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.

It is clear that the NT authors kept the Sabbath as well as other feast days after Christ.

It is not clear at all. I do not agree with that presupposition.

There are certainly instances of accounts with the apostles entered the Jewish temple and various synagogues on the Jewish sabbath in order to testify about Christ. In fact this was Paul custom when coming into a new place where there were Jews. I take this to be in keeping with Paul statement, "and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;" (1 Cor. 9:20)

Just as Paul was confortable sitting and eating with gentiles, he could also enter into the temple and participate in their customs for the purpose of bringing his fellow Jews to Christ.

"And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures," (Acts 17:2)

"And [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks." (Acts 18:4)

That is the last mention of the "sabbath" in the NT.

But the undeniable fact is that there is no record of the church, the universal body of Christ made up of both Jews and gentiles, worshipping on either the Jewish sabbath or on the annual feast days of the Jews.

None, nada, zero.

The general assembly meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15 never commanded the gentile followers of Christ to observe the seventh day sabbath or feast days of the Jews.

In none of the enumerations of the law in the NT do we find any regard for keeping the Jewish sabbath or their feast days.

There are accounts, such as Act 20:7, where the church is found gathered under the apostles for teaching and worship on the first day of the week. Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. He met with His disciples on the first day of the week. He poured out His Spirit on the church on the first day of the week.

Whether you buy it or not, the real fact is that there is a wealth of information in the NT pointing away from the seventh day and pointing towards the first day. This certainly is in keeping with the substance and character of the new covenant that replaced the dacaying and fading old covenant expressed in types and shadows.

It's pretty clear that Paul thought of himself as a sort of "everyman" when it came to the gospel.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. (1 Cor. 9:19-23)

Paul never used his Jewishness in a fashion of lording it over the gentiles. He never expressed to the gentiles in the church that it would be good for them to follow Jewish customs and traditions, even voluntarily.

In fact he does just the opposite:

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." (Col. 2:16,17)

Who were the ones doing the judging? Certainly not the Greeks. They could care less what a man ate or when he worshipped. The more the merrier, as far as days were concerned. They even built a temple to "the unknown god" just to add to the diversity.

No, the trouble came from the Jewish believers.

Apparently there was much trouble with members of the "Circumcision" party stirring up among the gentiles that they should "keep kosher" and observe the feast day of the Jews. Paul categorically denies this. He tells them they are not to be judged by the shadows of the old covenant ceremonial law, the standards of old Israel.

Those temporary matters were just a shadow of the good things to come, that is, they were a shadow of Christ's coming into the world to save His people from their sins. He is the substance, the body, to which all these shadows pointed. No one pleases God by continuing to live in the shadows once the Substance has appeared. And so Paul tells the Colossians not the be judged by the defective views of the Circumcision party. As he also told the Philippian Christians:

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh," (Phil. 3:2,3)

And to those who would trouble the gentiles with such foolishness, he says:

"I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves." (Gal. 5:12)

Being part of the Israel of God is not about food or days of the year or blowing trumpets or building temporary dwellings once a year or the absence of a foreskin. It's about Jesus Christ and Him alone. It's about being an "everyman" with the gospel, just as Paul was. It's about putting off the fleshly, shadowy expressions and putting on Christ in the simplicity of the universal gospel of salvation to all men, whether Jew or Greek.

It's pretty clear that Paul thought of himself as a sort of "everyman" when it came to the gospel.

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." (1 Cor. 9:19-23)

In fact he does just the opposite:

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." (Col. 2:16,17)

No, the trouble came from the Jewish believers.

And so Paul tells the Colossians not the be judged by the defective views of the Circumcision party. As he also told the Philippian Christians:

And to those who would trouble the gentiles with such foolishness, he says:

"I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves." (Gal. 5:12)

AMEN! What a terrific post. This is what I've always been taught in the most mainstream, basic of Christian churches. It's only here that I've read strange deviations from this Biblical understanding. Thanks for articulating the truth so clearly.

We are all one in Jesus Christ. Out with the old covenant; in with the new covenant.

New wine skins for the new wine.

You still blur the distinction between the commands of God and the traditions of men, I see.

We're also all still waiting for you to provide a passage in the NT that overrides or changes the Sabbath.

Who were the ones doing the judging? Certainly not the Greeks.

Not true. The Greeks and Romans considered Sabbath-keeping a sign of laziness, for example, and we know that while some admired the God of the Jews, most despised the Jews for maintaining their own traditions and refusing to "swap" gods with everyone else.

Moreover, the context of Colossians does not primarily deal with the issue of Judaizing, but living in a pagan world.

And you still continue to interpret the letters of Sha'ul apart from the actions of Sha'ul. He kept the whole Torah, and again, it was considered a given that the Jewish believers would. Now, if the Jewish believers are still observing the Sabbath and worshipping on that day, why would we think that Sha'ul was encouraging the Gentiles to worship and rest on Sunday instead? Wouldn't this be putting up a middle wall of separation between the Jewish and Gentile Christians? Wouldn't telling Gentiles that they shouldn't keep the Feastdays (when we see him plainly telling the Corinthians to keep the Passover) put up that same wall?

Men need their Feastdays, and it would be extremely cruel to forbid the Gentile believers from participating in either the pagan holidays or in the Appoitned Times of the Lord with their Jewish brothers.

Was Sha'ul an "everyman"? To an extent, but there is no evidence that he only kept Torah when around Jews, and violated it freely when in the company of the Gentiles. If this interpretation is correct, then he is the greatest of hypocrites, and should not be in the Bible! On the contrary, he remained a Pharisee, keeping the Torah according to the strict standards of that sect, to the end of his days.

So what then does he mean when he said, "as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law." "Without law" is actually a mistranslation: The Greek word is anomos, "lawless," which in every other instance in which it is used has the connotation of "wicked" or "sinful." So, are we saying that Sha'ul sinned in order to win the wicked? "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Rom. 6:15-16)

What then did he mean? He meant that he entered into the experience of the wicked, went where they went, used their language and idiom, in order to reach them. We see the example of this in Acts 17:16ff, where he starts out by complimenting the Athenians on their piety and quotes a Greek poet (v. 28) in order to open a dialogue with them. A modern example I like to point to is of a young man whose ministry I knew of who dresses as a goth, has piercings and tatoos, and goes into goth clubs, entering into their experience so that he can tell them about Jesus Christ.

With that in mind, let's look at the other side of the equation: Being "under the law" to Sha'ul did not mean obeying the Torah in faith. It was a phrase he coined for those who were under the condemnation and judgment of the Law (cf. Gal. 3). The reason we are not under the Law is because Yeshua, who lived under the Law perfectly, took the curses (judgments) of the Law upon Himself, becoming sin and a curse for us when He hung upon the Cross (2 Co. 5:21, Gal. 3:13). Therefore, we are no longer under the condemnation of the Law, but covered under the Grace, the unmerited favor and gift, provided by God in the Person of Yeshua HaMashiach.

But does that mean that we should no longer keep the Torah? Sha'ul certainly didn't think that the logical conclusion:

For not the hearers of the Torah are just before God, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified. (Rom. 2:13)
Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Torah, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the Torah? (Rom. 2:26-27)
Do we then make void the Torah through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (i.e., uphold) the Torah. (Rom. 3:1)
Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)
For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Ro 7:14)
For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man. (Rom. 7:22)
For Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the Torah for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4)
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Co. 7:19)
Therefore the Torah was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)
But we know that the Torah is good if one uses it lawfully . . . (1 Ti. 1:8)
All Scripture (including the Torah) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Ti. 3:16-17)

Pay special attention to Rom. 7:12, 14, and 22, since they tell us exactly what his attitude towards the Torah is: Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. . . For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. . . For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man. Clearly, he did not consider the Torah, properly interpreted and followed, to be a burden, or fleshly, or wrong.

The problem was never with Torah, but withourselves: it is Spiritual--that is, of the Spirit--while we are carnal, and even though our most inward parts on which God has written His Torah by His Spirit (Jer. 31:31ff) delight in it, our carnal natures still rebell against it.

When he says that he became "as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law," Sha'ul is not talking about keeping the Torah in and of itself, but in keeping it according to the strictest interpretations of the Pharisees, who not trusting the grace of God, constantly put up "fences" of regulations around the Torah's actual commands so as to not accidentally violate it--but in doing so, all too often violated the Spirit and even the actual words of the Torah. He did not, however, see such legalisms as necessary, and indeed generally discouraged it.

In this, he was very much following the example of Yeshua. We see on a couple of occassions that the Pharisees leveled charges of breaking "the traditions of the elders" against Yeshua's disciples, but not against the Master Himself (cf. Mat. 12:21ff and 15:1ff). What does this tell us? That Yeshua kept the stricter traditions, but did not teach them to His disciples as being manditory--and indeed, defended His disciples' right not to be judged based on an extra-Torahic tradition!

The issue in both Yeshua's confrontations with the Pharisees and Sha'ul's own contentions for the Gentiles was not, I believe, over Torah itself--which still defines what is sin and what is not (Rom. 7:7), but over whether Gentiles should be forced to become Jewish (circumcise) and then to keep not only the Torah, but all the legal code of the Jews (the "Oral Torah") as well!

But this is key: If Sha'ul delighted in the Torah in his inward parts--his "true self"--does it not stand to reason that he expected his Roman audience to have the same attitude by the same Spirit? Of course. And if he delighted in the whole Torah, even those parts which are difficult (like not committing adultery in our hearts, per the Sermon on the Mount's interpretation of "Do not commit adultery"), how much more did he take delight in those commands which are truly a blessing in this life, like the Feasts.

Your whole attitude, TC, is rather warped. What Christian needs a command from God to love and observe Christmas? How much less then do those of us who keep the days that God has actually commanded us to see them as a burden! On the contrary, they are a delight! Every aspect of the Feasts, even elements that are merely "human traditions" by those who rejected Yeshua as the Messiah, nevertheless point to the Messiah.

Tell me if I'm remembering this incorrectly, but didn't you once tell me that you celebrated Passover regularly with a non-Messianic Jewish friend? Was this a burden to you? Was it an onerous duty? Or did you legitimately enjoy yourself and could you not see how many of the traditional elements (especially the afikomen) pointed directly to Yeshua?

I love the Feasts. They are a pleasure, and an edification to me and to many others here. Even if I believed that the Apostles had "released" me from observing them (and in a sense they did), I would still love them, for they are a gift from God into which the entire story of salvation is written. I believe that the Church has impovershed itself by not observing them, and suborning and adapting pagan Roman holidays instead.

If you don't feel the same way, fine. That's between you and God. Nobody here--least of all myself--is telling you that you must keep the Feasts to be a good Christian or any such nonsense. But don't ride in here on your high horse, throwing around charges of heresy, projecting your own judgmentalism, and telling us that we shouldn't even discuss what the days that God Himself appointed in the Bible.

I will say it again: Even John Calvin admitted that the Sabbath was still relevant and should be kept; the question between you and me therefore is whether it has moved. So then, provide a place in the NT that says unequivocably that the Sabbath is now on the first day of the week, or admit that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of YHVH thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work . . . For in six days YHVH made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is , and rested the seventh day: wherefore YHVH blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exo. 20:10-11).

And if you cannot, if indeed there is no Biblical evidence that the Sabbath was moved or annuled, if indeed all you have is a poor argument from silence ("Well, they didn't mention keeping the Sabbath often enough . . ."), then be man enough to admit it, admit that you are following a tradition of Man in observing Sunday, and stop being such a hypocrite as to condemn those of us who are keeping traditions which are not in direct conflict with the commands of God.

I think you misunderstand the situation if you think there was infighting between Ya'akov (James) and Sha'ul (Paul). After all, didn't Sha'ul willingly take a Nazrite oath at Ya'akov's suggestion to prove that he himself still kept the Torah (Acts 21)?

I think there was tension between Paul and James. In Acts 15 the 4 'necessary' things were determined. Circumcision was ALREADY deemed unnecessary. So, why did James summon Paul back to Jerusalem? (Acts 21).

When Paul first decides to preach the gospel, why does he wait three years to meet with James, Peter and John? Wouldn't you think that he would want to make sure that he was instructing the Gentile converts correctly?

Then, there is still his verbiage in Galatians.

Galatians 2:6,9
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Considering that Paul never heard Yehoshua speak when Jehoshua was still alive, wouldn't you think that he would 'want' to meet with those that knew Yehoshua best? Wouldn't you think that he would give or show them more respect than calling them 'somewhat, whatever they were'? Instead of calling them the pillers of the community, he says they 'seemed' to be pillers, but then goes into this, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.'

Yes, he did take the vow at James' suggestion, and made blood and sin offerings. (25 years after Yehoshua was supposed to have been the last 'sacrifice'.