Rosh Hashanah and the Second Coming

As many of you already know, we are entering into the fall High Holy Days, comprised of the Feasts of Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles. Just as the spring Feastdays celebrate the First Coming of Messiah Yeshua, and Shavuot (Pentecost) celebrates the giving of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) to the Ekklesia in between the visitations of Yeshua, the Fall Feastdays look forward to His Second Coming—and in particular, the Feast of Trumpets looks forward to His Glorious Appearance in the clouds of heaven!

The day which this year falls on September 23 (beginning at sundown the previous night) is known by many names, but is little understood. The most commonly used today is Rosh Hashanah, the Head of the Year or New Year, and is regarded as the start of the Jewish civil calendar. (The religious calendar begins on the first of Nisan, fourteen days before Passover, in accordance with Exo. 12:2.) For this reasons, Jews will greet each other with the phrase, “L’shana tova u-metukah,” “May you have a good and sweet new year” or simply “Shanah tova,” “A good year.” In anticipation of this sweet new year, it is customary to eat a sweet fruit, like an apple or carrot dipped in honey.

The Talmud records the belief that “In the month of Tishri, the world was created” (Rosh Hashanah 10b), and its probably due to this belief that it became known as the Jewish New Year. The belief that the world was created on Rosh Hashanah came out of an anagram: The letters of the first word in the Bible, “In the beginning . . .” (B’resheit) can be rearranged to say, “1 Tishri” (Aleph b’Tishri). Perhaps because so little is directly said in Scripture about this day—unlike all of the other Feastdays, there is no historical precedent given to explain why Rosh Hashanah should be celebrated—the rabbis also speculated that Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Samuel were all born on this day.

However, that’s not it’s Biblical name, which is Yom Teruah, the Day of the [Trumpet] Blast:

The shofar first appears in Scripture as heralding the visible appearance of God coming down on Mt. Sinai to meet with His people (Ex. 19:16-19). It is also linked with His Coming in Zec. 9:14 and with Him going up (making aliyah) to Jerusalem in Psa. 47:5. Small wonder then that Yeshua said He would Come again with the sound of a trumpet, a shofar, in Mat. 24:31, which is echoed by Sha’ul (Paul) in 1 Th. 4:16 and 1 Co. 15:52. Indeed, many commentators have recognized that by “the last trump,” Sha’ul was referring to the final shofar blast, called the Tekia HaGadol, of the Feast of Trumpets.

This visitation by YHVH is closely associated with the second of this Feastdays names: Yom Zikkroun, the Day of Remembrance. This is not primarily meant to be a day when the people remember God, but when God remembers His people—not that He has forgotten them, but in which He fulfills His promises to them by Coming to them. In Isa. 27:13, it is the instrument used to call God’s people Israel back to the Land. In Psalm 27, which is traditionally read in the month leading up to Yom Teruah, we see the Psalmist looking forward to God rescuing him from his enemies:

The shofar is an instrument that is very much associated with war (Jdg. 3:27, 2 Sa. 20:1, Neh. 4:18-22, Ezk. 33:3-6). It was used to destroy the walls of Jericho (Jdg. 6:20). In Joel 2:1, it sounds the start of the Day of the Lord, the time in which God will make war on His enemies: “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the Day of YHVH cometh, for it is nigh at hand” (cf. v. 15). This again matches perfectly with the NT, where Sha’ul describes the Lord’s coming with a trumpet immediately preceding the Day of the Lord (1 Th. 4:16, 5:2).

This brings us to the next name for this Feastday, Yom HaDin, Judgment Day. Not only did the shofar sound the call for war, but also the coronation of kings (2 Sa. 15:10; 1 Ki. 1:34, 29; 2 Ki. 9:13, 11:12-14). Therefore, the rabbis have always associated this day with God’s sovereign Kingship over all mankind: “On Rosh Hashanah all human beings pass before Him as troops, as it is said, ‘The LORD looketh from heaven; He beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of His habitation He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike; He considereth all their works’” (Rosh Hashanah 6b, quoting Psa. 53:13-15). To remember God’s Kingship, it is traditional to eat round objects to remind us of God’s crown (oriental crowns being shaped as skullcaps instead of circlets). For example, challah is made to be round instead of braided as it normally is.

Because this day is associated with God’s judgment, it is also considered a time of repentance (t’shuva) in preparation for Yom Kippur. The Casting (Tashlikh) Ceremony, in which observant Jews gather together at the shores of oceans, lakes, and rivers and cast in stones and/or crumbs of bread to symbolize “casting off” their sins, is performed on this day to a prayer comprised of Mic. 7:18-20, Psa. 118:5-9, Psa. 33 and 130, and often finishing with Isa. 11:9.

The Bible, of course, is clear that one is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (cf. Php. 4:3; Rev. 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, and 21:27) not by one’s own righteousness, but by receiving the Messiah’s righteousness by faith, trusting in Him, and that there is no in-between; one either trusts God or one doesn’t. Nevertheless, a great eschatological truth is preserved for us in this rabbinical tradition. At the time of Yeshua’s Second Coming, all mankind will be divided into three groups. Those who have already trusted in the Messiah will be Resurrected and Raptured to be with Him immediately upon His Coming on the clouds of the sky. Those who have taken the mark of the Beast and have chosen to remain with the Wicked One will be slated to die in the Day of the Lord, which for reasons that are beyond the scope of this essay to address, I believe will last for about a year.

However, there will also be a third group, who neither had believed in the Messiah until they saw Him Coming on the clouds but who also had not taken the mark of the Beast. Many of these will be Jews, who will mourn at His coming and so have a fount of forgiveness opened to them (Rev. 1:7, Zec. 12:10-13:2)—most prominently, the 144,000 of Rev. 7 and 14. Others will be Gentiles who will be shown mercy because they showed mercy to the children of God (Mat. 25:31ff). These are given the opportunity to repent during the period between the fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonment, called the Days of Awe—a reference, I believe, to the Day of the Lord.

Finally, this day is known as Yom HaKeseh, the Hidden Day. It was a day that could not be calculated, only looked for. Ancient Israel kept its calendar simply by observing the phases of the moon. If a day were overcast, it might cause a delay in the observance of the beginning of the month, the new moon (Rosh Chodesh), the first tiny crescent of light. Every other Feast was at least a few days after the beginning of the month so that it could be calculated and prepared for in advance. For example, after the new moon that marked the beginning of the month of Nisan, the observant Jew knew that he had fourteen days to prepare for the Passover.

Not so Yom HaKeseh. In the absence of reliable astronomical charts and calculations (which were made only centuries after God commanded the Feasts to be observed), the Feast of Trumpets could be anticipated, estimated to be arriving soon, but until two or more witnesses reported the first breaking of the moon’s light after the darkest time of the month, no one knew “the day or hour.” Therefore, it was a tradition not to sleep on Rosh Hashanah, but to remain awake and alert, a tradition alluded to by Sha’ul: “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober” (1 Th. 5:4-6).

Because of the difficulty of alerting the Jews in the Diaspora when the Sanhedron had decreed the start of the Feast to be, it became traditional to celebrate the first and second day of Tishri together as Yoma Arikhta, “One Long Day.” Is this meant to remind us, perhaps, of when another Y’hoshua (Yeshua) won against his enemies because God cast down great hailstones (like the hailstones of Rev. 16:21) and called upon the Sun to stand still so that they would not escape (Jos. 10:10ff)?

Yom Teruah is a day which ultimately calls all of God’s people together in repentance in anticipation of the glorious Second Coming, in which He will once again visit His people in the Person of the Messiah Yeshua to Resurrect the dead, awaken the living, and judge all mankind together.

Okay, sorry for the delay, but a well-thought-out and written article deserves an equally well-thought-out and written response, and I didn't want to rush it.

I would guess that James knew that circumcision was never required of the gentiles and that the Noachide Covenant was for perpetual generations and everlasting.

The problem is that you are assuming, without sufficient evidence from the text, that the Noachide Laws are what are being referred to. The seven Noachide Laws are:

Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not worship false gods.
Do not be sexually immoral.
Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
Do not curse God.
Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.

Now, of those seven, there are exactly three parallels in the Gentile mandate: Prohibitions against idolatry, sexual immorality, and drinking blood. But notice what the Jerusalem Council leaves out! They do not add prohibitions against murder, theft, or blasphemy (which was considered to include a prohibition against occultism), nor do they seem to anticipate the Gentiles setting up their own "sanhedrons" to deal with offenses independant of their Jewish brethren: Remember that the split between the Church and the Synagogue had not happened in full as yet.

They also add a prohibition against eating strangled meat. While this might be related to the command not to eat blood, since that command is already given, it would seem redundant unless there was something specific about strangled meat.

Moreover, the concept of the Noachide Laws was not a new or novel one: Why would they not simply name the prohibitions as such and list them in their traditional sevenfold manner?

And moreover yet again, the Noachide Laws lack certain commands that the Apostles enjoined on the churches in their letters: Baptism is nowhere mentioned, but was clearly a "command" enforced on Gentiles entering the Church. There is also no mention of the Lord's Supper, which even classical Christianity acknowledges as an incumbant ceremonial command. Sha'ul commands that we should keep the Feast of Passover in 1 Co. 5:7ff--where is that in the Noachide Laws or in Acts 15? Sha'ul also cites the Torah (Deu. 25:4) as evidence that he had the right to be materially supported by the Gentile believers (1 Co. 9:9). Is that in the Noachide Laws?

I could go on, but I think you see the two points I am making: First, that there is insufficient evidence that the four prohibitions of Acts 15 were meant to refer to the Noachide Laws, and second, that there were commands beyond the seven that the Apostles said should be kept in their letters.

Another problem arises with the misunderstanding of the purpose of the four commands of Acts 15. You yourself recognize that it is wrong to tempt another to what is sin for him; e.g., it would be wrong to have table fellowship with a Jew and offer him unkosher food. Neither would it be right for the Gentiles to set up a point of division by creating their own holy days which to the Jews would just be paganism warmed over. Rather, I believe the Apostles envisioned the Gentiles having the pleasure of celebrating the Feasts of the Lord with their Jewish brethren.

Likewise, chaging the day of rest and worship from the Biblical Sabbath to Sunday has no Biblical justification, and would serve only to "tempt" the Jewish brethren to sin against the Torah which God still intended them to keep. It re-creates the middle wall of separation, this time from the Gentile side. (If I understand right, you agree with me here, so this argument is not so much against you as it is for the benefit of others.)

Therefore, even if Gentile believers were not bound, per se, to keep the ceremonial aspects of the Torah, it would be incumbant on them to keep the Feastdays in order to have loving fellowship with their Jewish brothers. Sadly, we did not do so.

The dividing line in keeping the Torah is not in an artificial division between the moral and ceremonial laws, nor in the Noachide Laws, but in each individual command. For example, the distinction between being ritually clean and being unclean was not a distinction between being in a state of sin or not, but in whether one was ritually ready to go into God's Holy Temple in Jerusalem. A husband and wife do not sin by lying together--just the opposite, they're obeying a command!--but in doing so, they become ritually unclean until the sundown after they wash. That is to say, they must remain apart for a short time before going up to the Temple to worship. They would not be required to observe the same fastidiousness before going to the local synagogue, for example.

The fact is that the Pharisaical over-emphasis on remaining ritually clean at all times was a distortion of the Torah! Ritual uncleanliness is not a sin; it's a normal part of life! It only becomes a sin if one knowingly enters the Temple without ritually purifying one's self first. Ritual uncleaness does not come between one and the Lord in prayer or private worship; it's simply a matter of taking care and showing respect to the place where YHVH has put His Holy Name forever.

Ergo, one who was not certain if he had come into contact with a corpse or a grave would (Biblically) be required to take the time to ritually purify himself in the week leading up to entering the Temple. This ritual purification was required whether one was Jew or Gentile! (In fact, the entire reason the Second Temple had a Court of the Gentiles was because of the basic assumption that all Gentiles were unclean by nature, and so had to be kept back from the Temple building proper. This "middle wall of separation" was an unBiblical addition to the Temple's structure.)

Therefore, the issue in the matter of whether one should be aware of ritual cleanliness was not a matter of one's genealogy, but a matter of whether one was going up to the Temple. In other situations, outside of the Land, it is not equally applicable, though again, one might make it a point to maintain a certain amount of ritual purity to make one's more fastidious brother more comfortable:

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Yeshua, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (Rom. 14:13-14)

Likewise, kosher. God gave Noah every animal, not just the clean ones (and Noah knew the difference) for food (Gen. 9:12). We also see in the Torah that a Jew was not permitted to eat meat that had not been slain in a kosher manner, but that he could sell the meat to a foreigner (Deu. 14:21). From that I infer that kosher was never manditory on Gentiles, particularly those living outside the Land. God is merciful, and He knew in advance that there would be many parts of the world where unclean meat was the only type to be had; therefore, it is not a universal standard. I believe that if one has the luxury of being choosy, it is good to make the distinction--all the more so if one has Jewish friends that one wants to have over for dinner!--but that kosher is not and never was a requirement for Gentile worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

As for sacrifice, there's an open debate about whether sacrifice will be re-instituted in the Millennium (I believe so), but at the moment, that's an academic question: Since there is no Temple in Jerusalem, we are actualy keeping the Torah's ceremonial commands by not offering sacrifices.

Okay, end of rant. Back to your arguments:

I think he does. Galatians 2:6,9

Why could he not be referring to the journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 12:25?

The problem with this is that he doesn't mention the other 'necessary things'. Balancing the ceremonial and moral laws.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Could you please restate your point?

Basically, Jesus predicted, that because of false prophets, illegality or violation of the law and a condition of without law will abound. Looks like he was right on target.

Absolutely correct.

These are the various types of people we are dealing with in the first century.

Essentially correct, though there's some dispute over how those related to each other--probably because their status in the Jewish community was a matter constantly in flux.

How does one base a religion on a Jewish Rabbi and yet ignore how this Rabbi lived and what he represented??

My question exactly.

They already had certain basics, just not the fundamental guidelines in dietary regulations since they didn't with Jews nor would they know how to properly prepare their food. (kosher)

I would agree with that. And I would also point out, as I did before, that many of them were simply not in a position to keep the ceremonial commands even if their hearts yearned to: A slave doesn't get to decide what he eats or to take a day off once a week.

It was about being a part of the family and being able to sit together at the 'wedding feast'.

Very well put.

Or will they raise this adopted child as part of the family, expecting the child to adhere to the same rules as the other children and members of the family?

While giving the child their unconditional love and acceptance and giving room for him to make mistakes and grow, yes. We actually have this very situation occuring in our congregation, with the adopted child in question not being so sure he wants to be Jewish, especially with his parents planning to make aliyah if they can. It's often difficult to hit the right balance of discipline and leeway with an adopted child who isn't used to the family culture, and I think that's what the Apostles were dealing with.

Even my own youngest brother, whom we fostered from birth and adopted at a very young age, often has trouble with feeling out-of-place. Adoption is a subject very dear to my heart as a result.

That means if a gentile didn't prepare the food in the correct manner, the Jew wouldn't be able to eat it.

Well, remember the other side of that: The Jews--particularly those in Judea--had added a lot of additional traditions on top of the actual Torah commands. Those traditions should not, to a believing Jew, become a stumbling point to fellowship with a Gentile believer--especially one who is obviously making the effort to make the Jew at home. Indeed, just as I believe that many Christian traditions are in need of re-examination and modification, I think a lot of rabbinical traditions which were specifically designed to exclude Messianic participation and Gentile fellowship are as well.

In the meantime, of course, you are correct that the Gentile Christian should learn enough of his Jewish brother to be able to provide a kosher meal for him, just as a matter of love and respect.

He placed 'moral' law above 'ceremonial' law.

Exactly. "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," and the example of David and his men eating the shewbread of the Tabernacle. There is absolutely no question that if a person obeys a ceremonial command in such a way that evil results to his neighbor (for example, refusing to do CPR on the Sabbath to avoid working, or refusing food to a diabetic on Yom Kippur), that he has forgotten that one of the two nails on which the whole Torah hangs is, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

These (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments). In drawing such a contrast, Jesus does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws.

Exactly. The question is priority and balance, not in whether one should keep the commandments or not.

Notice that works is mentioned twice. The 'moral laws' and 'ceremonial laws'.

Hmm . . . could you expand on that argument a bit. From here it looks like you just made a major leap of assumption.

You know, we're not in any essential disagreement, especially on application; we've just got some minor differences in emphasis in the theory. Thanks for such a well-written post.

Your brother in Yeshua,

This is why you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia alone for your information.

Well, the information seems to be accurate as far as it goes, which is more that can be said for the source quoted by XeniaSt.

I'm still trying to figure out how all those folks got immersed out in the wilderness of Sinai.

He ceremonially "died" as a Gentile as he went under the water, and was "born again" as a Jew when he came out.

But we are not talking about conversions to Judaism. There were apparently many aspects of the mikveh that have no relationship to the baptismal rites of the Christian church.

"I'm already Jewish. Should I be literally 'born again' then? Or are you using the phrase in a different way?"

That a curious way of putting it, and of course there is nothing in the text to suggest that's what he was thinking. Baptism is not even mentioned, only physical birth (born of water) and spiritual birth (born of the Spirit).

The term "born again" or "born anew" seems to be somewhat fluid, according to Edersheim:

And yet, though Christ never descended to the standpoint of Nicodemus, we must bear in mind what his views as a Jew would be, if we would understand the interview. Jesus took him straight to whence alone that 'Kingdom' could be seen. 'Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.' It has been thought by commentators, that there is here an allusion to a Jewish mode of expression in regard to proselytes, who were viewed as 'new-born.' But in that case Nicodemus would have understood it, and answered differently - or, rather, not expressed his utter inability to understand it. It is indeed, true that a Gentile on becoming a proselyte - though not, as has been suggested, an ordinary penitent - was likened to a child just born.. It is also true, that persons in certain circumstances - the bridegroom on his marriage, the Chief of the Academy on his promotion, the king on his enthronement - were likened to those newly born. The expression, therefore, was not only common, but, so to speak, fluid; only, both it and what it implied must be rightly understood. In the first place, it was only a simile, and never meant to convey a real regeneration ('as a child'). So far as proselytes were concerned, it meant that, having entered into a new relation to God, they also entered into new relationship to man, just as if they had at that moment been newly born. All the old relations had ceased - a man's father, brother, mother, sister were no longer his nearest of kin: he was a new and another man. Then, secondly, it implied a new state, when all a man's past was past, and his sins forgiven him as belonging to that past. It will now be perceived, how impossible it was for Nicodemus to understand the teaching of Jesus, and yet how all-important to him was that teaching. For, even if he could have imagined that Jesus pointed to repentance, as that which would give him the figurative standing of 'born from above,' or even 'born anew,' it would not have helped him. For, first, this second birth was only a simile. Secondly, according to the Jewish view, this second birth was the consequence of having taken upon oneself 'the Kingdom;' not, as Jesus put it, the cause and condition of it. The proselyte had taken upon himself 'the Kingdom,' and therefore he was 'born' anew, while Jesus put it that he must be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God. Lastly, it was 'a birth from above' to which reference was made. Judaism could understand a new relationship towards God and man, and even the forgiveness of sins. But it had no conception of a moral renovation, a spiritual birth, as the initial condition for reformation, far less as that for seeing the Kingdom of God. And it was because it had no idea of such 'birth from above,' of its reality or even possibility, that Judaism could not be the Kingdom of God.
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah

Diego beat me to it. Yes, the entire Hebrew Nation was submerged in the Red Sea. That was their Baptism. It is also very important to note that they continued to sin after that immersion and continued to be saved. I'm not an Eternal Security subscriber because there did come a point where God was going to take them all out, too.

TC, I am eagerly waiting your response to my "sola scripture" exposition on the Sabbath. Can you please prove to us once and for all which scripture repeals the Sabbath or moves it to the first day of the week?

Another theme that recurrs in your postings is:

Once the temple was destroyed the 7th day Sabbath lost it significance in and around Judea. Of course the church was already following the lead of the apostles by meeting and worshipping on the first day of the week.

I recall you referencing that the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, so then x, y, z...

I would like you to consider the following verses:

Mat 27:40 and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."

Mar 14:58 "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Mat 27:51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook; and the rocks were split,

Most theologians regard the death of Christ and His Resurrection as the point in time when animal sacrifices came to a halt. Yes, the Romans destroying the temple was prophesied, but it was already obsolete at the time.

It is clear that the NT authors kept the Sabbath as well as other feast days after Christ. Were they sinning? Did the Holy Spirit smite them as it did Aaron's two sons with the incense?

Furthermore, this is Diego's forte, but I am going to kick it off, the article you posted says definitively that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. I would love to see the scripture that says that, too. It seems to me that 3 of the gospels report the resurrection to have been late on the Sabbath, and the third uses a pretty tough verb conjugation to say definitively that it was on Sunday. The general rule of thumb is that when the Bible seems to contradict itself, one ought to lean on the volume of evidence.

I apologize if anyone has already responded on this theme. I actually had to go to work today (gasp) and have been away from the thread.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.