulled with the death of the messiah.62 Keph’s words and the subseqeunt council’s decree from Jerusalem were simply trying to convey the fact that the nations should not be put under the burdens of fleshly works and were to simply return to the original agreement made with Abraham in the Covenants of Promise WHILE HE WAS IN UNCIRCUMCISION. Abraham only used fleshly circumcision as a token of his trust in the covenant of circumcision. Therefore, we must walk as Abraham walked, continuing in righteousness and obeying Yahweh while either in uncircumcision or in circumcision of the flesh. We must also keep the laws, statutes, and commandments attached to the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise. In reality, there is no contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. Under grace we by-pass the handwritten Torah, which contains the added works of the flesh, and revert back to the righteousness of the Torah, i.e., obeying 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Exod., 32:1–30; cf., Jer., 31:31f. Cf., Ezek., 20:21–26. Deut., 27:10. Gal., 3:15–20. Acts, 15:10. Acts, 15:5. Gal., 3:15–20. Col., 2:11–16. Gen., 26:5; cf., Rom., 4:1–3. Eph., 2:11–17; cf., Rom., 9:30–32; Gal., 2:15–3:14.

Circumcision

429

Yahweh and his charge and keeping the statutes, laws, and commandments that Abraham abided by while in uncircumcision. These conditions are revealed in the Torah separately from the works of the Torah. Fleshly circumcision is a work of the Torah and is a yoke which the fathers could not bear. Finally, the above conclusions do not mean that it is wrong for someone to be circumcised in the flesh, no more than it would be wrong to abstain from eating unclean meats (rats, skunks, snakes, pigs, etc.). If one does such things for the right reasons, such as for health considerations, as a token of the covenant, and as a reminder of their prophetic meanings, they can be beneficial. On the other hand, if you seek to be justified (made righteous) in order to receive the inheritance of eternal life by means of fleshly circumcision, the eating of only clean meat, and so forth, you are obligated to keep the entire handwritten Torah, including all of its works (which fleshly man is incapable of doing). Further, you fall from grace, for you seek justification outside of the messiah and the Torah of Trust. If we are justified by the handwritten Torah and its fleshly works, then we have no need for the messiah, with whom we are to be joint-heirs in the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise. Nevertheless, Scriptures teach us that we can only come to the eternal inheritance by means of the messiah.

Appendix E

Why Not Eat from the Tree of Life?

dam and Eve did not eat from the tree of life. This detail is expressly stated in Scriptures. Just before driving Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, Yahweh advised others in the eloahim: And Yahweh eloahim said, Behold, μdah (ha-adam; the adam, mankind)1 has become as one from out of us (i.e., as some of the angels),2 to know good and evil. And now take away his (ability to) put forth his hand and also take from the tree of life, and (to) eat (from it) and (to) live for olam (a world-age). Therefore, Yahweh eloahim sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground which he was taken from. And he drove ha-adam out.3 An important question arises, though it is rarely asked, “Why did Adam and Eve not eat from the fruit of the tree of life before partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?” At first glance, this failure denies logic. They not only had free access to the tree of life,4 but they were told where the tree was located.5 Further, by eating from this tree they would have gained eternal life. Instead, they chose to eat first from the forbidden tree.6 Why? To answer this question we must define what the tree of life is and what constitutes eating its fruit.

The Tree, Eating, and Fruit The tree of life is Yahu Yahweh (Yahushua the messiah). The tree’s fruit is the ruach that gives eternal life; and eating this fruit is when one partakes of the 1 The Hebrew term μdah (ha-adam; the adam, mankind) is a generic term for mankind (HEL, p. 5; SEC, Heb. #120). Adam is also a family name, being Eve’s married name (Gen., 5:2). 2 The term wnmm (ma-manu) literally means, “from out of us.” That eloahim includes the ruach angels, compare Ps., 8:5, with Heb., 2:7. Angels are also called the sons of the eloahim (Job, 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, cf., LXX; Gen., 6:2–5, cf., Jos., Antiq., 1:3:1; Alex. LXX and Philo, Gig., 2), “the angels of the sovereign (Yahweh),” called “Watchers” by the book of Jub., 4:15, 22, 5:1, “the angels, the children of heaven,” by 1 En., 6:2, and as the “angels” who had “fallen away” from eloah in the discussion by the second century C.E. Christian writer Justin Mart. (Trypho, 79:1). As a result, biblical scholars, like R. A. Stewart, conclude that the expression “sons of (the) eloahim“ simply means “angels” (NBD, p. 37). 3 Gen., 3:22f. 4 Gen., 2:9, 16f, 3:1–3. 5 The tree of life was in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gen., 2:9). Because they knew which tree it was, Yahweh banished them from the Garden of Eden before they could put forth their hand to eat from the tree of life (Gen., 3:22–24). 6 Gen., 3:1–24.

431

432

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

ruach and receives eternal life. To verify these statements, we must ferret out the prophetic meanings for trees, eating, and fruit. The Tree of Life The Hebrew word ≈[ (atz; firm, sound) means much more than a tree.7 Important for our investigation, ≈[ (atz) also carries with it the meaning of sound “advice,” a firm “plan,” and even a strong “purpose.”8 That is, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which were both located within the Garden of Eden, represent two firm plans or forms of sound advice. Trees in Scriptures, therefore, by extension, can refer to kings, nations, and governments.9 In Ezekiel, 31:1–18, for example, trees are specifically used as a parable of kings and nations in the garden of eloahim, which garden is further defined as the Garden of Eden.10 With this guide, we must consider three passages from Proverbs which connect the tree of life with the messiah. In one proverb we read that, “wisdom” is “the tree of life for those taking hold on her, and those holding her are happy.”11 The messiah is specifically identified in Scriptures as the wisdom of Yahweh.12 Another verse tells us,“A HEALING TONGUE is the tree of life.”13 This passage should be compared with another one from Revelation, which notes that in New Jerusalem stands the “tree of life, producing twelve fruits, yielding its fruit each moon; and the leaves of the tree are for the HEALING OF THE NATIONS.”14 Once more we have a clear reference to Yahushua the messiah. Keph writes that the messiah was the one who bore our sins “in his body on the tree, that, to sins we being dead, to justification we may live; BY WHOSE WOUNDS YOU WERE HEALED.”15 Proverb, 13, meanwhile, tells us: 7 The Hebrew word ≈[ (atz) means, “a tree (from its firmness)” (SEC, Heb. #6086), from hx[ (atesah), “to fasten (or make firm),” “the spine (as giving firmness to the body),” “timber:—trees,” i.e., from their firmness (SEC, #6095–6098). 8 The Hebrew word ≈[ (atz) also means, “advice; by impl. plan; also prudence:—advice, advisement, counsel([lor]), purpose”; itself from ≈[y (yates), “to advise; reflex. to deliberate or resolve” (SEC, Heb. #3289). 9 E.g., Ezek., 31:1–18; Dan., 4:8–27. 10 The ruling tree in the Garden of Eden, which (as king over mankind) subsequently sins, is named “rwça (Assur)” (Ezek., 31:3). In Gen., 10:11, in context with v. 6–14, Assur is the son of Nimrod. This particular Assur (also called the second Nimurta = Nimroud) must not be confused with Assur the son of Shem (Gen., 10:21f). Epiphanius, for example, reminds us that not only was Nimrod the son of Kush (the Ethiopian) but that Nimrod’s own son was the famous Assur who built the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Kalah, and Resen (Epiphanius, Pan., 1:1:6). The fact that the descendants of Assur, the son of Shem, inhabited these Assyrian cities is merely a coincidence in name. This Assur was deified by men as a dying-rising god, a saviour of the world in opposition to Yahweh. In turn, the deity-name Assur (Ashur, Asur), as used by the Assyrian, was one and the same with the deity called Asari (Greek “Osiris”) by the Egyptians, Baal by the Kanaanites, Zeus by the Greeks, etc. The epithet Asari was also used for the Babylonian deity Marduk (e.g., MAR, 5, pp. 1–87; JEA, 8, p. 41–44; cf., Diodorus, 3:3:1). This chief of all pagan deities—known under various names and counted by the pagans as the lord of all nations—under the names Assur, Baal, Baal-zebub, and so forth, became the scriptural typology for Satan himself (e.g., Rom., 11:4; 2 Kings, 1:2–6; Matt., 12:24–31, cf., ST, loc. cit.; Mark, 3:22–27; Luke, 11:15–22). 11 Prov., 3:13, 18. 12 Matt., 11:19; Luke, 11:49, cf., Matt., 23:34–36; 1 Cor., 1:24–30. Also see Prov., 8:1–36, which clearly refers to the messiah and his attributes as wisdom. 13 Prov., 15:4. 14 Rev., 22:2. 15 1 Pet., 2:24.

Why Not Eat from the Tree of Life?

433

Hope deferred makes the heart sick; and the tree of life is DESIRE FULFILLED.16 This statement of “hope deferred” also makes the connection between Yahu Yahweh, the messiah, and the tree of life. Joel states that, “Yahweh will be the hope of his people.”17 Saul writes that the sovereign Yahushua the messiah is “our hope,”18 and speaks of the “endurance of the hope of our messiah Yahushua.”19 We also have the hope of the promise given to the fathers and of the good news, as well as the hope of salvation, eternal life, the glory of Yahweh, and of the resurrection, all which come to us through the messiah.20 Our hope has for generations been deferred; but once we partake of the tree of life (the messiah) our desire for eternal life shall be fulfilled. The tree of life, accordingly, represents a plan, a government and a king of wisdom, righteousness (justification), desire fulfilled when it is obtained, and a healing tongue, with leaves that can heal the nations. All those who want life must come to the messiah,21 i.e., they must eat the fruit from the tree. Therefore, the messiah, as both the testator and heir of the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise, is this tree of life. That Yahu Yahweh (Yahushua the messiah) is the tree of life in the midst of the Garden of Eden is further supported by the statement that one of the two Yahwehs had walked in the midst of the trees in the Garden of Eden.22 At that time, this Yahweh spoke to, and was seen by, Adam and Eve.23 Father Yahweh, meanwhile, was never seen or heard by them.24 It is clear, therefore, that it was Yahu Yahweh who was in the midst of the Garden of Eden. Indeed, that Yahushua the messiah was the tree of life in the midst of the Garden of Eden was even acknowledged by the ante-Nicaean fathers. Hippolytus (early third century C.E. Christian apologist), for example, states, “The fruit of righteousness and the tree of life are the messiah.”25 Justin Martyr (mid-second century C.E.) similarly states, “He (Yahushua) whom the Scriptures show as about to come again in glory after being killed on a (torture-)stake was the type of the tree of life, which it was said was planted in paradise.”26 Eating Mankind was allowed to lka (akal; eat, consume)27 the fruit from every tree, save one, in the Garden of Eden.28 The parable of eating is defined as follows. Jeremiah claims that one can eat the words of Yahweh, i.e., consume the 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Prov., 13:12. Joel, 3:16. 1 Tim., 1:1. 1 Thess., 1:3. E.g., Acts, 26:6; Rom., 5:2, 8:24f; Col., 1:23, 27; 1 Thess., 5:8; Titus, 3:7; 1 Cor., 15:12–19. John, 1:4, 10:27f, 14:6. Gen., 3:8. Gen., 3:8–19. John, 1:18, 5:37, 6:45; 1 Tim., 6:13–16. Hippolytus, Prov., 10. Justin Mart., Trypho, 86:1. The Hebrew word lka (akal), “to eat (lit. or fig.)” (SEC, Heb. #398). Gen., 2:9, 16f, 3:1–6.

434

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

knowledge he gives.29 Similarly, in Proverbs we read that, “the lips of righteousness feed many,” i.e., the words of righteousness can be eaten.30 One can also scripturally drink and eat the messiah and the sacred ruach. Saul notes that the Israelites who came with Yahweh out of Egypt during the Exodus, “all ate the same ruach type of meat and all drank the same ruach type of drink; for they drank out of a ruach rock that followed them; and the rock was the messiah.”31 One can also eat the bread that came down from heaven. For instance, the manna given in the wilderness is called the bread from heaven and is equated with the messiah. If one eats this heavenly bread he shall live forever.32 Likewise, the unleavened bread and wine (the fruit of the vine) of Phasekh are made to be parables of eating the messiah’s body and drinking his blood, the blood of the New Covenant.33 By eating and drinking the messiah, i.e., by consuming the knowledge of him, one gains eternal life. In short, one can eat (consume) the words of either the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, one can eat of the fruit of sound advice or a firm plan, i.e., he can partake in the fruits of good things, wisdom, and the like, or he can consume the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Fruit The fruit on the tree of life is also defined by Scriptures. Proverbs states that, “the fruit of RIGHTEOUSNESS (JUSTIFICATION) is the tree of life,” or to say it another way, “the righteous (justified) will eat the fruit of the tree of life.”34 We are also told that, though Yahushua is the tree of life, the sacred ruach is connected with the fruit of the tree; and it is by this fruit that the messiah passes on eternal life to mankind. The connection between the sacred ruach and the messiah begins with the fact that Father Yahweh, who alone (since the beginning of time) possesses immortality and life in himself,35 is light,36 yet he is also ruach (spirit).37 Therefore, his ruach, being sacred ruach, is by substance a form of light. In turn, this light essence of father Yahweh has immortality and life within itself. Yahu Yahweh covered himself “with light as a cloak.”38 By the messiah putting on light, he has put on the sacred ruach which possesses life. At his resurrection, Yahushua received from father Yahweh the sacred ruach containing eternal life, incorporating it throughout and making it part of his very being, thereby enhancing his own innermost self. He is now capable of passing on eternal life to others. John writes, “In him (Yahushua) is life, and the life is 29 Jer., 15:16; cf., Ezek., 2:8, 3:1; Prov., 18:8, 23:6. Also see Prov., 18:20–21, which speaks of the fruit of the mouth, produce of the lips, and fruit of the tongue. 30 Prov., 10:21. 31 1 Cor., 10:3. 32 John, 6:31–58. 33 Matt., 26:26–30; Mark, 14:22–25; Luke, 22:17–20. 34 Prov., 11:30. 35 1 Tim., 6:16. The messiah did not always have life within himself (a quality which would make him incapable of death). Indeed, the preexistent messiah was transformed into a mortal man and in that form died. It was only later, after the messiah’s resurrection, that father Yahweh “gave also to the son to have life within himself” (John, 5:26). 36 1 John, 1:5. 37 John, 4:24. 38 Ps., 104:1f.

Why Not Eat from the Tree of Life?

435

the light of men.”39 Yahushua states, “I am the light of the world; he that follows me in no wise shall walk in the darkness (i.e., death), but shall have the light of life.”40 Yet Yahushua, though he wore light before becoming a man, did not obtain immortality and life in himself with perfection until after his death and resurrection.41 The fruit produced by the messiah after his resurrection, accordingly, is eternal life, which is now in him and which comes by means of the sacred ruach. For the law of the ruach (spirit) of life in messiah Yahushua set me free from the law of sin and of death.42 But if the messiah is in you, the body indeed is dead on account of sin, but the ruach of life on account of righteousness.43 Saul notes that, “the ruach (spirit) quickens,”44 i.e., gives life. For he that sows unto his own flesh, from the flesh shall reap corruption; but he that sows unto the ruach (spirit), from the ruach shall reap eternal life.45

Yahu is the Tree of Life The concept that Yahu Yahweh (Yahushua) is the tree of life, which produces the fruit of eternal life, is demonstrated by three other important facts: • First, eternal life originates from father Yahweh. He promised eternal life “before the ages of time, but manifested in its own seasons his word in proclamation.”46 At the same time, “the father has life in himself,”47 and only father Yahweh has always had immortality,48 i.e., he cannot die or be killed in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, he is the only source of all life forms. It is Yahweh the father who actually gives us life.49 • Second, father Yahweh gave immortality and the attribute of life within himself to Yahushua: “For even as the father has life in himself, so he gives also to the son life to have in himself.”50 Yet it was necessary for Yahushua to die before he attained to this more perfect and higher state of being, because, “It was becoming to him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, many sons to bring to glory, this 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

John, 1:4. John, 8:12. John, 5:26. Also see above n. 35. Rom., 8:2. Rom., 8:10. 2 Cor., 3:6. Gal., 6:8. Titus, 1:2. John, 5:26. 1 Tim., 6:16. E.g., Titus, 1:2; 1 John, 5:11. John, 5:26.

436

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

leader of their salvation through sufferings to make perfect.”51 Accordingly, “we see Yahushua ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUFFERING OF DEATH crowned with glory and with honor; so that by the grace of eloah (father Yahweh) for everyone he might taste death.”52 It is manifest that the son of Yahweh did not originally have immortality and life in himself before his death as a man, for if he had immortality it would not have been possible for him to become human and die. Therefore, Yahushua did not attain immortality until after he was raised from the dead. Only now is he able to pass on immortality to those who trust in him. Therefore, Yahushua could not give eternal life until after he suffered death, was raised, quickened, and then perfected. This fact is confirmed in the book of Hebrews. (Yahushua) who in the days of his flesh having offered both supplications and entreaties to him (father Yahweh) who was able to save him from death, with strong crying and tears, and having been heard in that he feared; though being a son, he learned, from the things which he suffered, obedience; and HAVING BEEN PERFECTED BECAME THE AUTHOR OF ETERNAL SALVATION to all of those that obey him, having been saluted by eloah (father Yahweh) as high priest according to the order of Melchisedek.53 • Third, humans only gain the fruit of eternal life from the messiah, thereby equating him with the tree of life. Saul writes of “the promise of life which is in the messiah Yahushua,”54 and John the baptist states: He that trusts on the son has eternal life; and he that is not subject to the son shall not see life, but the wrath of Yahweh abides upon him.55 Other verses demonstrate this point as well. They are as follows: And this is the witness, that Yahweh gave eternal life to us; and this life is in his son; he that has the son has life; he that does not have the son of Yahweh does not have life.56 For the wage of sin is death; but the free gift of Yahweh is eternal life in the messiah Yahushua, our sovereign.57

51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Heb., 2:10. Heb., 2:9. Heb., 6:7–10. 2 Tim., 1:1. John, 3:36. 1 John, 5:11f. Rom., 6:23.

Why Not Eat from the Tree of Life? Yahushua said to him, I am the road (way) and the truth and the life. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.58 You search the Scriptures, because you think in them to have eternal life, and they are the thing which bear witness concerning me (Yahushua); and you are unwilling to come to me, that life you may have.59 For the bread of Yahweh is he who comes down out of the heaven, and life gives to the world. Therefore, they (the Jews) said to him (Yahushua), Sovereign, always give to us this bread. And Yahushua said to them, I am the bread of life. He that comes to me may in no wise hunger, and he that trusts unto me may in no wise thirst at any time.60 Verily, verily, I (Yahushua) say to you, He that trusts toward me has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the desert and died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, that anyone out of it may eat and not die. I am the living bread, which came down out of the heaven. If anyone will eat of this bread he will live to forever; and the bread also which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.61 Verily, verily, I (Yahushua) say to you, Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the son of man and shall have drunk his blood, you will have not life in yourselves. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up the last day; for my flesh is truly food, and my blood truly is drink. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.62 Verily, verily, I say to you, that I (Yahushua) am the door of the sheep. All whoever came before me were thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. By me, if anyone enter in, he will be saved, and shall go in and shall go out, and shall find pasture.63 58 59 60 61 62 63

John, 14:6. John, 5:39f. John, 5:33–35. John, 6:47–51. John, 6:53–56. John, 10:7–9.

437

438

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh My sheep hear my voice, and I (Yahushua) know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life; and in no wise shall they perish forever, and no one shall seize them out of my hand.64 And Yahushua said to her, I am the resurrection and the life. He that trusts unto me in no wise shall die forever.65 But the author of life you (the Jews) killed whom Yahweh raised up out of the dead.66 But the Torah (of Moses) came in by the bye, that might abound the offense; but where abounded sin, overabounded grace, that as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life, through Yahushua the messiah, our sovereign.67

The Tree of Life in the Temple The tree of life as the messiah is also symbolized by the earthly representation of the Tabernacle built by Moses (and later by the Temple built by King Solomon). This connection finds its place with the ark of the covenant, which sat within the inner sanctuary. The following details demonstrate this connection. • The ark of the covenant was located in the “˚wt (tauk; center)”68 of the Temple house,69 just as the tree of life was also found in the “˚wt (center)” of the Garden of Eden.70 The Hebrew word ˆwra (arun; ark, box), used to describe the “ark” of the covenant, also means “coffin.”71 This ark (coffin), therefore, signified the required death of the messiah. The messiah, as the tree of life, is found symbolized in the Tabernacle (Temple) artifacts connected with this coffin. Above the ark of the covenant, which sat in the midst of the inner sanctuary, was the mercy seat (i.e., the throne seat).72 It is father Yahweh who sits upon the heavenly throne that this mercy seat represents,73 while the messiah is said to be in the midst or center of that throne (i.e., inside the throne box).74 • The rod of Aaron was a parable of the messiah as the tree of life. Though dead, this stick budded (came to life) and produced almonds. It was 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

John, 10:27f. John, 11:25. Acts, 3:15. Rom., 5:20f. SEC, Heb. #8432. 1 Kings, 6:19. Gen., 2:9. SEC, Heb. #727; YAC, p. 49. See Exod., 25:17–21. Rev., 1:4–6, 3:21, 4:1–3, 9f, 5:6f, 7:9–12, etc. See, for example, Rev., 5:6f, 7:15–17.

Why Not Eat from the Tree of Life?

439

then placed as a memorial within the ark of the covenant.75 The budding rod determined who was to be the high priest. Therefore, it represents the tree of life as connected with the office of high priest. Yahushua is our high priest.76 • Inside the ark was also a golden container filled with manna.77 This manna is described as the bread from heaven.78 Manna is defined as the body of the messiah, the bread of life, which if one eats, as one must eat the fruit of the tree of life, he shall live eternally.79 • Inside the ark were also the two tablets of stone whereupon the Ten Commandments, representing the nature of Yahweh, were written.80 The first stone tablets were broken by Moses,81 but Yahweh commissioned a second pair shortly thereafter.82 It was this second pair of tablets that were placed within the ark.83 The Old Covenant made at Mount Sinai was a marriage covenant.84 It was an allegory of the New Covenant to be made with the elect of Israel in the future on Mount Zion, though the new will not be written “on tablets of stone but on fleshly tablets of the leb (self).”85 Yahushua is the mediator of this new and eternal covenant.86 In the future, all those who inherit will eat from the tree of life, which then will be located in the center of the greater Temple, New Jerusalem. In that day, New Jerusalem shall come down to the earth.87 The text of Revelation shows that there will be a river, the water of life, going forth from the throne of Yahweh and the Lamb, running within the city. In the midst of its street, and of the river, (running) on this side and on that side, the tree of life, producing twelve fruits, each month yielding its fruit; and the leaves of the tree were for healing of the nations. And not any curse (death) shall be any longer; and the throne of Yahweh and the lamb in it shall be; and his bondmen shall serve, and they shall see his face; and his name (Yahweh) is on their foreheads.88

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Num., 17:1–13; Heb., 9:1–5. Heb., 2:17, 3:1, 4:14–16, 5:1–11, 7:21–8, and so forth. Exod., 16:32–36; Heb., 9:4. Exod., 16:4–31; Ps., 78:23f. John, 6:22–58; cf., Rev., 2:17. Heb., 9:4. Exod., 31:18, 32:15–19. Exod., 34:1–4, 28f. Deut., 10:1f. Jer., 31:32. 2 Cor., 3:3; cf., Jer., 31:31–33. Heb., 8:6–13. Rev., 21:2–22:5. Rev., 22:1f.

440

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh In reference to this tree of life, Yahushua states: Blessed are they that do his (father Yahweh’s) commandments, that their authority shall be to the tree of life, and by the gates they should go into the city (Tabernacle).89 To him that overcomes, I will give to him to eat of the tree of life, which is in the center of the paradise of Yahweh.90

Accordingly, access to the tree of life, which is another symbol of the messiah himself, is determined by the messiah and is based upon our adherence to the commandments of father Yahweh.

Conclusion The evidence proves that Adam and Eve could not have eaten from the tree of life before they were cast out of the Garden of Eden because the tree had not yet produced any fruit. The tree, being Yahushua the messiah, was unable to give his fruit of eternal life until after his death and resurrection. It was for this reason that the “precious blood of the messiah, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” was to be shed, “foreknown indeed before the foundation of the kovsmou (kosmou; world, universe), but manifested within these last times for your sake.”91 Since the messiah is the tree of life and the death of the messiah was foreknown before the foundation of the world, it is clear that the Adamic Covenant required Yahu Yahweh to experience death. Under the Yahu Covenant,92 he was resurrected and given life within himself, thereby allowing him to produce and give the fruit of eternal life to others. As a result, it is clear that the messiah is the tree of life offered in the Adamic Covenant. Adam and Eve lacked the patience to wait until the tree of life bore fruit. Instead, they reached for the fruit that was already available from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Having disobeyed Yahweh, they were denied direct access as heirs to the tree of life and were cast out of the Garden of Eden. 89 90 91 92

Rev., 22:14f. Rev., 2:7. 1 Pet., 1:19f. See App. B.

Appendix F

Polycarp’s Death

he date of Polycarp’s death, as reported in the final chapters of the famous letter from the assembly in Smyrna to the assembly in Philomelium, entitled Marturion tou Agiou Polukarpou Episkopou Smurnh~ (Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna),1 has been an issue of much debate. The year for Polycarp’s martyrdom has been variously calculated by modern critics as occurring anywhere from 155 to 177 C.E.2 A discussion of this issue is not only required to present the evidence for the actual date of his martyrdom but it shall also demonstrate that the conservative Quartodecimans observed the last of the seven days of unleavened bread as a high Sabbath. In our present appendix we shall determine which of the variant dates are legitimate for Polycarp’s death and determine the outside limits for all the possible years in which he could have died. Our following appendix will then coordinate the evidence and will allow us to determine the exact year of Polycarp’s death.

The Text Today’s scholars admit that the first 20 chapters of the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp are legitimate, written shortly after the death of Polycarp.3 The appendices that follow offer different results. The manuscripts present three appendices to the letter: a chapter giving a date (21), a pious paragraph which probably dates from the fourth century (22. 1), and a description of the transmission of the text (22. 2/3, with an expanded version in the Moscow manuscript). The last appendix contains one very suspicious feature: ‘Pionius’ rediscovered the text of the Martyrdom after Polycarp showed it to him in a vision.4 This first appendix gives evidence of tampering, in that it provides two contradictory dates for the death of Polycarp (one Greek and one Roman). The second and third appendices, as the last two appendices report, were composed by Pionius, who lived in the mid-third century C.E. The attribution of the comments to Pionius and the suspicious mythology attached to these last two appendices give little doubt as to its later date. The Moscow manuscript 1 2

PG, 5, pp. 1029–1046. For an account of the various reckonings see JTS, NS, 19, pp. 510–514; TAF, 2.1, pp. 646–

724. 3 4

JTS, NS, 19, p. 510; Lake, AF, ii, p. 309. JTS, NS, 19, p. 510.

441

442

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

(13th century C.E.)5 provides an even newer and extended version of this ending and appears to be very late, possibly originating in the 10th or 11th century C.E. The appendices also provide a history of the early transmission of the text. Gaius (late second century C.E.), a contemporary of Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul (who as a youth personally knew Polycarp), copied the text from a manuscript possessed by Irenaeus.6 Later, someone named Socrates, while in Corinth, Greece copied the text left by Gaius.7 Still later, Pionius (first half of the third century C.E.), having seen Polycarp in a vision, rediscovered the text of Socrates and produced a new copy, to which he attached the last two appendices.8 From copies descended from the text of Pionius are derived all of our present-day manuscripts.

Variant Dates The earliest manuscripts of the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp that remain to us provide three different dates for the death of Polycarp. The earliest manuscripts are the Greek MSS b, p, s, and v. They are copies made during the 10th and 11th centuries and clearly reflect editions derived from the fourth through sixth centuries C.E.9 They provide us with the following double dating: Now, the blessed Polycarp suffered martyrdom on the second day of the month of Xanthicus just begun, the seventh before the Kalends of May, on the great (high) Sabbath, at the eighth hour.10 Setting aside for the moment the strange use of double dating, there is an inherent contradiction in this passage. The Greek Macedonian date is “the second day of the month of Xanthicus,” i.e., February 23.11 The Roman date, “the seventh before the Kalends of May,” meanwhile, is April 25,12 a quite different date. The early Latin translation supports the Roman version by rendering it, “in the month of April, the seventh before the Kalends of May, on the great Sabbath.”13 Next, the recently discovered Moscow MS m (13th century C.E.), preserves the variant “the seventh before the Kalends of March,” i.e., February 23.14 This document, though written well, is a much later version. Its scribe made a clear attempt to coordinate the Roman date with the Macedonian by changing the Roman date from the earlier April date to one falling in February, thereby making both the Macedonian and Roman dates agree.15 Lake, AF, ii, p. 310. Polycarp, 22:2. Ibid. Polycarp, 22:2, cf., Moscow manuscript at 22:6 (Lake, AF, ii, p. 345). Lake, AF, ii, p. 310. Polycarp, 21; see PG, 5, p. 1044. TAF, 2.1, pp. 678–713; Lake, AF, ii, p. 310. ANF, 1, p. 43, n. 13. TAF, 2.1, p. 678. TAF, 2.1, p 677f. Those who try to by-pass the fact that the early reading, “the seventh before the Kalends of May,” is found in various texts do so by claiming that the one piece of evidence from the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Polycarp‘s Death

443

Finally, we have the Chronicon Paschale (originally composed in the seventh century C.E. but our most recent copy coming from the 10th century C.E.).16 This text omits any mention of the Macedonian month of Xanthicus and gives the date of Polycarp’s death as “the seventh before the Kalends of April,” i.e., March 26.17 This record is also comparatively late, though not as late as the creation of the Moscow MS m. It makes its own attempt to coordinate the contradictory dates by reckoning the high Sabbath day on which Polycarp died with Phasekh. As Joseph Barber Lightfoot argues, there were four motives for the author of the Chronicon Paschale to alter the original date: • The seventh before the Kalends of March (February 23) and the seventh before the Kalends of May (April 25) both fall outside any possible limits of the Phasekh as practiced by early Christians (inclusive of Systems A through F). Yet the mentioning of Polycarp’s death on a high Sabbath would suggest the day of Phasekh to the eighth century C.E. Roman Christians. Joseph Barber Lightfoot writes that “both the Paschal interests of the chronicler himself and the parallelisms to the Lord’s Passion in the document before him would suggest the Easter time as the date of the martyrdom.”18 • The author would “naturally interpret the ‘great sabbath’ according to the technical sense which it bore in his own day, as the Saturday before Easter Day; and this necessitated an alteration of the month.”19 • In the age and country in which the author lived, “the only calendar retaining the Macedonian names of the months, with which he was acquainted, would be the Syromacedonian; and in this, as we have seen, the months were pushed forward,” so that Xanthicus no longer represented the sixth month, as in the Asiatic calendar, but the seventh month.20 This allowed for a March date. Moscow manuscript (13th century C.E.), reading, “the seventh before the Kalends of March,” is derived from a better and more reliable source. There is no substantive support for this view and it ignores the confounding of the date of Polycarp’s death with that of Pionius. It is based merely upon the fact that the latter date agrees with their preconceived ideas. The fact is that the early reading, “of the seventh before the Kalends of May,” appears in text from the 10th and 11th centuries in perfectly good texts. This reading was even earlier than the Latin translation giving the same date. The reading of the seventh before the Kalends of May is by far not only earlier than that of the seventh before the Kalends of March, as found in the Moscow manuscript, but is clearly a superior unbiased reading. It is used by PG, 5, p. 1044; and ANF, 1, p. 43. It is presumptuous to leap to the conclusion that the late single reading is more correct merely because it agrees with the Xanthicus date. To the contrary, the Moscow manuscript date is merely one more attempt to make the false double dating agree and carries no authority at all. 16 This anonymous work purports to give a history of the world from its creation until the 10th year of the reign of Emperor Heraclius (630 C.E.). This latter date and the reference in the text to Heraclius as “our emperor” indicates that its composition was contemporary with that emperor and was most likely finished in 631 C.E. The earliest manuscript remaining is found in the Vatican library and dates to the 10th century C.E. (DCB, 1, p. 510). 17 Chron. Paschale, p. 481. 18 TAF, 2.1, p. 708. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.

444

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh • Finally, the arbitrary character of his alterations is demonstrated by the failure of the Chronicon Paschale to mention the Xanthicus date. Joseph Barber Lightfoot notes that this was due “perhaps because he could not make this date fit in with the calendar with which he was acquainted, perhaps because the mode of expression would be unfamiliar to his readers.”21

To this information we should add that some believe the date supplied in the Chronicon Paschale appears to be an attempt to match the date of Polycarp’s death as found in Eusebius Chronicon with an actual date of Phasekh. The Saturday preceding the Roman Sunday Phasekh festival in the year 169 C.E. fell on March 26, and according to James Ussher might be properly thought of by the author of the Chronicon Paschale as the “great Sabbath.”22

Source of Confusion A close examination of all the evidence reveals that the source for all of this variation and confusion is the double dating found in the best and earliest manuscripts. The Greek Macedonian and Roman dates are clearly contradictory, which in itself suggests that one of these two dates was an interpolation and not part of the original text. The attempts to correct the contradiction is the source for all later variations. The true culprit is the Greek Macedonian date. The Greek Macedonian date was inserted into the letter because, during the fifth and subsequent centuries, writers confounded the records dealing with the apprehension and martyrdom of Pionius with the martyrdom of Polycarp. Pionius, as we have already mentioned, was the scribe who recopied the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp text transmitted by Socrates of Corinth. Pionius also wrote a book about Polycarp’s life.23 The confusion, whatever its source, took root in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (written in various editions between 311 to 323 C.E.).24 In this book Eusebius makes, what Joseph Barber Lightfoot calls, “an almost incredible blunder.”25 He reports that other martyrdoms “took place in the same Smyrna at the same time as the martyrdom of Polycarp,” and then he makes the comment that “a famous martyr of those at that time was Pionius.”26 Eusebius himself dates the martyrdom of Polycarp to the reign of Marcus Aurelius Verus (Antoninus Verus) (March, 161 to March, 180 C.E.).27 In the Chronicon of Eusebius, he lists Polycarp’s death with the events following the seventh or eighth year of Marcus Aurelius Verus (167/168 or 168/169 C.E., March reckoning).28 Pionius, on the other hand, is known to have died during Ibid. James Ussher adopted the year 169 C.E. for this reason (see TAF, 2.1, p. 651). For the date provided by Eusebius, see below App. G, pp. 451ff. 23 For the Greek texts and a translation of The Life of Polycarp by Pionius see TAF, 2.3, pp. 433– 465, 487–506. 24 Lake, Euseb., i, pp. xix–xx. 25 TAF, 2.1, p. 651. 26 Eusebius, H.E., 5:15:46f. 27 Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:9–4:15:1. 28 Eusebius, Arm., yr. 2183; cf., Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2183. 21 22

Polycarp‘s Death

445

the persecutions in the reign of Emperor Decius (249–251 C.E.), and more precisely in 250 C.E.29 Even more important, the date of the apprehension of Pionius was February 23,30 the precise date given for the martyrdom of Polycarp. For some unknown reason—though it surely must be connected with the fact that Pionius copied the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp and wrote a book on the life of Polycarp—the apprehension and death of the two martyrs were associated together. Later writers then concluded that both had died at the same time. Some put another twist on the confusion. The Menaea, based upon Eusebius’ error, places Polycarp’s martyrdom under Decius (249–251 C.E.).31 Joseph Barber Lightfoot writes: Being however more familiar with the Acts of Pionius than with the circumstances of Polycarp’s death, and knowing that Pionius suffered under Decius, they post-dated it accordingly. This is the converse to the error of Eusebius himself, who antedated the martyrdom of Pionius and placed both under M. Aurelius.32 Therefore, the apprehension and subsequent martyrdom of Pionius was by a gross error associated with the apprehension and martyrdom of Polycarp, many believing that they died at the same time. Socrates Scholasticus carries on a similar error when he writes that Polycarp suffered martyrdom under Emperor Gordian (238–244 C.E.).33 It is clear that Scholasticus had also associated some event in the life of Pionius with Polycarp—for it was during Gordian’s time that Pionius flourished. This confusion brings into focus the real error that is to be found in the manuscripts on the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp. The key element in the contradiction is the fact that Pionius is known to have been apprehended in the year 250 C.E., on February, 23, which is the “the second day of the month of Xanthicus,” the precise date given in the double dating for Polycarp. In fact, the Greek Church later places the festival of Polycarp’s martyrdom on February 23, continuing the confounding of the identity of the two men.34 It is also obvious that the later attempts to alter the Roman date—whether to “the seventh before the Kalends of March,” i.e., February 23, as found in the Moscow manuscript, or to “the seventh before the Kalends of April,” i.e., March 26 (based upon the late Syromacedonian reckoning of Xanthicus and an attempt to equate the high Sabbath with Phasekh) as found in the Chronicon Paschale—must also be dismissed. They are fabricated, based either upon the original false assumption that Polycarp died on the same day as Pionius or by the attempt to equate the high Sabbath in the text with the Phasekh. 29 30 31 32 33 34

TAF, 2.1, pp. 715–718. TAF, 2.1., p. 719. TAF, 2.1, p. 651. Ibid. Socrates Schol., 5:22. TAF, 2.1, pp. 678, 708.

446

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Two reasons make it clear that double dating was not used in the original text of the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp: not only is such a format unusual but the dates simply do not agree. Further, once we expunge the false date of “the second day of the month of Xanthicus” from the original text, we are left with the Roman date of “the seventh before the Kalends of May,” i.e., April 25, the date found in the earliest and best Greek texts. Therefore, this Roman date— the inhabitants of Asia Minor being under the Roman government—as found in the earliest and best manuscripts, must be the original and true date of Polycarp’s martyrdom.

The Day of His Death A letter written by the Quartodeciman assembly at Smyrna deals with the day on which Polycarp, their beloved bishop, died. In this letter we are told that Polycarp had gone to stay in “a country house not far distant from the city” of Smyrna.35 The enemies of Polycarp discovered his whereabouts and at suppertime, on “the day of preparation” (i.e., the day before a Sabbath or high Sabbath day),36 set out to capture him.37 We are then told, “ojye; de; th`~ w{ra~ (opse de tes oras; and the hour was late),” when these men arrived at Polycarp’s home and found him “lying (sleeping) in an upper chamber.”38 Accordingly, Polycarp was captured at night. After allowing Polycarp time to pray, his captors conducted him back into the city of Smyrna. The events of this night are recorded as occurring on the “Sabbavtou megavlou (great Sabbath).”39 The old Latin translators of the Letter of the Smyrnaeans and the Acts of Pionius both correctly translate this expression by the Latin sabbatum majus (a high Sabbath).40 The fact that the date of Polycarp’s death was a high Sabbath is extremely important. Some, trying to justify the February 23 date, have audaciously claimed that this high Sabbath was really a weekly Sabbath, which is wholly unsupported by any ancient statement or record. A high Sabbath always refers to one of the festival days, such as the high Sabbaths of Phasekh, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. As Timothy Barnes observes, “At the very least, it is doubtful if anyone has yet adequately explained how a Saturday in late February can be a ‘great sabbath’.”41 Even Joseph Barber Lightfoot, who accepts the argument that the high Sabbath mentioned in the records was the weekly Sabbath day, was forced to admit: Nor indeed in Polycarp’s age and country would it be possible; for according to Quartodeciman usage there could not be any ‘great Saturday’.42 Polycarp, 5. For the use of the “day of preparation” as the day before a Sabbath (whether weekly or a high Sabbath, cf., John, 19:14, 31) see JE, 3, p. 502; NBD, pp. 1026f; NCE, 11, p. 744; and see our discussion in FSDY, 2. For suppertime see CGS, pp. 641f; and see above Chap. XIII, p. 216, the last part of n. 36. 37 Polycarp, 7. 38 Eusebius, H.E., 4:15:12; Polycarp, 7. 39 Polycarp, 8; Eusebius, H.E., 4:15:15. 40 TAF, 2, 1, p. 710f. 41 JTS, NS, 19, p. 513. 42 TAF, 2.1, p. 710. 35 36

Polycarp‘s Death

447

To reconcile the contradiction, Joseph Barber Lightfoot and others required connecting the event with the Jewish Festival of Purim and other Jewish interpretations, which, as we shall momentarily discuss, are hardly germane to a Quartodeciman Christian report. Meanwhile, the claim by the Chronicon Paschale that Polycarp’s death occurred on “the seventh before the Kalends of April.” i.e., March 26, is an attempt to rectify the problem by connecting that event with Phasekh. Another claim is that this high Sabbath was, in fact, a reference to the Jewish Festival of Purim, which equally stretches credulity.43 Polycarp and his followers were for the most part non-Jewish Christians.44 Further, there is not one single record claiming that any of the early Christians, let alone the conservative Quartodecimans, ever observed Purim, a celebration that lies outside of the commands of the Torah. Further, the celebration of Purim was never a Christian high Sabbath. To conclude that the Christians living in Smyrna would date the death of their bishop by some vague reference to the Jewish celebration of Purim is wholly without support. Next, the Greeks, like the Hebrews, observed a day that began at sunset.45 The Romans, on the other hand, began their day at midnight. In either case, Polycarp was seized during the night, that is, after the change of the day. As his captors were bringing him back to Smyrna, the new day was described as a great Sabbath (high Sabbath) and was further defined as a day which followed a preparation day (i.e., a day before a weekly or high Sabbath).46 After arriving, Polycarp was taken to a stadium where he was tried. Refusing to deny the messiah or to swear by Caesar, Polycarp was sentenced to death by burning.47 Then, in the closing passages of the letter, the date that Polycarp suffered his martyrdom is given: “the seventh before the Kalends of Mai?wn (Mayon; May),48 on the great Sabbath, at the eighth hour.”49 The seventh day before the Kalends of May, as we have already said, is early Roman (Julian) dating and is otherwise called the 25th of April.50 The eighth hour of the day, if counted by the Roman method from midnight, means that Polycarp died around 8 A.M. If it was the eighth hour of the night, counting from sunset (Greek time), it would have been 2 A.M.; and if its reference is to the eighth hour of daylight, it would be approximately 2 P.M. Since Polycarp’s death is dated by the Roman system, it is most probable that the eighth Roman hour is intended, i.e., 8 A.M. Whichever hour is the TAF, 2.1, pp. 711–713; Lake, Euseb., i, p. 347, n. 2. Pionius, Poly., 3, refers to Polycarp as “a native of the East.” Pliny, 2:79; CGS, p. 589. See above n. 36. Polycarp, 12. Finding that the fire would not consume Polycarp, the executioner was ordered to pierce him with a dagger. Polycarp died from the wound. The body was then burnt (Polycarp, 15–18). 48 See PG, 5, pp. 1043, 1044. 49 Polycarp, 21. 50 The first day of each month was termed kalendae (Kalends or Calends), from the Latin term calare and Greek kalw` (kalo), meaning “to call.” In this cumbersome system, the first day of the month is also the first day when counting backward (HBC, pp. 75–77; ANF, 1, 43, n. 13). Therefore, since there are only 30 days in April, one counts the seven days before the Kalends of May as follows: May 1 = 1, April 30 = 2, April 29 = 3, April 28 = 4, April 27 = 5, April 26 = 6, April 25 = 7 days. 43 44 45 46 47

448

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

case, every possibility falling after midnight, when one reckons the date by the scriptural method, that high Sabbath day on which he died would begin at sunset on April 24 and end at sunset on April 25, Julian dating (the Roman day changing at midnight). This fact will prove vitally important for our final conclusion.

The Age and Time of Polycarp Our next factor is the age of Polycarp and the time frame in which he lived and died. In both the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp and Eusebius, we read that Polycarp died having been a servant of the messiah for 86 years.51 Irenaeus, who personally knew Polycarp, also informs us that Polycarp “lived a long time and in extreme old age passed from life,” referring to him as “a splendid and glorious martyr.”52 On the other side of the equation, Pionius notes that Polycarp, as a non-Christian, was sold as a servant to a Christian woman named Callisto. At the time he was bought, Polycarp is described as being a “paidavriou (paidariou; a young slave).”53 Subsequently, Polycarp is said to have quickly acquired the Christian faith, learning the commandments and how to do well.54 This information indicates that his service in the messiah began when he was still a “paidariou (a young slave).”55 This term refers to a youngster in the age group above a brevfo~ (brephos; infant)56 and a paidivon (paidion; little or young child “up to 7 years”),57 yet below the age of maturity at 18.58 Accordingly, his age must have been somewhere between 8 and 17 when he entered a Christian home. Such would indicate that he died sometime between the age of 94 and 103 years, which agrees with Irenaeus’ statement that Polycarp lived to an extremely old age. We shall take the greater age into consideration in order to include all possibilities. Polycarp’s age must now be placed in context with two major events of his life. First, Eusebius dates the year of Polycarp’s appointment as bishop of Smyrna. Referring to the third year of emperor Trajan (101 C.E.), he writes: At this time (101 C.E.) there flourished in Asia Polycarp, the companion of the apostles, who was appointed to the bishopric of the Church in Smyrna by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the sovereign.59 More especially, Polycarp is specifically said to have been appointed bishop by John the divine and the apostles living in Asia Minor,60 John the divine himself having died shortly thereafter.61 Despite the fact that Polycarp Eusebius, H.E., 4:15:20; Polycarp, 9. Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:3f; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4. Pionius, Poly., 3. Pionius, Poly., 4. GEL, 1968, p. 1286. SEC, Gk. #1025. GEL, 1968, p. 1287. DCB, 3, p. 254. Eusebius, H.E., 3:36:1, cf., 3:34:1 for date. Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4; Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:3–6; Tertullian, Prescript., 32. John the divine died in the reign of Emperor Trajan (98–117 C.E.), see Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 2:22:5; Eusebius, H.E., 3:18:1–3:23:4. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Polycarp‘s Death

449

rapidly advanced in the faith as a youth, it is unlikely that he could have attained such an important post until he was at least 30 years of age, the earliest age at which a man could receive ordination as a bishop.62 This detail would indicate the very high probability that Polycarp could have been born no later than about 71 C.E. Second, Polycarp visited Rome when Anicetus was bishop (157–168 C.E.), at which time he argued that the Romans should return to the Quartodeciman Phasekh practice.63 It was also at this time that he saw the heretic Marcion in Rome.64 Anicetus is specifically said to have come into his position as bishop in the 20th year of Antoninus Pius (July of 157 until July of 158 C.E.) and was bishop for 11 years.65 Though we do not know the exact year that Polycarp came to visit Anicetus and celebrated the Phasekh in Rome, it was probably shortly after the latter had been appointed to his office. Accordingly, the earliest possible date for Polycarp’s Phasekh celebration in Rome is in the spring of 158 C.E.66

Conclusion The evidence demonstrates that Polycarp died on April 25 (Roman reckoning) on a day that was also a high Sabbath. If Polycarp was only 30 years old at the time that he became bishop of Smyrna (101 C.E.), he would have been at least 62 DCB, 3, p. 253. This concept is based on the fact that under the Torah a man could not become a priest and give service in the Tabernacle or Temple unless he was at least 30 years of age (Num., 4:46f, cf., 4:2f, 22f, 29f, 34f, 38f, 42f). For this reason, it was also believed that the messiah did not begin his teaching and ministry until after he was 30 years old (Luke, 3:23; cf., Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 2:22:5, “Now, that the first stage of early life embraces 30 years, and that this extends onwards to the 40th year, every one will admit; but from the 40th and 50th year a man begins to decline toward old age, which our sovereign possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher, even as the Good News and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the sovereign, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.”). 63 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:16f, cf., 4:19. 64 Moscow Epilog., 22:4; cf., Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4, 3:4:3. 65 Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2173 (Oly. CCXXXIIII). Jerome gives Anicetus leadership for 11 years. He then places the beginning of the next bishop, Soter, to the ninth year of Verus (Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2185 [Oly. CCXXXVII]). Eusebius supports this with the statement, “Now by this time, eij~ o[gdoon ejlaunouvsh~ e[to~ (eis ogdoon elaunouses etos; at the driving out of the eighth year) of (emperor Verus) showing forth his leadership, Soter succeeded Anicetus in the bishopric of Rome, who had served in all eleven years.” (Eusebius, H.E., 4:19). That ejlaunouvsh~ (elaunouses) means “to drive away, expel . . . to drive to extremities” see GEL, p. 248. The eighth year of Verus was 168/169, March reckoning. Counting the eighth year of Verus as the 11th year of Anicetus, we are brought back to the 20th year of Antoninus Pius (157/158 C.E., July reckoning). This detail is supported by the statement that Soter, who “ended his life within the eighth year of his leadership,” was succeeded by Eleutherus in “the 17th year of Emperor Antoninus Verus” (Eusebius, H.E., 5:1:1; cf., Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2193 [Oly. CCXXXVIII], i.e., in 177/178 C.E., March reckoning). Once again, this places the first year of Soter in the ninth year of Emperor Verus, in turn placing the first year of Anicetus in the 20th year of Emperor Pius. 66 Irenaeus relates that Polycarp came to Rome to converse with Anicetus “about some difficulty as to the day of the Phasekh” (Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:1). They discussed the matter fully but were unable to change one another’s opinion (ibid., 5:24:16). The most appropriate time for this visit from the leader of the eastern assemblies to Rome would have been shortly after Anicetus obtained his post. We also know that they partook of the Eucharist together, which demonstrates that Polycarp was in Rome during the spring Phasekh season (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:17). These details suggest that Polycarp was probably in Rome in the spring of 158 C.E., not long after Anicetus became bishop. Those adhering to the notion that Polycarp died in 155 or 156 C.E. have disregarded these important chronological points.

450

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

87 years of age at the time he visited Anicetus in 158 C.E. It is also highly unlikely that Polycarp would have died shortly after his visit to Rome. Socrates Scholasticus reports that, after Polycarp left Anicetus at Rome and returned home, he “continued to communicate with Anicetus,” suggesting some passage of time.67 This leaves very little room for communication between the two men if Polycarp left Rome in the spring of 158 and died later that year. Indeed, we do not even know that it was the year 158 that Polycarp visited Anicetus; it is merely the earliest possible date. It is also possible that Anicetus might have become bishop after the Phasekh of the year of 158 but before the end of the 20th year of Antoninus Pius (July of 157 until July of 158 C.E.), the year in which he obtained that office. In that case, the earliest possible year would have been the spring of 159 C.E. Using these factors, we can establish the outermost limits for the year of Polycarp’s death. The maximum age that can be given to Polycarp, as we have shown above, is 103 years, 86 years of service to the messiah beginning at age 17. If he attained the high office as bishop of Smyrna in 101 C.E. at the earliest possible age of 30, and lived until he was 103 years old, his death could be no later than 174 C.E. At the same time, since he was observing Phasekh in Rome no earlier than in the spring of 158 C.E., he must have been martyred at some point after that date. Our range, therefore, is from 158 to 174 C.E. 67

Socrates Schol., 5:22.

Appendix G

The Year of Polycarp’s Death

e must now coordinate the various known facts and focus in on which year was the precise year of Polycarp’s martyrdom. This effort must be guided by the established outer limits for Polycarp’s death—from 158 to 174 C.E. Our first effort, therefore, will be to use the historical records to further narrow the time span of the persecution of the Christians of Asia Minor among whom Polycarp was murdered. We shall then utilize all of the relevant systems for calculating the beginning of the year and month during this period in order to properly count which high Sabbaths are eligible. To achieve the exact year, we shall then clock in any high Sabbath that fell on April 25, as reported in the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp. The evidence will prove that Polycarp died on the high Sabbath representing the last day (Abib 20) of the Quartodeciman seven days of unleavened bread. In turn, it will be demonstrated that the conservative Quartodecimans continued to practice this last day as a high Sabbath well into the latter part of the second century C.E.

Narrowing the Time Span The year of Polycarp’s death is mentioned in the first appendix of the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp as the one wherein “Philip of Tralles was high priest, when Statius Quadratus was proconsul.”1 Unfortunately, all efforts to connect these men with a specific year in Asia Minor have failed, due to the fact that precise data from this region and for this period is almost negligible.2 Therefore, we must begin by narrowing the possible time span by referring to collateral evidence. For example, the actual year of Polycarp’s death is approximated by Eusebius. He writes: Antoninus, called Pius, held the sovereignty for 22 years and was succeeded by Marcus Aurelius Verus, also called Antoninus, his son, together with his brother Lucius. And ejn touvtw/ (en touto; in this period) Polycarp was consecrated by martyrdom when great persecution again disturbed Asia, and I think it most necessary to give in this history the account of his end, which is still extant in writing.3 Polycarp, 21:1. Little more than guesses are offered (see a discussion of the various attempts in TAF, 2.1, pp. 646–677). 3 Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:9–4:15:1. 1 2

451

452

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

The above discussion is centered upon the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius and the time when his sons came to power. The words “ejn touvtw/ (en touto; in this period)” are a vague expression of time. Though some construe that it might make reference to any of the years of Pius up to his death, other evidence shows that, as W. Telfer concludes,4 it points to the period of his son, Marcus Aurelius Verus, who succeeded his father Antoninus Pius to the throne at Rome on March 7, 161 C.E. and died in March of 180 C.E.5 Jerome, for example, similarly dates Polycarp’s death “during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus in the fourth persecution after Nero, in the presence of the proconsul holding court at Smyrna.”6 Therefore, both Eusebius and Jerome date Polycarp’s death within the reign of Marcus Aurelius Verus (Antoninus Verus), i.e., between March of 161 and March of 180 C.E., well beyond the scope of Polycarp’s visit to Rome during the spring of 158 C.E.7 Meanwhile, the Armenian version of the Chronicon of Eusebius associates the discussion of the persecutions of Christians living in Asia Minor and the martyrdom of Polycarp with the events of the seventh and following years of Marcus Aurelius Verus.8 Jerome, in his version of Eusebius’ Chronicon, took Eusebius more literally than his words warrant and actually dated the event to the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius Verus (March, 167–March, 168 C.E.).9 Eusebius did not intend an exact year. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, for example, observes that the notice given in the Chronicon itself “is not placed opposite to, but after this year” in the chronological list, i.e., actually associated with the year 168/169 C.E. He then adds: Moreover Polycarp’s martyrdom is associated with the persecutions at Vienne and Lyons, which we know to have happened A.D. 177. The bearing of these facts seems to be obvious. Eusebius here connects together all the incidents relating to the persecution of the Christians, which he supposed to have taken place about this time. He had no knowledge of the precise year or years in which they occurred.10 At the same time, Polycarp’s death is specifically said to have ended a long period of persecution.11 The year 167/168 C.E., or more probably 168/169 C.E., therefore, was most likely the beginning of a major period of persecutions against Christians living in Asia Minor. Polycarp’s death was the last of those in the Asian group. His death was later followed by the persecutions in Gaul, which are known to have occurred in 177 C.E. It is therefore understood JTS, 3, pp. 79–83. Dio, 72:33, 34; cf., SHA, Anton. Pius, 12, Marc. Anton., 7. Jerome, Lives, 17. Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:10–4:15:1; Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2183. Eusebius, Arm., yr. 2183. Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2183. TAF, 2, 1, p. 646f. Polycarp, 1, states that Polycarp’s death “put and end to the persecution” in Asia; cf., Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:10–4:15:1, 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The Year of Polycarp’s Death

453

that the Asian persecutions did not end until sometime after 168 C.E. yet before those of Gaul in 177 C.E. We are now coming very close to our outer limit of 174 C.E., established in our last appendix as the last possible year of Polycarp’s death. The historical data, accordingly, narrows the year of death to sometime between 167 and 174 C.E.

The Irenaeus Connection A date toward the last part of the 160’s or during the early years of the 170’s for the death of Polycarp is further supported by a record that he died while Irenaeus was living and teaching at Rome. The epilogue to the Moscow manuscript of the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp reports: Now this Irenaeus was in Rome at the time of the martyrdom of the bishop Polycarp and taught many there. . . . And this is also recorded in the writings of Irenaeus: On the day and at the hour when Polycarp suffered martyrdom in Smyrna, Irenaeus—who was in the city of Rome—heard a voice like that of a trumpet proclaiming, “Polycarp has suffered martyrdom.”12 Irenaeus (c.140–202 C.E.)13 spent his youth in Asia among the Quartodecimans and while living there personally knew Polycarp.14 He is even said to have, along with the heretic Florinus, been a pupil of Polycarp’s.15 From this experience, Irenaeus developed fond memories of his former bishop.16 For such an attachment to form, Ireneaus must have been at least a teenager while a student of Polycarp’s in Asia. After the examination of the context of the word “pai`~ (pais; young person),” used by Polycarp to describe the period in his life when he knew Florinus and while they were both pupils of Polycarp,17 Richard Lipius writes: If, according to this, the indoles juvenis begin about the 30th year, the age of pai`~ will commence with that of youthful maturity, say about the 18th year, and just that time of life will be the one denoted by the expression prwvth hJlikiva ·prote helikia‚—so that not the age of childhood, but that of early young-manhood will have been the period of Irenaeus’s connexion with St. Polycarp.18 Moscow Epilog., 22:3, 5, see Lake, AF, ii, pp. 342–245. Irenaeus died under Emperor Septimius Severus in about the year 202 C.E. (Gregory Trs., Franks, 1:27–29). He became bishop of Lyons in 177 C.E. (DCB, 3, p. 253). Since Irenaeus could not have held that post any earlier than his 30th year, this places his birth no later than 147 C.E. We also know that Irenaeus flourished in the period approaching the eighth year of Emperor Antoninus Verus (i.e., approaching March of 168 C.E.) (Eusebius, H.E., 4:19:1–4:21:1, cf., 4:18:2), indicating at least an age of teaching (over 20 years of age). We are not far from the truth if we place his birth around 140 C.E. 14 Polycarp, 22:2; Eusebius, H.E., 5:20:4–6; Irenaeus, frag. 2. 15 Eusebius, H.E., 5:20:4–6; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4, frag. 2. 16 Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4, frag. 2; Eusebius, H.E., 3:28:6, 4:14:1–4:15:48, 5:20:4–6, 5:24:14–18. 17 Quoted in Eusebius, H.E., 5:30:4f; Irenaeus, frag. 2. 18 DCB, 3, p. 254. 12 13

454

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Leaving Asia Minor, Irenaeus and his family moved to Rome, where he studied under the guidance of the leaders of the Roman assembly. He apparently had moved to Rome around the time of the great controversy that raged in Laodicea during the spring of 167 C.E.,19 for Eusebius notes that Irenaeus began to flourish in the period approaching the eighth year of Emperor Antoninus Verus (i.e., at the end of his seventh year, 167/168 C.E., March reckoning).20 It was about this time that the persecutions began in Asia Minor, which may be the cause of his leaving that country.21 Not many years afterward, “after studying in Rome,” Irenaeus moved to Lyons, in southern Gaul (France).22 It was sometime after 150 C.E., and also quite possibly due to the persecution of Christians in Asia Minor, which began in 167/168 C.E. (or the next year), that a Christian community had been organized in the Roman colony of Lyons to take care of a large group of Greek settlers coming from Asia.23 Here Irenaeus joined other Christian settlers who had earlier arrived from Asia Minor.24 In 176/177 C.E. a persecution broke out against the Christians living in Lyons, and among those who died was their first bishop, Pothinus.25 At the time of its outbreak, the presbyter Irenaeus had already been sent from Lyons to Rome on a mission.26 When the persecution ceased, Irenaeus returned to Gaul where he was appointed the new bishop of the diocese of Lyons (177 C.E.).27 As we have already established, Polycarp could not have died any later than 174 C.E. This information proves that Irenaeus must have heard of the death of Polycarp during his previous stay in Rome, i.e., in the years while he was studying in Rome and before he migrated to Gaul. Because of his education and contacts in Rome, Irenaeus became a strong ally of Eleutherus (177–192 C.E.) and Victor (192–202 C.E.), the bishops of Rome.28 Under Roman influence, Irenaeus led the assembly at Gaul into a close affiliation with the Roman assembly. This kinship with Rome is not only seen in his theological writings but is reflected by his participation in the conferences in 196 C.E., which created Victor’s decree to celebrate Phasekh according to the System E scenario.29 Irenaeus’ early association with Rome See above Chap. XVII, pp. 282f, n. 51; and Chap. XVIII, p. 291, n. 11. Eusebius, H.E., 4:19:1–4:21:1, cf., 4:18:2. Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:9–4:15:1; Eusebius, Arm., yr. 2183; cf., Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2183. WDCH, p. 441. NCE, 6, p. 305. Pectorius left a Greek epitaph, discovered at Autun, which indicates that there were Christians in that city by the second half of the second century C.E. 24 ANF, 1, p. 309, notes, “southern Gaul is evangelized from Asia Minor.” For this reason, for centuries many Christians living in Gaul continued their Quartodeciman and quasiQuartodeciman views. Irenaeus, on the other hand, was heavily influenced by his training while at Rome and forsook his previous Quartodeciman upbringing. Nevertheless, he continued a fondness for the Quartodecimans and always spoke highly of his former teacher Polycarp. It was most likely due to his split loyalties that, during the Phasekh controversy of 196 C.E., Polycarp spoke against Victor’s attempt to excommunicate Asia, pointing out that the previous agreement between Rome and Asia was to allow each side to continue in the Phasekh tradition of their choice (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:9–18). 25 Eusebius, H.E., 5:pref., dates it to the eighth year of Soter, bishop of Rome, (i.e., 176/177 C.E.). For the story see Eusebius, H.E., 5:1:1–63. 26 Eusebius, H.E., 5:4:1f, 5:5:8; Jerome, Lives, 35. 27 Eusebius, H.E., 5:5:8, cf., 5:4:1f, 5:23:4, 5:24:11; Jerome, Lives, 35. 28 Eusebius, H.E., 5:4:1, 5:23:4, 5:24:9–18; Jerome, Lives, 35. 29 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:1–4, 5:24:11. See above Chap. XVII, p. 287, n. 80. 19 20 21 22 23

The Year of Polycarp’s Death

455

reflects the fact that he had lived and studied in Rome for a number of years prior to his moving to Gaul, and prior to his becoming bishop in 177 C.E. Accordingly, the death of Polycarp must be dated during the time that Irenaeus was first living in Rome, both studying and instructing many in the faith.30 This information agrees with two important facts provided by Eusebius: that Irenaeus began to flourish in the period approaching the eighth year of Emperor Antoninus Verus (i.e., approaching 168/169 C.E., March reckoning), and that the persecution of Christians in Asia was under way that same year. A reference to Irenaeus teaching in Rome during this period, therefore, is in full accord with the other facts about Polycarp’s death. Placing the data from Eusebius and Irenaeus together, limiting ourselves only with the outermost possible year for the death of Polycarp, it becomes clear that Polycarp must have died sometime between 168 and 174 C.E.

The Beginning of the Year To calculate the date of the high Sabbath that fell on April 25, we must first keep in mind that the Christians of Asia Minor, especially Polycarp and the assembly at Smyrna, were Quartodecimans. Therefore, they would have used a Quartodeciman calculation for the beginning of the year. Polycarp is said to have been personally instructed by apostles and knew some of those who had seen the messiah.31 Further, he was appointed bishop of the assembly in Smyrna by these apostles and John the divine.32 It is most likely, therefore, that he and his assembly followed the ancient Aristocratic reckoning for the new moons and the beginning of the year. Supporting the idea that the Smyrna assembly used the Aristocratic reckoning, Anatolius points out that the more ancient Jews (i.e., those under Sadducean authority) and the conservative Quartodecimans both observed the same reckoning for their first month of the year. Anatolius points out that among those who correctly began the year were the eminent third century B.C.E. priest and scholar Aristobulus of Paneas, the second century B.C.E. book of Enoch, and the first century priests and writers Philo and Josephus.33 Anatolius then writes: These writers, in solving some questions which are raised with respect to the Exodus, say that all alike ought to sacrifice the Phasekh after the vernal equinox in the middle of the first moon; and that this is found to be when the sun passes through the first segment of the solar, or, as some among them have named it, the zodiacal circle. But this Aristobulus also Moscow Epilog., 22:3–5, see Lake, AF, ii, pp. 342–245. The statements that Polycarp knew John the apostle and was instructed and placed in the bishopric of Smyrna by the apostles (Eusebius, H.E., 3:36:1, 14:14:3, 5:20:6, 5:24:16; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4) seems better timed for the generation following the twelve apostles. The leading apostle who taught Polycarp was John the presbyter, also called John the divine, who is often confused with the apostle John, one of the original twelve (see FSDY, 2). 32 Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4; Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:3–6; Tertullian, Prescript., 32. 33 Anatolius, 3. 30 31

456

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh adds, that for the Festival of Phasekh it was necessary not only that the sun should pass the equinoctial segment, but the moon also. . . . and since the day of the Phasekh is fixed for the 14th day of the moon, at twilight, the moon will have the position diametrically opposite the sun; as is to be seen in full moons.34

Socrates Scholasticus also notes that the early Samaritans, the conservative Quartodecimans of Asia, and the ancient Jews (i.e., under the direction of the Aristocratic priests) all observed the Phasekh following the vernal or spring equinox.35 This Aristocratic practice, indeed, became the mainstay for most of Christianity, including the Roman assembly. The ancient Aristocratic practice was based upon the requirement found in Exodus, 34:22, that a hpwqt (tequphah; equinox or solstice)36 must come during the season of Tabernacles (i.e., the autumnal tequphah),37 i.e., in the seventh month (almost exactly six months after Phasekh).38 Tabernacles is also called the Khag of Ingathering held at the “outgoing,” i.e., after the middle, “of the year.”39 The first month of the year, therefore, is determined under the Aristocratic system when the 14th day of the moon passes the spring equinox. If the 14th day of the moon falls before this equinox, that month is counted as part of the previous year.40 This system was used as long as the Sadducees maintained control over the Temple (no later than c.68 C.E.). Afterward, the Pharisees gradually changed the system for Judaism based upon other more complicated criteria (i.e., ripened green ears of barley, a visual sighting of the new moon, a reliance on the approval of the rabbis, and so forth).41 Returning to the ancient Jewish method, which was followed by the conservative Quartodecimans, Anatolius adds: 34 Anatolius, 3f; cf., 1 En., 3:78:6f, “When the moon comes out (i.e., begins its cycle), it appears in the sky one half of a seventh part; it will become fully illumined from the 14th (day); it completes its illumination the 15th (day), its light become fulfilled according to the sign of the year and becoming 15 parts. Thus the moon waxes 15 parts.” Philo, Exod., 1:9, likewise states that the moon “becomes on the 14th (day).” 35 Socrates Schol., 5:22. 36 The tequphah is either one of the two equinoxes (vernal or autumnal) or one of the two solstices (summer or winter) see HBC, p. 44, “The four Tequfoth were the Tequfah of Nisan which began the vernal equinox when the sun enters the constellation of Aries; the Tequfah of Tammuz at the summer solstice when the sun enters Cancer; the Tequfah of Tishri at the autumnal equinox when the sun enters Libra; and the Tequfah of Tebeth at the winter solstice when the sun enters Capricorn.” CHAL, p. 394, explains hpwqt (tequphah), as the “turning (of sun at solstice) Ps, 19:7; (of the year, i.e. end of year, at autumnal equinox) Ex. 34:22; (of the days [i.e. of the year] = end of year) 1 S 1:20.” The only tequphah coming around the time of the seventh scriptural lunar month (see Lev., 33–43) is the autumnal equinox. 37 The seven days of the Khag of Tabernacles must fall during the “outgoing” of the scriptural year (Exod., 23:16) and within the seventh lunar month (see below n. 38). 38 Num., 29:1–40; Lev., 23:24–43 (cf., Philo, Spec., 1:35 §182, 186); 2 Chron., 5:3; Ezek., 45:25. 39 Exod., 23:16. 40 Anatolius remarks that, if one keeps Phasekh in the 12th astronomical constellation, he is “guilty of no small or ordinary mistake” (Anatolius, 2). Abbot Ceolfrid explained the rule this way, “But if the full moon goes but one day before the day and night be of one length (i.e., the equinox), the aforesaid reason proves that this moon must be assigned not to the first month of the year beginning, but rather to the last month of the year that is past” (Bede, Hist., 5:21). 41 For a discussion of the Pharisaic system see VT, 7, pp. 259–307; EJMC; and FSDY, 3. That the Pharisaic calendar system was derived from the Babylonian system see HUCA, 42, pp. 227–242.

The Year of Polycarp’s Death

457

But that the first month among the Hebrews is about the equinox is clearly shown also by what is taught in the book of Enoch.42 Copies of the book of Enoch have been found at Qumran and date well within the Maccabaean period (second century B.C.E.).43 The book of Enoch points out that the conjunction of the moon must take place prior to sunrise. Otherwise, the conjunction and the last day of the month are counted as belonging to the next day. For example, the book of Enoch describes how the ancient Jews determined the first day of the moon when it reports: It (the moon) rises in this manner: Its crescent faces the easterly direction, coming out on the 30th day, on that day, (that is,) on the 30th day, it comes into existence, and it appears with the sun in the gate through which the sun exits; and you have the beginning of the month.44 Yet the book of Enoch also recognizes that the orbit of the moon is not consistent and that a month normally varies from 29 to 30 days and at other times to a shorter length of 28, or even longer to 31 days.45 How then is the exact determination made? The text continues by explaining. Then when the sun rises (in the morning), THE MOON RISES TOGETHER WITH IT. Taking a portion of one half (of one seventh) of its light, that night, just beginning its (the moon’s) monthly journey on its first lunar day, it sets with the sun and becomes dark, in respect to its thirteen parts that night.46 The key is that the moon must rise with the sun in the morning before the the night that it appears after sunset, staying but a few minutes, and then setting in the same gate entered by the sun. This night is counted as the beginning day of the lunar month (the scriptural day beginning at sunset). Put another way, the moon has by definition already passed its conjunction by rising with the sun in the morning of the last day of the month. This determination of the conjunction before morning is based upon the scriptural injunctions that the sun and its illumination tlçmm (mamashalath; govern, regulate)47 the day and “in the day,” while the moon and its Anatolius, 5. NBD, p. 1060. 1 En., 3:73:4. 1 En., 3:72:8, 16, 31, 73:4, 78:9, 15–17, 82:4. 1 En., 3:73:7. The Hebrew term tlçmm (mamashalath), a form of hlçmm (mamashalah) means, “dominion, rule” (HEL, p. 154); “(ruling power =) dominion, authority over” (CHAL, p. 200; “rule; also (concr. in plur.) a realm or a ruler:—dominion, government power, to rule” (SEC, Heb. #4475). This term is translated into the Greek of the LXX as ajrca;~ (arkhas), a form of ajrchv (arkhe), meaning, “first place or power, sovereignty . . . empire, realm . . . magistracy, office” (GEL, 1968, p. 252). Both the Hebrew and Greek terms carry the meaning of governmental authority to regulate (i.e., the time). 42 43 44 45 46 47

458

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

illumination “tlçmm (mamashalath; govern, regulate) the night” and “in the night.”48 In Scriptures it is stated that Yahweh “made the jry (yerakh; moon, month)49 for the moadim (appointed times).”50 That is, the moon is used to calculate and regulate the moadim—but it holds rulership only at night (after sunset and before sunrise). Therefore, the conjunction of the moon can only be counted for regulation purposes when it reaches nighttime. If the conjunction occurs during the daytime (i.e., if it has not risen with the sun before morning), it cannot be counted until the next night arrives. This system assures us that at least 12 hours and 30 minutes, but no more than about 24 hours, have passed from the time of the moon’s conjunction, guaranteeing that an illumination has begun to occur on the face the moon (whether visible to the naked eye or, on very rare occasions, visible with a visual aid).51 This early Aristocratic calculation, as Anatolius points out, is further described by the Jewish priest Philo (c.45 C.E.). Though Philo was a Pharisee who celebrated the Phasekh supper on the 15th of Abib, he lived during the time that the Sadducees held dominance in the matter of how to begin the month and year.52 To this issue, Philo points out that the days of the lunar month represent the “period between one conjunction and the next.”53 He adds that the number of days in the lunar month are counted until the moon “wanes to her conjunction with the sun” and “dies away into the conjunction.“54 Likewise, the book of Enoch states that the moon gradually wanes “until all the illumination disappears and the days of the moon expire, its disk empty without light.”55 This means that the last day of the lunar month is the day of the conjunction, at which point the month ends. It becomes a new moon when the moon “resumes its natural brightness” and appears after sunset, beginning a new day.56 Similarly, the book of Enoch states, “it is called the new moon because on that day the illumination rises on her.”57 Philo clarifies In the Samuel Bagster & Sons edition of the LXX (reprinted by Zondervan in 1972), for example, this word is translated at Gen., 1:16, as “regulating” the night. 48 Gen., 1:16; Ps., 136:7–9, the yerakh (moon) and stars regulate “hlylb (be-laylah; in the night).” Cf., Jub., 2:8–10; 2 En., J–30:5f. 49 HEL, p. 116, “month, one revolution of the moon round the earth”; CHAL, p. 144. A yerakh is “a lunation, i.e. month,” “the moon” (SEC, Heb. #3391, 3393, 3394). It is often used as the name of the moon itself in Ugaritic, Phoenician, and other Semitic languages (NBD, p. 841). The Greek of the LXX has selhvnh (selene): “brilliancy,” “the moon,” “i.e. the month” (SEC, Gk. #4582; GEL, pp. 725f). 50 Ps., 104:19; and more at length in Ecclus., 43:6f. Also see Philo, Spec., 2:26 §142. 51 At the time of the equinox, there are approximately 12 hours of daylight and 45 minutes of twilight after sunset. It is during the 45-minute period of twilight that the moon’s crescent will appear. With a telescope the first reflections of light can be seen on the moon at about 12 hours. Therefore, even if the conjunction happens right before sunrise, which is extremely rare, there is adequate time for a lunation. Yet in almost all cases, the conjunction will fall at a time well-ahead of sunrise, so as to be visible to the naked eye and not requiring a visual aid. We shall deal with the particulars in more detail in FSDY, 3. 52 In the time of Philo, the Hillelic view had not yet attained dominance among all the Pharisees. For a discussion of the Hillelic view see FSDY, 3. 53 Philo, Spec., 2:26. Also see Philo, Exod., 1:9, the moon “recedes from its fullness of light into its conjunction.” 54 Philo, Spec., 1:35 §178. 55 1 En., 78:14. 56 Philo, Spec., 2:26 §140. 57 1 En., 3:78:12.

The Year of Polycarp’s Death

459

his definition when he states that the “new moon,” i.e., the first day of the lunar month, “FOLLOWS the conjunction of the moon with the sun.”58 We should also mention that other systems were used for the region of Asia Minor during the second century C.E. Peter of Alexandria (c.300–311 C.E.) notes that the Jews of his day “erroneously sometimes celebrate their Phasekh according to the course of the moon in the month Phamenoth, or according to the intercalary month, every third year in the month of Pharmuthis,” i.e., “before the equinox.”59 According to Socrates Scholasticus, many quasiQuartodecimans of Asia “thought the Jews should be followed, though they were NOT EXACT.” The conservative Quartodecimans, on the other hand, he reports, “kept Phasekh after the equinox, refusing to celebrate with the Jews”; for, they said, “it ought to be celebrated when the sun is in Aries, in the moon called Xanthicus by the Antiochians, and April by the Romans.”60 According to this information, some of the quasi-Quartodecimans of Asia Minor followed the Jewish cycle for the calendar, though it was “not exact.” One form of the Jewish cyclic calendar of the second half of the second century C.E. was based upon precalculated cycles and did not always rely upon the visual monthly sighting of the moon’s first crescent or on the conjunction, as the earlier Jewish reckoning had done.61 Ofttimes, the first day of this Jewish month did not correlate with the appearance of the first moon’s crescent or the passing of the conjunction. Yet these quasi-Quartodecimans apparently did not exist in the mid-second century C.E. It is unlikely that their system was in use in Asia Minor during that time. Nevertheless, we shall consider it as a possibility. At the same time, Socrates Scholasticus shows that the conservative Quartodecimans did not utilize the current Jewish calculation to determine which moon represented the first lunar month of the year. Some of the Jews of that period, including those in Asia Minor, often kept the 14th of the moon prior to the spring equinox and not the one following it. The conservative Quartodecimans, on the other hand, used the more ancient Jewish system and counted the first moon cycle of the year as the one wherein its 14th day (i.e., coming in of the full moon) always fell after the arrival of the spring equinox.62 No doubt, the Quartodecimans (as did the Jews of that period) followed the scriptural edict that the Law and word of Yahweh is to go forth from Zion (Jerusalem) to the nations,63 and accordingly they determined the first day of the moon from its position in Jerusalem. Along with this reckoning, the conservative Quartodecimans would have applied the “night of the conjunction” rule for the last day of the month.

Timing the High Sabbath Our effort must now turn to establishing which years contained a high Sabbath on the Roman date April 25 (= April 24/25 sunset-to-sunset reckoning). For 58 59 60 61 62 63

Philo, Spec., 2:11 §41. Peter Alex., frags. 5:2, 3. Socrates Schol., 5:22. HBC, pp. 40–44; JE, 3, pp. 499f. Noted by Anatolius, 3–7, 10; Socrates Schol., 5:22. Isa., 2:1–4; Micah, 4:1–4.

460

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

any comprehensive examination, all the possible systems for establishing the first day of the year that would have been used by the Jews and the Christians in second century C.E. Asia Minor must be tried. These include the calculations of a Jewish cyclic calendar, the method of actually having a visual sighting of the first crescent of the moon, and the Aristocratic method used by the conservative Quartodecimans (a conjunction before sunrise = the last day of the month). The variant dates for the vernal equinox advocated by some must also be mentioned. The actual Julian dates for the equinox fell in those days from the 21st to 22nd of March but these other groups, especially the Montanists and a late quasi-Quartodeciman group, calculated it to be as late as March 24 or 25. Fortunately, the religious teachings of these groups have no bearing on our subject, for they never kept a high Sabbath any later than April 6.64 Taking into consideration all the possible dates and variations produced by these calculations for the seven days of unleavened bread during the years from 155 to 177 C.E. (covering all the years suggested by various ancient and modern day historians as well as our own limits),65 one thing is immediately noticed. Despite which system one uses, the occurrence of any high Sabbath falling on April 25 is an extremely rare event. To begin with, regardless of which beginning of the year and month system one uses and which form of Phasekh one observed (whether the Hasidic, which observes from the 15th, or the Quartodeciman, which observes the 14th as Phasekh), the high Sabbath that occurred on the 24/25th of April (sunset-to-sunset reckoning) was far too late in the year to be the first day of unleavened bread. To demonstrate, under the cycle of years used by Anatolius, a quasiQuartodeciman who used the conservative Quartodeciman system for beginning the year, Phasekh would “circulate between the sixth day before the Kalends of April (March 26) and the ninth before the Kalends of May (April 23).”66 Certain African Christian groups used a 19-year cycle that did not celebrate Phasekh “before the eleventh day before the Kalends of April (March 24), nor after the moon’s 21st (day), and the eleventh day before the Kalends of May (April 21).”67 Nevertheless, even if one followed the Jewish method of keeping Phasekh on the 15th of Abib, mathematically the outermost date possible is April 23/24 (sunset-to-sunset reckoning). Yet, as we have already demonstrated in our study, the conservative Quartodecimans ridiculed both the Hasidic and quasiQuartodeciman practices of the high Sabbath or Phasekh and kept only the 64 The Montanists always kept Phasekh on the 6th of April, counting it as the 14th day after the spring equinox, thereby making the equinox fall March 24 (Sozomenus, 7:18; Ps.-Chrysostom, 9; SC, 48, p. 119). Epiphanius speaks of one group of quasi-Quartodecimans who always kept Phasekh on the day of the vernal equinox, dating it to March 25 (Epiphanius, Pan., 50:1; PG, 41, p. 886A). This idea originated from the belief in some quarters that the messiah died on the vernal equinox (Africanus in Jerome, Com. Dan., 9; Tertullian, Adv. Jud., 8; Lactantius, Div. Instit., 4:10, Morte Perse., 2). Neither of these notions were followed by the conservative Quartodecimans, who always followed the 14th day of the lunar moon for Phasekh and observed the first moon of the year whose 14th day followed the vernal equinox. 65 For a discussion of the various dates suggested see JTS, 3, pp. 79–83; TAF, 2, 1, pp. 646–724; AnB, 69, pp. 1–38; SBE, 2, pp. 105ff. 66 Anatolius, 14. 67 Anatolius, 15.

The Year of Polycarp’s Death

461

14th as the Phasekh and from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of Abib for the seven days of unleavened bread.68 At the same time, regardless of which year and month system is applied, April 24/25 is also far too early in the year to ever represent the day of Pentecost (late May or early June). Accordingly, we must look at our problem from a different perspective. Kirsopp Lake, for example, suggests as one possibility that the high Sabbath referred to as the day of Polycarp’s death “may mean the Sabbath after the Passover.”69 Yet it cannot refer to a weekly Sabbath, for it is specified as a “great Sabbath,” i.e., a high Sabbath, by the Quartodecimans. Neither can it refer to Phasekh Sunday of the quasi-Quartodecimans and the Saturday prior to Phasekh Sunday, as practiced in the Western Phasekh system, for again both Polycarp and his assembly at Smyrna were conservative Quartodecimans. As a result, this particular high Sabbath can only refer to the last day of the seven days of unleavened bread—either the 20th day of Abib according to the Aristocratic method or the 21st day of Abib according to Pharisaic reckoning. Once more we find ourselves eliminating one possibility. The various calculations prove that the 21st of Abib, as required under the Hasidic method for the last day of unleavened bread, never fell on the 24/25th of April during this period. Regardless of whether we use a Jewish cycle, a purely visual calculation, or the Aristocratic conjunction method, there is only one year from 155 to 177 C.E. that April 24/25 (sunset-to-sunset reckoning) is a high Sabbath: the year 170 C.E. In that year the 24/25th of April (sunset-to-sunset reckoning) falls on the 20th day of the first moon, the high Sabbath of the conservative Quartodecimans.70 This date is confirmed both by the Aristocratic conjunction method and by a purely visual method for dating the new moon (the results being the same for that year). Further, the year 170 C.E. falls within the period designated by Eusebius as the time of the Asian persecution (i.e., the period extending from about 167 to 177 C.E.). It is also prior to the last possible year for the age of Polycarp at his death (174 C.E.).

Conclusion It is clear from this evidence that Polycarp, being viewed as the ringleader of the Christians in Smyrna, was martyred on April 25 in the year 170 C.E., ending a long period of persecution. Polycarp became bishop in 101 C.E., a post he was not eligible for until he was 30 years old. Therefore, when Polycarp died in 170 C.E., having lived 86 years as a Christian, he could have been no less than 99 years old at his death. These details mean that Polycarp would have been born at the latest in 71 C.E. and was 13 years old when he became a Christian. If he lived to the maximum possible age of 103, then he would have been born in 67 C.E., became a Christian at age 17, and became bishop at age 34. See above Chaps. XVII–XIX. Lake, Euseb., 1, p. 347, n. 2. Computer Program: Jewish Calendar V2.0 by Frank Yellin. Based on algorithms by N. Dershowitz and E. M. Reingold. 68 69 70

462

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Important for our research is the additional fact that Polycarp died on a high Sabbath that fell on April 24/25 (sunset-to-sunset reckoning). The only possible way this can be true is if this particular high Sabbath was the seventh day of unleavened bread and calculated as the 20th of Abib. It was wellknown that the conservative Quartodecimans followed the instructions of the Mosaic Law regarding dates. They observed the 14th as a high Sabbath and observed the seven days of unleavened bread from the 14th to the 20th. Yet the failure of later non-Quartodeciman Christian writers, as well as more recent pundits, to recognize or acknowledge that the conservative Quartodecimans also celebrated the seventh day as a high Sabbath, as required in Scriptures, was one of the main reasons that they fell into confusion about the date of Polycarp’s death.

Appendix H

ynda in Psalm, 110:1 T

he Hebrew word ynda (a-d-n-i) found in Psalm, 110:1, should be translated as “my aden,” aden meaning, “a basis (of a building, a column, etc):—foundation, socket,”1 a “pedestal,”2 or “any foundation.”3 It does not in the context mean “adonai” or “my sovereign (or lord),” as popularly understood. Proof that the Hebrew is to be read as “aden” and not “adon” comes from the context of the passage as discussed by the messiah with the Pharisees.4 In this conversation, Yahushua asked the Pharisees, “What do you think concerning the messiah? Whose son is he?” They responded, “David’s.” Yahushua then inquired of them about the puzzle their answer created: How then does David in the ruach (spirit) call him ynda (a-d-n-i), saying, “A statement of Yahweh to ynda, Sit at my right hand, until I set your enemies as a stool for your feet”? If therefore David (who wrote the Psalm) calls him ynda, how is he his son? No one was able to answer the riddle. Yet, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection.5 Therefore, if ynda meant “my adon (sovereign)” there would have been no puzzle. A man’s son can easily become king, and therefore sovereign over the father. Indeed, the Jews realized that the messiah would be greater than the resurrected Abraham. They also knew that even Abraham and the elect of Israel would be ruling over their ancestors after everyone has been resurrected. In the same way, after the First Resurrection, the offspring of David, being the messiah, will live at the same time as his resurrected ancestor David. Yet he would be in a higher political position than his father. If “adonai (my sovereign)” was meant in Psalm, 110:1, then there is no dilemma. The question is easily answered. But if the original word used in Psalms, 110:1, was “adeni (my foundation),” then the Pharisees were faced with an enigma of the most perplexing kind. Yahushua’s question had the Pharisees dealing with the fact that the messiah was David’s “foundation” as well as his son or offspring. How could he be both at the same time? The Pharisees could not answer. The solution to the problem, of course, is that Yahweh the son (Yahu Yahweh the archangel), being the creator Yahweh, was, as the book of Luke 1 2 3 4 5

SEC, Heb. #134. CHAL, p. 5. HEL, p. 5. Matt., 22:43f; Mark, 12:35–37; Luke, 20:41–44. Acts, 23:8.

463

464

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

informs us, the father of Adam, the ancestor of David.6 The messiah, accordingly, was the foundation of David, not only as his progenitor but the foundation upon which David’s legal authority as king rested. Indeed, Yahushua is the only foundation upon which the Assembly, including Abraham, David, and the rest who are saved, are built. Saul writes: For no other foundation is able to lay besides that which is laid, which is Yahushua the messiah.7 When Yahweh the son merged with the seed of the woman named Mariam, herself a descendant of David, then Yahu Yahweh the archangel also became the offspring of David through a female descendant.8 The messiah, therefore, was both the foundation of David and his offspring. In Revelation, 22:16, this point is further established when the messiah notes, “I am the root and the offspring of David.”9 That is, Yahu Yahweh was both the ancestor of David (i.e., Adam, the ancestor of David, was the son of Yahweh)10 as well as David’s offspring.11 This process will be dealt with in great detail in our forthcoming publication entitled The Two Yahwehs. Vowel pointing was not provided with the Hebrew Scriptures until about the sixth century C.E., so it is difficult to know exactly what all the rabbis believed before that time. Nevertheless, it is clear that later scribes, by the fact that they vowel pointed the Hebrew to read “adonai” rather than “adeni,” either ignored the context of Psalm, 110:1, or out of ignorance mistook ynda to mean adonai. It is also possible that the Jewish scribes after the first century C.E. deliberately translated ynda to mean “my sovereign” rather than “my foundation” as a direct result of their inability to answer Yahushua’s question. We have little comfort in the LXX. The present received text of the LXX went through the hands of Jewish scribes. It was then copied by later Christian scribes, usually of Pharisaic heritage, who translated the original Hebrew text of Matthew into Greek. In doing so, they followed Jewish custom. Yet the original Hebrew of Psalm, 110:1, remains with us, assisting in recovering the original meaning as used by the messiah when he questioned the Pharisees of his day. Jewish difficulty with Yahushua’s understanding of Psalm, 110:1, is also reflected in the later Jewish text of Matthew reproduced by Shem Tob, which clearly reflects Jewish tampering—i.e., it replaced the sacred name throughout with traditional Jewish substitutes like μçh (ha-shem; the name), adonai, el, and eloahim.12 Shem Tob provided a complete Hebrew text of Matthew in his 14th century Jewish polemical treatise entitled Even Bohan. The purpose of his work was to provide arguments out of the New Testament against Christian doctrines. In the passage in question, the Shem Tob’s text has ynwda (adonai), a 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Luke, 3:23–38. 1 Cor., 3:11. That Yahweh became the fleshly descendant of Abraham see Appendix B. Cf., Rev., 5:5, the lamb, or messiah, equals the root of David. Luke, 3:31–37. Luke, 3:23–31. Howard, Matt., pp. 201–203.

ynda in Psalm 110:1

465

more definite form of “my sovereign.”13 Both the earliest known Hebrew texts and the present Textus Receptus (MT) of Psalm, 110:1, only have ynda. By rendering ynda as ynwda the Jewish scribes have sought to read their own understanding into the text and thereby discredit the Christian argument. Yet, the discussion in the New Testament, by the failure of the Pharisees to answer Yahushua’s question, strongly indicates that, at least for the men of Yahushua’s time, ynda (a-d-n-i) was correctly understood to mean “my foundation.”

CHAL, p. 4.

Bibliography and Abbreviations Reference: The Festivals and Sacred Days Part II

The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh

Articles inside

Conclusion

The Early Western View

According to Messiah and Scriptures

Conclusion

Seven Days of Unleavened Bread

A Common Foundation

The Last Supper: Abib 14

The Christian Systems

INTRODUCTION: SECTION II

H ROMAN SYSTEM E

I HYBRID SYRIAN SYSTEM F

G QUASI-QUARTODECIMAN SYSTEM D

Conclusion

Conclusion

F QUARTODECIMAN SYSTEM A

Aristocratic Pentecost System

Day of the Sinai Covenant

The Triumph of the Pharisees

The Oldest System

Pharisaic Pentecost System

The Neo-Samaritan Phasekh

Ancient Samaritan Understanding

The Ancient Samaritans

The Samaritans

Different Samaritan Sects

Conclusion

The Phasekh of the Karaites

The Karaites

Early Aristocratic View

Scriptural Issues for the Hasidim

Hasidic Interpretation

Issues for the Aristocratic View

Conclusion

Mishnah

Philo

Josephus

Sadducees Versus Pharisees

XII. SADDUCEES VERSUS PHARISEES

Conclusion

Pharisaic Philosophical Approach

The Pharisees

The Sadducees

Sadducean Philosophical Approach

Conclusion

Byn ha-Arabim

Political Turmoil

Historical Setting

Conclusion

One Correct View

Greek and Other Cultural Influence

The Pentecost Debate

E NEO-ARISTOCRATIC SYSTEM C

The 50 Days

Conclusion

C ARISTOCRATIC SYSTEM A

D HASIDIC SYSTEM B

Dependent on Phasekh

The 50th Day

Other Requirements

Day of the Omer Wave Offering

Easter Versus Phasekh

B MONTH EQUIVALENCY CHART

Conclusion

Meaning of Phasekh

Section II: Early Christian Schools

Essential Christian Differences

LEVITICUS, 23:15-17, 21, AND DEUTERONOMY,16:9-10

Conclusion

Two Sets of Requirements

Phasekh and Unleavened Bread

Phasekh and Unleavened Bread Before Sinai

Examples of this Principle

Moadi After Yahushua’s Death

Other Festivals and Sacred Days

Before Mount Sinai

Conclusion

The Ruach

Trust Working Through Love