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.

"Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons." (Mark 16:9)

"Now when he rose, early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons." [Mark 16:9]

There is no punctuation in the original Greek....remember?

Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. ... He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' And they remembered His words. ...

Where does this verse say he resurrected on the first day of the week? All it says is that he is not there!

Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. ... But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened,. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. (Luke 24:1,6-8,13-15,21,22)

Two men are traveling on Sunday.....indisputable! The Greek word for "since" used here actually means "away from" which is closer to the English "after". Translators erred because they chose to make this verse less cumbersome in the English. Instead of saying "But surely also together with all these things, it brings a third day away from which all these thing occurred." They more properly should have said:

Today is after the third day since these things were done. In fact, the Syriac New Testament from the Peshitto Version says, "And lo, three days have passed since all these things have occurred."

And so because of these facts the universal church from the days of the apostles onward has celebrated and worshiped the triune God on the first day of the week, according to the Scriptures, not according to the shadows of the Jews

You are correct in that the Catholic Church has established it's Sabbath as Sunday, but where you go wrong is by saying it is scripturally factual. It is false doctrine and is easily shown to be so.

You keep saying this, but yet you cannot point to any Scripture that shows baptized Christians, both Jews and gentiles, in a Christian worship setting on the last days sabbath of the Jews.

First of all, you misrepresent scripture by saying that the sabbath is the "sabbath of the Jews". Holy scripture calls the sabbath the sabbath of God:

Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Now you can continue to try and marginalize it by calling it what it is not, but like it or not (and you don't) it is a commandment of God.

By the way, do you believe it is a sin to violate any of the ten commandments?

The fact that Paul was able to find a place where people gathered on the old covenant sabbath to pray does not enjoin Christians to worship on the sabbath of the Jews.

Three points.

First, the sabbath gathered on in the new testament was the new covenant sabbath.

Second, as pointed out, it's God's sabbath, not the Jews.

Third, the scriptures that Paul reasoned out of, the word of God, clearly and specifically point out that the sabbath was to be observed by those who worship God. There is no question about it scripturally and there was no question about it in biblical times. God enjoins us, in the bible, to observe his sabbath. It's that simple.

As pointed out (and not addressed or refuted by you) there is not one hint or shred of controversy that shows that anyone in biblical times ever stopped observing God's sabbath. I can show you one of God's commandments to observe his sabbath in scripture. The onus is on you to produce one shred of biblical evidence that sabbath observance has been done away with or transferred to any other day.

We have already shown it was Paul's custom to seek them out on their worship places in order to convert Jews to Christ.

We've already seen that this is your theory to explain why Paul, gentiles, greeks and others were observing the sabbath and why it is so frequently mentioned.

And I've quoted you the words of Paul himself (something you clearly can't refute) that shows that he believed in the observance of the sabbath:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Since you are so sure that Matt. 5:17,18 authorizes the keeping of the last day sabbath, and since none of your old covenant sabbatarian friends has chosen to answer my challenge, why don't you take a crack at this list:

You know, reading your list of scripture, it just occurred to me that you don't know exactly what the "old covenant" consisted of. Let me show you the heart and soul of the old covenant:

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

You're misunderstanding of the covenants and how the Levitical priesthood relates to the old and new covenant is your major source of confusion. It's almost pointless to discuss it with you because you're apparently ignorant about many aspects and need to do some study. I would suggest starting with Mount Sinai and studying Exodus to see what God encompassed in his covenant with Israel. I would then study WHY he later added sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. Finally, I would study Hebrews to see exactly how these relate to the new testament.

It will be challenging to you because you have a preconceived notion of what has changed between the new covenant and the old covenant that is not scriptural. You'll have to toss aside your suppositions and actually study the word.

I've got an extremely busy week coming up and will be out of town observing the feast of Tabernacles starting on Wednesday. I'll have broadband in my hotel room so I'll attempt to put together a post that may shed some light on the covenants of God.

Some resources:

Jesus' Teaching on God's Law

The Covenants...kind of lengthy, but well worth the study.

Christians do not celebrate the passover.

Sure they do. If you're not, then you're not honoring or obeying God by observing his passover, one of the days he commandmended his followers to observe:

Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.

You're also disoboeying God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, and not following the practice that he did:

Luk 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

Mar 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passove

You're also not following the example of Paul, who said emphatically to keep the passover:

1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

We celebrate the Lords' Supper on apostolic authority. That's what Paul called it after all.

You should be taking the Lord's supper on the day that the Lord instituted his supper and the day he himself took it, Passover.

Of course that would have been confusing, since God commanded that old covenant passover be celebrated by the shedding of the blood of animals. He also specified that uncircumcised gentiles were not allow to participate in the passover. (Speaking of Matt. 5:17,18, there is no command from God to allow uncircumcised gentiles to partake of the passover.)

Again, you're confused about this because you don't understand Hebrews or the covenants. Study study study.

The practice of the early church was to do this frequently, certainly more often than once a year.
"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42)

The phrase "to break bread" can and often does mean to eat a meal and not always to eat the Lord's supper. For example:

Act 27:34 Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
Act 27:35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.
Act 27:36 Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat.

Not the Lord's supper, but the breaking of a fast.

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." (Acts 20:7)
When Paul conducted the Lord's Supper in Acts 20, it was nowhere near the date of passover as far as we can tell.

Ummmm...does it say that they ate the "Lord's Supper"...or does it say that they broke bread? It says that they came together for a meal (on what we would call Saturday night),after the sabbath. This is a common jewish practice and a common practice of many sabbatarian churches. For proof of this:

Act 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

The young man broke bread, he ate, to get his strength back. There is no church service on Sunday here. It's merely a tortured attempt to justify sabbath breaking. It's fellowshipping, sharing a meal, following the sabbath. The point of the story was to point out the miraculous incident of Paul bringing the young man back to life, not to prove some mythical church service.

I hope this helps....

First, I want to thank you for having taken the time on my behalf to adress the question I posed to Buggman. It is appreciated.

I am quite familiar with the citations you posted (as I would hope you would have surmised), however, they are all particular to Pesach, about which we have no differences. Still, the post did not address my understandings of the citations I posited as to how they might be incorrect or the general coherence of the conclusion they incorporated. Indeed, one can easily take a quite different logical inference from some of it than what you have concluded, sic,

This ceremony was performed every year, once a year, on Passover....sometimes. However, Passover is so important that God said that the Passover could be taken again if someone could not take it the first time:

IOW, it is so important to accomplish the purpose of the sacrament, that its date is less important than the necessity of its accomplishment. Please hold that thought.

In my post positing the question, I hadn't made the comment that it is quite possible that the Sabbath is still to be celebrated as originally, but that communion was to be celebrated independently. From what I can discern from the history, such would explain the origins of "the Lord's Day" in the first place.

At the time of the early church, it is quite clear that Christians (both Jewish and Gentile) were meeting in existing synagogues. As other have pointed out, the Gentiles had to meet the normal standards for Gentile purity as are cited in Acts. It would not surprise me a bit that the desire to celebrate a kiddush and hamotzi in the name of Y'shua would have bred division and contention within a Synagogue, indeed, it would be an eventual demarcation as Gentile Christianity grew. Thus, in the name of using an existing facility, the latter might celebrate it on some other day, the Lord's Day.

If I had to guess at the single issue that gradual split of Christianity from Judaism in Rome and elsewhere within the First Century Diaspora, that would be it, just as it is today. Such is indication both of the existence of the practice, and the point of divergence. Obviously by the mid Second Century, the practice of celebrating the Lord's Day independently had been inculcated into Christianity as we know it now, with the Sabbath and the Law tragically falling into disuse. I have no idea whether this is a historically accurate conclusion, but the circumstantial evidence would seem to confirm the early existence of the practice of communion more frequently than on just Pesach.

Were what you suggest a true restriction during that apostolic period, one would think that someone would have taken issue with the practice. Of such I can find no record, which, given Paul's Pharasaic background is an equally strong indication.

When the passover is not taken at the proper, God ordained time, then it ceases to be the passover that God commanded and instead becomes a manmade tradition, prone to being taken unworthily.

Obviously not, although I would not have used a word such as "unworthy;" we all are, but I somehow don't think that the practice of the deed is sufficient to qualify the heart.

Thanks again.

Trying to discern your theology here. Are you saying that only descendants from the single tribe of Judah are "Jews"?

In the eleventh chapter of I Kings we see God saying to Solomon that he will take the Kingdom (Israel) and give it to a subordinate.....but he will leave one tribe with his son for the sake of David, Solomon's father. Chapter 12:19-24 shows that the tribe was Judah as the rest of the Kingdom went to Jeroboam except....additionally, the tribe of Benjamin.

At that time the Levites (the Priests) were not considered a land owning tribe as they ministered to the other tribes....so after these events took place the Southern Kingdom, Judah, consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin....with their share of the tribe of Levi.

The Northern Kingdom, Israel, consisted of the other ten tribes.

See also II Kings 17:18. At that time Benjamin, the portion of Levi and the tribe of Judah were called collectively....Judah. You will find the "Jews" (Judah) at war with Israel in II Kings 16:1-6 and II Chronicles 11:1. The Northern Kingdom tribes were never referred to as Jews....only Israelites. You'll find some of these folks in the New Testament in 1 Peter 1:1-2....those with the foreknowledge of God.

When God dispersed the Northern Kingdom to Assyria [II Kings 17:6] they never came back. In verse 24 you'll see that the King of Assyria repopulated "Samaria" with pagans from Babylonia and you'll understand now why Christ told his Apostles to stay out of there [Matthew 10:5-6]. In fact this is where the infamous Simon Magus and his Babylonian religion came from [Acts chapter 8]. This is the religion he palmed off on the Romans......and they bought it!

The two books that speak of the return from captivity, Ezra and Nehemiah, only speak of the captivity of Judah to Babylon....not Israel to Assyria. You will find no mention of any tribe except Judah, Benjamin and Levi in these books.

Bottom line.....All Jews are Israelites.....not all Israelites are Jews.

Hi OC. Sorry to have to put you off, and I appreciate your patience and the tone of your freepmail.

First, let’s deal with the issue of what it meant to “break bread” together in the context of first-century Judaism: It literally meant simply to share a meal, to eat at the same table. So what? you ask. Well, there was a cultural issue that we are not sensitive to today which was very important to the Jews then: “Breaking bread” with someone was a sign that you had full fellowship with them, that you regarded them as one of your own. This is why Sha’ul tells us not to eat with a sinning brother (1 Co. 5:11).

As the Sadducean priesthood became progressively more corrupt, the Pharisees began distancing themselves from the Temple—not to the degree that the Essenes did, of course, but nevertheless to such a degree that when the Romans destroyed the Temple, the Pharisees were the last sect standing. (In fact, the name Pharisee, P’rush, means “separated one” in Hebrew, and many scholars believe this referred at least in part to their separation from the Temple.) Now, very few of the Jews were actually Pharisees, but they nevertheless commanded great respect for their knowledge of and strict adherence to the Torah, and their theology permeated Jewish society in numerous ways.

One of the most important teachings of the Pharisees was that as the Temple had become corrupt, the family dinner table was to be regarded as the altar of God, the food set upon it the sacrifice, and the patriarch of the family its priest. As a result, ritual purity at mealtimes became an important part of Pharisaical practice—this is why they harassed the disciples of Yeshua for not ritually washing their hands before eating (Mat. 15); this was tantamount, in their tradition, to desecrating the altar of the Temple by approaching when ritually unclean.

Of course, not everyone in the Jewish world followed the Pharisees’ complex rules of ritual purity. As a matter of fact, it was pretty rare even in Judea—the Galileans were considered real hicks and half-Gentile in their practices because they tended to completely ignore the Pharisees. (There’s an old tradition about a rabbi who was sent to Galilee. In eighteen years, he was asked only two questions about the “right” way to keep the Torah; consequently, he pronounced that wickedness would surely come from that area.) As a result, the Pharisees were very careful about who they invited over for dinner, almost always restricting themselves to their own order. In the first century world where “breaking bread” with someone implied social and spiritual union with them, this was tantamount to saying that nobody else was a true Jew.

That tells us something interesting about Yeshua, because He was invited to eat with various Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37)—at least some regarded Him as one of their own and ritually pure enough to have fellowship with, suggesting that He kept most of their traditions where they did not conflict with the Scriptures or with the granting of mercy (though in the latter passage, He intentionally surprises them by refusing to ritually wash in order to make a point).

So then, look again at Acts 2:42, and imagine those commas in slightly different places: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” What is the significance of this? Remember that there were both Pharisees (15:5) and Sadducees (6:7) among the believers, as well as Judeans, Galileans, and even Hellenized Jews—all eating together, all partaking of one table and one fellowship. Now think about what it said that they set aside all old rivalries and extra-Biblical ideas of ritual purity to do so!

Therefore, Luke is not using “breaking of bread” to refer to the modern concept of the Lord’s Supper, but to show his audience, which was cognizant of these societal realities, just how close all the believers were in the Messiah Yeshua. This is also why Sha’ul ripped Kefa (Peter) publicly when he stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal. 1)—it was tantamount to announcing that the Gentiles weren’t really saved in the sense that the Jews were saved, and was in danger of splitting the Church right down the middle.

Okay, on to the second issue:

One would think that such included His expectation to be remembered. So why would there be proscription against breaking bread and remembering His new covenant? It would seem unlikely.

I didn’t say that there was a proscription against the practice; I said that “the entirety of the Lord's Supper was originally meant to take place within the context of the Passover Seder.” A proscription would suggest that I thought everyone needed to stop right now. Not at all. Beth HaMashiach celebrates the Lord’s Supper once a month, and I keep it with the inmates I minister to every other week.

However, we also celebrate the Passover, and we understand what is now called the Lord’s Supper within its context. In effect, each Supper is a mini-Passover, a time of remembrance in anticipation of the Feast. If one were anticipating a banquet, one might have a small snack or two earlier in the day to tide him or her over until dinner, but would we then say, “I’ve already had my meal, so I’ll skip the feast my host has prepared for me”?

I remember a church I attended for a time some years before I became Messianic. Even then I was uncomfortable with the way they did the Lord’s Supper: They served leavened bread. Even then, I knew that was tantamount to saying that the Lord had sin. Not that they intended it that way, of course, but having removed the Supper from the context of the Seder, they were ignorant of the symbolism.

Another result of removing the Supper from the context of the Seder has been to create a new mysticism in place of pure Christianity. Since the supposed proof-text for no longer keeping the Passover was Col. 2:16-17, and yet Yeshua had commanded that the Supper be kept, the Church developed a doctrine of “sacraments” which were supposedly better than the ceremonies of the Torah: Otherwise, they’d have to admit that they were simply trading one set of shadows for another, and would have no reason not to keep the former in obedience to the command of God—which would result in their being persecuted for being Jews. Of course, that required coming up with a way to justify these sacraments as being ontologically greater. In the end, a bunch of mystical baloney was piled on top, like Transubstantiation, as the “proof.” Had the Church kept the Seder in the Supper, recognizing that both it and the other ceremonial commandments were physical ways of reflecting the spiritual reality, I don’t think that mysticism would have ever entered into the equation.

So by all means, keep celebrating the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him throughout the year—but don’t neglect the Passover, of which the bread and cup are but two small threads of a much richer tapestry of symbolism pointing directly to our Lord Yeshua and His work on the Cross. My own practice, which is obviously not binding on anyone here, is to slip in a little tidbit about the rest of the Passover amongst the liturgy of the Supper, such as explaining why Yeshua did not drink the third cup of the meal, the Cup of Redemption, or how the matzah (unleavened bread) is pierced, striped, and bruised just as our Lamb was.

In the end, there is nothing wrong with a little extra tradition—in fact, it’s inevitable. No one would argue that a church’s annual pot-luck dinner to celebrate its founding was legalism or forbidden because it “isn’t specifically authorized by the New Tesament,” so long as said church wasn’t trying to impose that dinner as a universal standard or that it didn’t violate Scripture in some other way (no annual orgies allowed). By the same token, there is nothing wrong with these additional “mini-Passover Suppers,” provided that they don’t become a matter of salvation or judgment, and are observed and understood within the context of the real Passover.

Thank you for your post. We concur on most of its content, but differ in a couple of minor points as to wording or degree.

With regard to breaking bread, I was well aware of the social significance of such at the time, but your elaboration on the topic with its numerous tie-ins taught me quite a bit more, so thank you.

This is why Sha’ul tells us not to eat with a sinning brother (1 Co. 5:11).

Y'shua ate with sinners, as long as they were repentant. As you know, He regarded the penitent sinner as greater in heaven than the legalistically righteous. So perhaps that would be better worded as, 'Sha’ul tells us not to eat with an unrepentant brother'? Food for thought. :-)

Interesting your bit of history on the Pharisee/Saducee split and how that led to a more dispersed form of worship. It clearly reinforced the modern synagogue, without which the loss of the Temple might more likely have been far more destructive to Judaic worship.

That tells us something interesting about Yeshua, because He was invited to eat with various Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37)— at least some regarded Him as one of their own and ritually pure enough to have fellowship with, suggesting that He kept most of their traditions where they did not conflict with the Scriptures or with the granting of mercy (though in the latter passage, He intentionally surprises them by refusing to ritually wash in order to make a point).

I doubt that was uniformly true. Certainly in the case of Nicodemus it was, but in others, it seems as likely that it was for the purpose of scrutiny.

Now think about what it said that they set aside all old rivalries and extra-Biblical ideas of ritual purity to do so!

This was a really insightful point, thank you, demonstrating how destabilizing Christianity had to be in a world of rigid class distinction.

Clearly this is your conclusion and it is very well supported, but I don't think the case quite as definitive as your choice of words suggests. It surely includes all the factors you mention, but does not exclude the possibility that it included communion as we know it. I do appreciate the thought that went into it.

I had obviously misunderstood your earlier post, thinking that it implied exclusivity to celebrating the new covenant only at Pesach, which, as you have said, is not what you do. It is, what our congregation UMJC does, so please forgive my remission in assuming your practice was similar. We entirely concur about the role the Lord's Supper should play in our assemblies with other believers and I especially applaud your prison ministry.

On a side note, what did you think of my point about the Shema and the New Covenant? I haven't heard it articulated before, but it struck my heart like a bolt.

I have more to ask at a later time, particularly as regards correct interpretation of "perpetual" or "forever" as regards old covenant feasts in terms of Hebrew versus Greek and the impact that distinction has upon the general discussion we see on this thread and others about the Law.

Later!

So perhaps that would be better worded as, 'Sha’ul tells us not to eat with an unrepentant brother'?

Correct. Perhaps I should have said "the actively sinning brother."

It clearly reinforced the modern synagogue, without which the loss of the Temple might more likely have been far more destructive to Judaic worship.

Exactly. Personally, I believe that God set up the split to insure that some manner of Torah-observant Judaism survived the destruction of the Temple.

I doubt that was uniformly true. Certainly in the case of Nicodemus it was, but in others, it seems as likely that it was for the purpose of scrutiny.

Oh, certainly; but look past the scrutiny (which in and of itself was not a bad thing--they had to be careful of Messianic pretenders) and to the underlying relationship in comparison to Yeshua's relationship with other groups. Do you see Yeshua interacting with and trying to correct the Sadducees, the Essenes, or the Zealots the way He did the Pharisees? No. This suggests that of all the groups, He felt the closest kinship with the Pharisees.

The only time He interacts with the Sadducees, its in declaring Himself to be the Messiah in the Temple, to take the Pharisees side on the matter of the Resurrection, and to be put on trial for heresy.

The only time He interacts with the Zealots is to take Simon the Zelot on as a disciple--but we have no indications that He shared any theology or politics in common with them, or that He addressed them in numbers.

The only time He mentions the Essenes, the "Children of the Light," it's to criticise them for closing themselves off from the world and refusing to so much as conduct business with anyone who did not live up to their high standards of righteousness (Luke 16:8).

But with the Pharisees, He interacted on a regular basis, debated on their level and using their hermeneutics, and kept their rigid standards of righteousness and cleanliness enough that they on several occassions invited Him into their homes. The fact that He goes after them for sins and hypocrisies that He doesn't even mention in other groups is not an indication that they were more corrupt, but that they were closest to the truth in their teachings, and He wanted to bring them to the other side by dealing with the problems of pride and hypocrisy. "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Mat. 23:3).

Some have looked at this and gone so far as to say that Yeshua was a Pharisee. I don't think so, at least not formally. He did not come to be the Messiah of the Pharisees, but the Messiah of all Israel, and therefore eschewed formal ordination into any sect. But I do suspect that if He came to one of His churches sans His Glory today, most would be wondering what the heck an Orthodox Jew was doing there.

This was a really insightful point, thank you, demonstrating how destabilizing Christianity had to be in a world of rigid class distinction.

Absolutely right. If you read the book of Acts carefully, you'll notice that the objection to Sha'ul's ministry was rarely on the basis that he proclaimed the Messiah--it was on the matter of the Gentiles being brought into salvation (cf. Acts 22, and notice exactly what sets the audience off in vv. 21-22).

It surely includes all the factors you mention, but does not exclude the possibility that it included communion as we know it. I do appreciate the thought that went into it.

Okay, turn that around: What evidence is there that Luke was referring to the Lord's Supper in that passage, given that the nominal meaning of the idiom "to break bread" means to share a meal?

We entirely concur about the role the Lord's Supper should play in our assemblies with other believers and I especially applaud your prison ministry.

Thanks, that's much appreciated. My own congregation is not formally associated with any of the major Messianic "denominations" out there. We have two sister congregations in the area, Beth Adonai and Hope of David, with whom we have formed the Messianic Alliance of Metro Atlanta, which gives us all accountability outside of our congregations on matters of theology and practice. However, since we didn't start out as part of a larger association and are all still young congregations (Beth HaMashiach is only three years old, and Beth Adonai only a few years older) a lot of issues that are mostly settled in the UMJC or MJAA are still being worked out.

On a side note, what did you think of my point about the Shema and the New Covenant? I haven't heard it articulated before, but it struck my heart like a bolt.

I'm sorry! I didn't mean to skip over that. I liked it very much--especially since the Sh'ma is intimately connected to the observance of Passover:

And it [the observance of Passover] shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD' law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.
(Exodus 13:9)
And thou shalt bind them [the words God has commanded us] for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
(Deuteronomy 6:8)

From this, I take the binding of God's words upon our hands and between our eyes to not primarily refer to the wearing of the Tefilin (Phylacteries)--though that is certainly one way to keep the command in part--but to doing and looking upon things that continually remind us of God's grace and commands. Celebrating the Passover is the first example of keeping this command given, but observing the Lord's Supper more often also qualifies. Putting a mezuzah on the door and hanging a picture with a quote from the Psalms in the house both keep this command.

Now, if keeping the Passover is so intimately tied to keeping the Sh'ma, which Yeshua Himself quoted as being the most important commandment (Mark 12:27-30), one wonders why certain Christians here rebel against keeping it--especially since its such a fun and joyous way to obey God.

I look forward to it. Shalom and L'shannah Tova.

Okay, turn that around: What evidence is there that Luke was referring to the Lord's Supper in that passage, given that the nominal meaning of the idiom "to break bread" means to share a meal?

No more than the other way around. The Bible is full of such "superset/subset" problems. In this case, “breaking bread” includes both regular meals and the Lord’s Supper because there is insufficient hard information to reduce the superset. The accumulation of the archaeological record is doing a great deal to resolve these open issues.

This thread was a wonderful example of how little progress is usually made to determine and accept what can or cannot be definitively claimed, despite enormous effort. The posters defend positions that ultimately rest upon assumptions arising out of belief without acknowledging those limits. IMO, this failing arises out of pride, fear, anger, collective identity… you know, the usual denial that we are all brothers studying the word in search of truth. It takes maturity to admit what you don’t know, and diligence to discover what you cannot know.

Rudolph Carnap, a philosopher, posed the idea of applying symbolic logic and set theory toward proving a problem was unsolvable, whether because of insufficient data or by virtue of the design of the question. Such is a great contribution to knowledge. It tells you where to look for more information, and where not to bother until you have it. If you don't have it, there is then an identified intersection of perhaps opposing hypotheses. Unfortunately, people don't want to relegate their religion to having bases in faith, even when they acknowledge such is its most essential attribute!

Sad, isn't it?

For the same reason so many Jews regard accepting Y'shua as Messiah as worse than professing Atheism: a combination of historically accumulated bigotry arising out of the unwillingness to accept G-d's plan. Gentiles recoil over what they see as a subservient role while Jews (many of whom are Khazari) expect acknowledgment as the "chosen." Jew vs. Gentile, the Lord's Supper v. Shabbat (as if the two were in opposition).

Shaul addresses these roles in Romans, and, IMO, he chose some rather misunderstood metaphors to describe the relationship. Have you read Mark Nanos' book on Romans? It is seldom a Reformed Jew makes such a contribution to Christianity, although I disagree with some of his conclusions as a matter of emphasis.

The issue of temporal perpetuity I raised in the last post may be the undoing of many a hard position, offering perhaps the best opportunity I’ve seen toward synthesis between the tripartite branches of theology (Judiac, Messianic, and traditional Christian) represented on this thread. This fellow does a pretty good job with it.

That's true. One of the problems in interpreting the nuances of Scripture--and I say the nuances because the main points are all crystal clear--is that the Bible is a "high context" document: It assumes a common bond of language, idiom, culture, and experience between the writer and the reader, and consequently leaves a lot of things unexplained. The more we learn about the first century, the clearer many otherwise obscure passages become.

In this case, since Luke does not clarify the statement to mean anything more than what "breaking bread" would generally mean to a first-century audience, I think the wiser course is to say, "We don't know that he was referring to the Lord's Supper, so we can't build any doctrine or even theories on the assumption that he was."

The posters defend positions that ultimately rest upon assumptions arising out of belief without acknowledging those limits.

Exactly. If one assumes--rightly or wrongly--the correctness of any doctrine, it's easy enough to find passages which support that position. The real question is whether you can prove the assumption independantly from a mutually accepted source of authority. We who believe in the seventh-day Sabbath do not believe that post-Apostolic preachers (particularly those who falsely assume the names of apostles, like Barnabas) have the authority to change a day that God wrote in stone, even if they were unified in that change, which they weren't.

The same problem poses a particular challenge in properly interpreting Sha'ul's letters. In every case, with the possible (not definite) exception of Romans, Sha'ul was writing to deal with some problem in the church in question. We do not have the message sent to Sha'ul which would explain the full context of his letters. We try to figure out the context by the clues in the letters and the information we have in Acts and in some of the ECF (who don't always have the full picture themselves).

It's therefore foolish beyond belief to build doctrine primarily out of Sha'ul's letters. I'm not denying their authority--heck, I quote him all the time--nor their insight. But they were never meant to be used in place of the Tanakh; in fact, other than Romans, they were never meant to be used by those who had not received Sha'ul's verbal teaching first. It's hardly surprising that even within fifteen to twenty years after being written, they were being misinterpreted and misused: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Sha'ul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Pt. 3:15-16)

If I were to publish a translation of the Bible, I would put the Tanakh in Jewish order, and I would also reorder the NT: I'd put John before Luke in the Gospels, because John was written to suppliment Mark, and Luke and Acts are two parts of the same work. I would put Yochanan's (John's) epistles first, followed by Kefa's (Peters), then Ya'akov's (James) and Y'hudah's (Jude). Then I'd put Sha'ul's epistles, followed by Hebrews. Revelation I'd leave in the back since it is obviously meant to serve as the bookend along with Genesis.

The reason is not to slight Sha'ul, but because I've come to believe that his "hard to be understood" words should only be studied once one already has a grasp of the rest of Scripture, and because the "least of the apostles" (1 Co. 15:9) should not overshadow those who walked with the Lord Yeshua personally, nor His brothers who ran the Jerusalem Church. At least this way, people would have to pass through the other apostles on their way to misinterpret Paul.

Unfortunately, people don't want to relegate their religion to having bases in faith, even when they acknowledge such is its most essential attribute!

Sad, isn't it?

Very. Sadder are those who consider it all unknowable, and who therefore have a faith that rests on mist instead of a solid foundation of factual knowledge. We're supposed to trust God with the "unknowables," not to remain intentionally ignorant of that which He has made available to us.

Yep. Both sides have been guilty of predominantly defining themselves by what the other isn't and of expelling those who have tried to bridge the gap.

Have you read Mark Nanos' book on Romans?

Not yet, but I will. Thanks for the recommendation!

This fellow does a pretty good job with it.

Thanks for the link. I'll get back to you when I've had a chance to read and think it over.

God bless.

It assumes a common bond of language, idiom, culture, and experience between the writer and the reader, and consequently leaves a lot of things unexplained.

Hence study of Hebrew, Greek, and history. Yup.

"We don't know that he was referring to the Lord's Supper, so we can't build any doctrine or even theories on the assumption that he was."

Much of what is called "doctrine" is really based on premises taken on faith. Methinks we could do with a lot less of it. In that respect, Messianism has been a very good thing for both Judiasm and main line Christianity. Lacking a body of doctrine, we reconsider everything in light of new information rather than interpreting and incorporating new information in terms of fixed constraints (the former being the bigger problem).

The real question is whether you can prove the assumption independantly from a mutually accepted source of authority.

Given the number of necessary assumptions in interpreting Biblical text, I'm not terribly sanguine about how achievable is "proof." A lot of very smart people have been working on that stuff for a very long time. See "Carnap."

We who believe in the seventh-day Sabbath do not believe that post-Apostolic preachers (particularly those who falsely assume the names of apostles, like Barnabas) have the authority to change a day that God wrote in stone, even if they were unified in that change, which they weren't.

As I suggested, given the perhaps temporal nature of "perpetual," "stone" may not be the rock we think it is. The potential for a definition in a translation to change things can be truly awesome in scope.

I prefer to say that, lacking absolutely definitive information, I have prayed about it and from what I can tell the Lord wants me to observe keep the Sabbath. I love Shabbat; it's the highlight of our week. It's been good for our family as coincidence with G-d's Laws would confirm as they were before the time of Moshe.

"which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction"

A most apt citation. It is the human condition.

If I were to publish a translation of the Bible,

Aggggghhh! Not another translation! I'm having enough trouble finding anything in Stern's. :-)

I do appreciate the rationale.

Sadder are those who consider it all unknowable, and who therefore have a faith that rests on mist instead of a solid foundation of factual knowledge. We're supposed to trust God with the "unknowables," not to remain intentionally ignorant of that which He has made available to us.

Salvation is available to the retarded, the insane, or the disabled. An idiot can be saved, if we come to the Kingdom of G-d as a little child in faith. Our study is more a matter of the talents, for we have been blessed.

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.