|
Obadiah, Book
of:
What can you tell me about the composition of
the Book of Obadiah?
The Book of Obadiah is the
shortest text in the Hebrew Tanach. The name of
the Prophet Obadiah (Heb. Ovadyah,
hydb[)
means “servant of the
Lord.”
While a common name in Ancient Israel, nothing
is stated in the text concerning Obadiah’s
upbringing or background. Later Jewish tradition
associates the Prophet Obadiah with the Obadiah
of 1 Kings 18, who controlled the household of
prophets against Jezebel (b. Sanhedrin
39b; cf. Harrison, 898; ABD, 5:2),
although most today discount this as
speculation. Due to the lack of explicit
biographical data, it is difficult for
interpreters to not only pinpoint a time of
Obadiah’s prophesying, but also the specific
location where he prophesied. We do, however,
know that the purpose for Obadiah’s prophecies
was to make light of the conflict between Israel
and Edom (Harrison, 898-899; EXP, 7:335),
and Edom’s rejoicing over Judah’s destruction.
The most serious debate as it
concerns the Book of Obadiah among interpreters
relates to when Obadiah prophesied (Dillard and
Longman, 386-387). It is quite valid to point
out that one “runs the risk of constructing
history largely out of prophetic oracles or
poetry” (ABD, 5:4), and so any
interpretation of Obadiah must be guarded by
remembering that one’s dating of the text is
speculative. The two proposals that are widely
made among interpreters is that Obadiah
prophesied during (1) the rebellion against
Judah during the reign of Jehoram (853-841 B.C.E.;
cf. 2 Kings 8:20-22; 2 Chronicles 21:8-15), or
during (2) the Babylonian attacks on Jerusalem
(605-586 B.C.E.).
Previous conservatives tended to
favor a dating of Obadiah during the Edomite
rebellion against Jehoram (NIDB, 715),
but conservatives today largely recognize the
calamity that Obadiah describes as being the
sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (NBCR,
742; ISBE, 3:574; EXP, 7:337).
Indeed, the widest amount of discussion
concerning Obadiah often relates to the
connection of Obadiah 1-6 and Jeremiah 49:9-10,
14-16, and how these sets of verses are related
(Harrison, 901; ISBE, 3:575; ABD,
5:3; EDB, 979). Some suggest that one
borrows from the other, while others argue that
since the doom of Edom is a theme of many of the
Prophets (cf. Isaiah 34:5; 63:1-6; Ezekiel
25:12-17; 35; Amos 1:11-12; Malachi 1:2-4), both
are relying on some kind of common knowledge. It
is also argued among interpreters that Obadiah
may have been one of those who remained in
Jerusalem after the city’s fall. A few go even
further and propose that Obadiah is post-exilic,
composed around 450 B.C.E. (Harrison, 902).
Some liberal theologians adhere
for a unity of Obadiah’s composition, while
others argue that the text is an expanded
edition of an original source, or a series of
several oracles strung together (Harrison,
899-900; ISBE, 3:574; ABD, 5:3).
Liberals tend to argue for a post-exilic
composition of Obadiah (IDB, 3:579).
The Hebrew MT of Obadiah is
generally in good condition (IDB, 3:579;
Harrison, 903; EDB, 979), and the Greek
LXX seldom has to be consulted to correct
potential scribal error.
A major theme seen in Obadiah is
that Edom has rejoiced over Judah’s devastation
at the hands of foreign powers (vs. 14-15). Edom
will be subjected to God’s punishment as a
result of its gloating (IDB, 3:578). Edom
was an ancient adversary of Israel, and as such
will be judged by the Lord. Edom’s judgment is
more severe, though, because the Edomites were
ethically related to the Israelites (Genesis
25:23; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13), and not a
total outside party like the Babylonians (cf.
Psalm 137:7; Lamentations 4:21-22).
Obadiah presents the tensions
between Israel and Edom (Genesis 36; Deuteronomy
2), and the conflict between the two peoples
that had started via the twin brothers Esau and
Jacob (ECB, 696). Edom was rejected by
God, whereas Jacob was accepted. Paul uses this
analogy in Romans 9:13 to describe the First
Century condition of Israel (Dillard and
Longman, 390), and the ancient comparisons of
Israel and Edom have caused many to wonder
whether Paul is speaking of individual election
(as commonly interpreted) or corporate
election. The Book of Obadiah does contain a
warning of what will happen when one fights
against God’s people, or rejoices when they are
judged. God’s judgment on the nations indicates
his universal control of the world (ISBE,
3:575).
In the Jewish theological
tradition, Obadiah was commonly read to
represent God’s disdain for Rome (“Edom”), and
then later Christendom (Jewish Study Bible,
1193). In the Sephardic and Yemenite
communities, the entire Book of Obadiah is read
as the Haftarah for Vayishlach (Genesis
32:4-36:4).
Currently, there has been no
distinct Messianic handling whatsoever with the
Book of Obadiah. This is likely due to the
text’s smallness, rather than deliberate
omission. Obadiah does ask the Messianic
interpreter questions about Judah and Edom as
corporate entities that could alter some
perceptions of Romans 9 and God’s “election”
that will undeniably have to be considered in
future theological studies.
Bibliography
Ackroyd, Peter R. “Obadiah, Book of,” in ABD,
5:2-4.
Amerding, Carl E. “Obadiah,” in EXP,
7:335-357.
ben Zvi, Ehud. “Obadiah,” in Jewish Study
Bible, pp 1193-1197.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III.
“Obadiah,” in An Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp 385-390.
Fowler, Arthur B. “Obadiah, Book of,” in NIDB,
pp 715-716.
Gelston, Anthony. “Obadiah,” in ECB, pp
696-698.
Harrison, R.K. “The Book of Obadiah,” in
Introduction to the Old Testament, pp
898-903.
Muilenburg, J. “Obadiah, Book of,” in IDB,
3:578-579.
Pagán, Samuel. “Obadiah,” in New
Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 1293-1295.
Raabe, Paul R. “Obadiah, Book of,” in EDB,
pp 979-981.
Robinson, D.W.B. “Obadiah,” in NBCR, pp
742-745.
Watts, J.D.W. “Obadiah, Book of,” in ISBE,
3:574-576.
posted 30 August, 2007
Omer
Count:
Do you follow the counting method of the
Pharisees or Sadducees for the counting of the
omer to determine Shavuot? It
seems that most in the independent Messianic
movement follow the counting method of the
Sadducees.
Many in the independent Messianic
community, outside of Messianic Judaism, prefer
to follow the Saddusaical method for counting
the omer (the same followed by the
Karaites), which determines the date to
celebrate Shavuot or Pentecost. While
some of these people do so because they are
following a calendar different than the standard
Rabbinical Jewish calendar used today, many
others continue to follow the dates for the
appointed times on the standard Jewish calendar
with this being a notable exception. However,
there are likewise many in the independent
Messianic community who believe that Shavuot
should be observed on the traditional Jewish
date of 06 Sivan, originally determined by the
Pharisees. This includes the editor,
although he does emphasize that we should
respect those who hold to the Saddusaical view.
The following has been compiled
to present you both sides of the issue of how to
count the omer, and thus when to
celebrate Shavuot. The points presented
for the Saddusaical view have been listed first,
with a counterpoint response by the Pharisaical
view. We would encourage you to make an informed
decision for yourself based on what is provided
below:
Messianics who favor a
Saddusaical determination of Shavuot
1. Leviticus 23:11 tells us that
the counting of the omer is to begin on a
weekly Sabbath:
“He shall wave the sheaf before
the Lord
for you to be accepted; on the day after the
sabbath the priest shall wave it.”
The day after the Shabbat,
the weekly Sabbath during the Festival of
Unleavened Bread (not the High Sabbath), is the
day that the counting of the omer (rm[)
or sheaf offering is to begin. After this, one
is to count sheva Shabbatot temiot (tmymT
tAtBv [bv)
or “seven complete sabbaths” (Leviticus 23:15).
This means that Shavuot will always occur
on the first day of the week or a Sunday. Its
date is not fixed by the calendar, and can vary
from year to year.
2. If the “Sabbath” referred to
in Leviticus 23:11 were the High Sabbath of
Unleavened Bread, then the Hebrew word
Shabaton would have been used:
In Leviticus 16:31 Yom Kippur
is referred to as a Shabbat Shabaton (!AtBv
tBv)
or “a sabbath of solemn rest,” in other words, a
High Sabbath. Yom Teruah is referred to
as a special “rest” or Shabaton in
Leviticus 23:24, a High Sabbath. Yom Kippur
is again referred to as a Shabbat Shabaton
in Leviticus 23:32, “a sabbath of complete
rest.” Shabaton is used twice in
Leviticus 23:39 to refer to the first and last
“rest” days of Sukkot.
Shabaton
means “a sabbath that is markedly
different from the usual
tBv
inasmuch as it is to be observed strictly and to
be celebrated in a special way” (HALOT,
2:1412), hence “a High Sabbath.” If the counting
of the omer were to begin on the High
Sabbath of the Festival of Unleavened Bread,
then this term should have been used in
Leviticus 23:15, rather than the more normal
Shabbat, which clearly designates the weekly
Sabbath.
3. Yeshua the Messiah is the
First Fruits of the resurrection, thus we must
always remember His Sunday resurrection in the
counting of the omer:
Yeshua the Messiah, according to
the Apostle Paul, is the First Fruits of the
resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23). The
omer counting begins on the weekly Sabbath
during the Festival of Unleavened Bread and
allows us to commemorate Yeshua’s Sunday morning
resurrection. The command in Leviticus 23:10-11
is, “you
shall bring in the sheaf of the first fruits of
your harvest
to the priest. He shall wave the sheaf before
the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the
priest shall wave it.” As the Marys left to go
to the tomb, “after the Sabbath, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week”
(Matthew 28:1), it is clear that this took place
after the weekly Sabbath on the Day of First
Fruits.
It is interesting that now in the
Jewish community, the counting of the
omer
begins on the High Sabbath or the first day of
Unleavened Bread. Why is this the case? Was this
started to downplay Yeshua’s prophetic
fulfillment of First Fruits and His
resurrection? Did this happen so that His
resurrection would be denied?
4. The Messianic community should
observe Shavuot in a way that appeals to
Christians’ understanding of Pentecost.
The Christian Church recognizes
what Pentecost Sunday is—fifty days after
Resurrection Sunday—and has actually gotten this
correct in spite of centuries of Jewish
misinterpretation of Leviticus 23. Following the
Saddusaical determination of counting the
omer—from the Hebrew of Leviticus 23
alone—we can educate our Christian brothers and
sisters on the prophetic fulfillment of Yeshua’s
First Fruits resurrection and the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit at Shavuot without any
major complications.
Messianics who favor a
Pharisaical determination of Shavuot
1. Shavuot is the “Feast
of Weeks,” and not the “Feast of Sabbaths”:
It is quite significant that the
name of the holiday in question is Shavuot
(tA[bv),
the plural of the Hebrew shavua ([Wbv),
meaning “week.” Before examining any Scriptures,
why would the designation of this festival be
Shavuot, meaning “Weeks”—rather than
Shabbatot (tAtBv),
meaning “Sabbaths”? Is this not an indication
that the date of Shavuot is to be
determined using the week, and not the
Sabbath? What constitutes what one would
consider to be an “incomplete Sabbath”? This can
only be the case if the term Shabbat can
be used representing “week.”
There is strong evidence in favor
of the fact that the Hebrew term Shabbat
(tBv)
need not always refer to the “Sabbath.” While
the primary usage of Shabbat is
undoubtedly “the day of rest, the sabbath” (HALOT,
2:1411), this does not disallow other possible
usages—including “week” (Jastrow, 1520)
as seen in other Scriptures and certainly
throughout Rabbinical literature. This is why
most Bibles actually render Leviticus 23:15 with
the counting of the omer being determined
by “seven weeks” (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ATS, NJPS, ESV,
HCSB, CJB, et. al.). The only major versions
that leave it as “sabbaths” are the KJV, NKJV,
and NASU.
Consider that in a similar vein,
the Hebrew term yom (~Ay)
primarily means “day of twenty-four
hours” (HALOT, 1:399), but there are most
certainly instances when yom means “a
period of time” such as a “year” (HALOT,
1:400) or simply “division of time” (BDB,
398) that may or may not be specified. Will we
allow God some variance in the vocabulary that
He uses in His Word?
2. We cannot ignore the witness
of Deuteronomy 16:9 and the Septuagint rendering
of Leviticus 23:11:
Deuteronomy 16:9 gives us further
clarification of how Shavuot is to be
determined, stating, “You shall count seven
weeks for yourself; you shall begin to count
seven weeks from the time you begin to put the
sickle to the standing grain.” The command here
is not to count using “Sabbaths,” but rather to
count sheva shavuot (tA[bv
h[bv)
or “seven weeks.” Are we to ignore this
instruction to count via “weeks,” and only
follow what Leviticus 23:15 may be telling
us?
Liberal theologians would
actually conclude that there is a noticeable
difference between the command delivered in
Leviticus 23:15, to count “seven complete
sabbaths,” and the command in Deuteronomy 16:9
to count “seven weeks.” Attributing these
differences to the JEDP documentary hypothesis,
they may claim that the command seen in
Leviticus 23 is from P or the Priestly writer,
and that the command seen in Deuteronomy 16 is
from D or the Deuteronomist. Those of us who
believe in unified authorship of the Mosaic
Torah have the responsibility to reconcile
these “differences,” lest any of us be accused
of following “P” or “D.” When we reconcile these
differences and synthesize the two passages, the
Pharisaical view of starting the omer
count on the High Sabbath of Unleavened Bread is
validated.
The Hebrew of Leviticus 23:11 is
vague, indicating that the counting of the
omer is to begin m’mochorat ha’Shabbat
(tBVh
trxMm),
literally “from the morrow the Sabbath,”
understood to be “the day after the sabbath.”
With the Sabbath not specified, the Sadducees
interpreted this as the weekly Sabbath—whereas
the Pharisees interpreted this as the High
Sabbath during the first day of Unleavened
Bread. This is where a great deal of division
took place, with the Hebrew unclear on this
point. The exegesis of Messianics who advocate
that the Saddusaical method is correct often
stops here.
We should not be consigned to
make a decision solely on the basis of what the
Hebrew Masoretic Text of Leviticus 23:15 might
say about “the day after the sabbath.” Three
centuries before the coming of Yeshua, the
Hebrew Tanach was translated into Greek
resulting in what we now call the Septuagint.
The LXX is the most significant complete textual
witness to the Hebrew MT, and was frequently
used by the Apostles in their quotations of the
Tanach. The Apostles’
usage alone requires us to consider how the LXX
renders Leviticus 23:11.
The Greek LXX rendered the Hebrew
m’mochorat ha’Shabbat, “the day after the
sabbath,” with tē epaurion tēs prōtēs (th
epaurion thß prwthß),
or “On the morrow of the first day” (LXE). Is
this “first day” the weekly Sabbath? No. It is
the first day of the Festival of Unleavened
Bread. If we follow the Saddusaical argument
using the LXX, then the counting of the omer
would actually begin on a Monday, the day after
“the first day.” But this is an improper
conclusion based on what “first” actually
translates. Tim Hegg notes in his article
“Counting the Omer: An Inquiry into the
Divergent Methods of the 1st Century Judaisms,”
“Here the Hebrew
tBv,
shabbat, is translated by
prwtoß,
protos, ‘first,’ meaning the ‘first day
of the Festival.’ The Lxx, clearly and
authoritative text in the 1st Century CE, gave
direct substantiation for the Pharisaic
reckoning” (p 6).
Furthermore, in Leviticus 23:11
the LXX rendered the Hebrew sheva shabatot
teminot, “seven complete Sabbaths,” with
hepta hebdomadas holoklērous (epta
ebdomadaß oloklhrouß),
“seven full weeks” (LXE). This only confirms
that shabbat can be understood in a
greater context beyond that of “Sabbath,” and
can also include “week.”
If we consider the Greek LXX to
have any kind of validity, then it supports the
counting of the omer beginning
immediately after the first day of Unleavened
Bread in conjunction with the Pharisaic method
that is observed in mainline Judaism today.
Furthermore, this is a textual indicator that
the debate over determining Shavuot goes
back several centuries before the time of Yeshua,
and thus one cannot claim that there was a
“conspiracy” to downplay His resurrection by
having the omer count begin on a day
other than Sunday. This issue was present long
before His Earthly ministry.
In today’s Messianic movement,
the Greek Septuagint is often casually dismissed
among teachers as a valid resource to use for
exegetical analysis. Its rendering of Leviticus
23:11 gives strong support for the Pharisaic
reckoning of Shavuot. But in all honesty
this is a rather minor issue on which to ignore
the LXX. There are many more substantial issues
pertaining to the Septuagint such as the
quotation of Tanach Scriptures in the Apostolic
Writings where the LXX differs from the Hebrew
MT. If we get into the habit of ignoring the
Septuagint on minor issues such as the
determination of Shavuot, then we may
ignore it in more significant issues such as
the quotation of various Messianic prophecies
used by the Apostles. So should we remove the
LXX from our conversation on when Shavuot
is to be observed?
3. Shabaton can refer to
the weekly Sabbath equally as much as a High
Sabbath in the Torah:
Advocates of the Saddusaical view
often claim that if the High Sabbath were being
referred to in Leviticus 23:11, “on the day
after the sabbath,” then the Hebrew word
Shabaton (!AtBv)
would be used instead of Shabbat (tBv)
or in conjunction with it. It is asserted that
Shabaton is only used in the Torah to
refer to High Sabbaths, and likewise that
Shabbat is only used to refer to weekly
Sabbaths, thus the beginning of the omer
count starts on a weekly Sabbath.
What Saddusaical advocates have
conveniently avoided is that Shabaton can
be used in reference to the weekly Sabbath every
bit as much as a High Sabbath:
“[T]hen he said to them, ‘This is
what the
Lord meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath
observance [Shabaton], a holy sabbath to
the Lord.
Bake what you will bake and boil what you will
boil, and all that is left over put aside to be
kept until morning” (Exodus 16:23).
“Then Moses assembled all the
congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to
them, ‘These are the things that the
Lord
has commanded you to do: For six days
work may be done, but on the seventh day you
shall have a holy day, a sabbath of
complete rest [Shabbat Shabaton] to the
Lord;
whoever does any work on it shall be put to
death” (Exodus 35:1-2).
“For six days work may be done,
but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of
complete rest [Shabbat Shabaton], a holy
convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a
sabbath to the
Lord
in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:3).
When we see that Shabaton
is used equally to refer to the weekly Sabbath
as well as High Sabbaths in the Hebrew Torah, no
one can insist that the Shabbat for
beginning the omer count must be a weekly
Sabbath. No one would insist that the weekly
Sabbaths mentioned in Leviticus 23:3—which occur
every week—all of a sudden become High Sabbaths.
The “type” of Sabbath is simply not specified in
the imprecise Hebrew of Leviticus 23:11, and we
are forced to examine other Scriptures (i.e.,
Deuteronomy 16:9) to formulate a more
well-rounded interpretation of what is being
referred to.
4. The Apostle Paul said that
Yeshua the Messiah was the First Fruits of the
resurrection—and he was a Pharisee:
The Apostle Paul is the one who
writes the Corinthians, “Messiah has been raised
from the dead, the first fruits of those who are
asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20). Paul is the one
who ascribes some level of fulfillment of the
Festival of First Fruits to the resurrection of
Yeshua. David H. Stern remarks in his Jewish
New Testament Commentary, “Sha’ul probably
wrote this letter between Pesach (5:6-8)
and Shavu’ot (16:8), during the season
for presenting the firstfruits of the
harvest at the Temple (Leviticus 23:9-15)” (p
488).
We need to temper Paul’s words in
1 Corinthians with his own testimony before the
Sanhedrin in Acts 23:6: “Brethren, I am a
Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for
the hope and resurrection of the dead!” The
Greek egō Pharisaios eimi (egw
Farisaioß eimi),
appearing in the present active indicative
tense, makes it abundantly clear that Paul
actively considered himself a Pharisee the
day that he made these remarks. Halachically,
the observance of Shavuot counting from
the High Sabbath of the Festival of Unleavened
Bread was a major division between the Pharisees
and Sadducees of Yeshua’s time. If we can accept
Paul’s testimony before the Sanhedrin as being
accurate, then we can conclude that he observed
Shavuot with the Pharisaic party (cf.
Acts 20:16; 1 Corinthians 16:8). He had no
problem writing that Yeshua fulfilled the
prophetic pattern of First Fruits, while at the
same time being a Pharisee.
Likewise, we have to remember
Yeshua’s words in Matthew 23:2-3, “The scribes
and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the
chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell
you, do and observe, but do not do according to
their deeds; for they say things and do
not do them.” While Yeshua does issue
some imperatives against the hypocrisy of the
Pharisaic leaders in Matthew 23, He nevertheless
instructs His followers to take their
halachic lead from the Pharisaic rulings. We
have justified course, then, as Messianic
Believers to observe Shavuot with the
remainder of the worldwide Jewish community on
06 Sivan—and not a date of our own
choosing—along with the rest of the appointed
times.
5. Following the Pharisaic method
of determining Shavuot does not subtract
from Yeshua’s prophetic fulfillment of First
Fruits:
It is commonly asserted among
advocates of the Saddusaical reckoning for
Shavuot that beginning the omer count
immediately after Passover, after the High
Sabbath of Unleavened Bread, subtracts from
Yeshua’s prophetic fulfillment of First Fruits.
Specifically, because the counting of the
omer can occur on any day of the week via
the Pharisaical reckoning for Shavuot, it
is believed among some to take away from
Yeshua’s “Sunday morning resurrection.”
First of all, it should be noted
that one can legitimately challenge the concept
of a “Sunday morning resurrection” as Matthew
28:1 indicates that the Marys left to visit
Yeshua’s tomb opse de sabbatōn (Oye
de sabbatwn)
or “late on the Sabbath day” (American Standard
Version), meaning Saturday evening. Secondly, we
all recognize that Yeshua’s resurrection was
three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40)
after His death. Counting back from Saturday
evening, this places Yeshua’s death on Thursday
afternoon. Following this would seemingly have
been the first day of Unleavened Bread (Friday),
and then the first day of the omer count
(Saturday) to be immediately followed by
Yeshua’s resurrection that evening. Yeshua would
have been dead three days and three nights:
Thursday day/night, Friday day/night, and
Saturday day/night.
This chronology could
place Yeshua’s resurrection immediately after
the offering up of the omer (assuming
that the Pharisees would allow for the sheaf
waving to commence on an actual Sabbath, which
was debated; cf. b.Menachot 63, 65, 72).
Some Messianics who follow the Saddusaical
method may have difficulty with seeing how
Yeshua could possibly prophetically fulfill this
typology by not being resurrected on the “day”
of the First Fruits offering, should it have
been offered immediately before His
resurrection. If He was
resurrected after the waving of the sheaf, our
answer to this lies in understanding that
Yeshua’s sacrifice in prophetic fulfillment of
Passover also fulfills the sacrifice in
fulfillment of Yom Kippur—a holiday that
occurs over seven months after Passover. This is
a major theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
it forces the able interpreter to conclude that
prophetic fulfillment in Scripture is often more
“fluidic” than his Western mind is accustomed to
understanding. Hegg observes,
“The parallel between first
fruits and resurrection exists regardless of
which day one calculates the beginning of
counting the omer. The idea that events must
happen simultaneously in order to be seen as
valid fulfillment simply cannot be sustained
from a biblical standpoint. As an example,
Yeshua surely fulfills the picture of Yom Kippur
and the sacrifice made on that day, but the
timing of His death is not remotely close to the
observance of Yom Kippur. The first fruits
themselves, when understood within the overall
festival, point to the fulfillment in Yeshua’s
resurrection, not necessarily that He rose on
the same day that the sheaf was waved. For the
lesson of first fruits is that more is to come:
as the first of the harvest is brought to the
Lord, the hope is that a great abundance is to
follow. This is a parallel to Yeshua’s
resurrection, and as the first fruits from the
dead the point is that many more will follow.
Like barely brought in from the new crop, so
Yeshua is the first to rise from the dead of His
own accord. As such, He guarantees the full
harvest of all who are His. This is the
connection to the first fruits, and it does not
require simultaneous events” (“Counting the
Omer,” p 14).
Advocates of the Saddusaical view
also do not answer the question of how the
Apostles commemorated the resurrection in the
years following, and whether they remembered it
on the day of the week—or the date—on
which it occurred. While many Messianics may be
agreed on when things happened the year of
Yeshua’s atoning sacrifice, how this was
commemorated in the early Messianic community in
later years—and consequently what we should do
today—is a matter of considerable divergence.
It is notable that many in the
Christian Church of the Second-Fourth Centuries
(commonly called the Quartodecimans) followed a
tradition of celebrating Easter three days after
the Jewish Passover, and they saw no problem
with commemorating the resurrection on any
day of the week. Once the Jewish community
set the date for Passover (claiming to follow a
tradition from the Apostle John via Polycarp),
these Christians would then count three days and
that would be their date to celebrate Easter.
However, the Council of Nicea decreed that a
different date, the first Sunday after the
vernal equinox, should be used to commemorate
Easter. Susan E. Richardson’s comments from
Holidays & Holy Days confirm this:
“…In A.D. 325, the Council of
Nicea set aside a special day just to celebrate
the Resurrection. The problem with an official
day was deciding whether or not the Resurrection
should be celebrated on a weekday or…on a
Sunday.
“Many felt that the date should
continue to be based on the timing of the
Resurrection during Passover. Once Jewish
leaders determined the date of Passover each
year, Christian leaders could set the date for
Easter by figuring three days after Passover…
“…As Christianity drew away from
Judaism, some were reluctant to base the
Christian celebration on the Jewish calendar” (p
58).
Ironically, Messianics holding to
a staunch view of a Saddusaical Shavuot—one
that always occurs on a Sunday—have fallen into
following a Church ruling that was designed to
keep Christians away from the “Jewish Passover.”
Furthermore, it may actually detract from
Yeshua’s prophetic fulfillment of Passover.
(Note that the editor’s reasoning against always
commemorating a Sunday Shavuot has
nothing to do with some vendetta against
Christians who attend Church on Sunday, as this
is another issue altogether.) Instead of
counting three days from the 14th of Nisan, the
day of Passover, commemorating Yeshua’s
resurrection on the day after the High Sabbath
of Unleavened Bread—some may have to count as
many as five or six days between a Monday or
Tuesday Passover and then a Sunday First Fruits.
Would it not be better to follow a more accurate
chronology of three days consistent with what
Yeshua told us about His resurrection?
6. Following the Saddusaical
method does not necessarily mean an emphasis on
the resurrection:
Even though advocates of the
Saddusaical determination for Shavuot may
insist that they do not lose focus of Yeshua’s
resurrection—as they count the omer from
Sunday (the supposed day of the week of Yeshua’s
resurrection when it originally took place)—it
should be noted that the theology of the
Sadducees is often not considered. The testimony
of the Gospels and Acts is unanimous on the fact
that the Sadducees did not believe
in any kind of resurrection:
“For the Sadducees say that there
is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit,
but the Pharisees acknowledge them all” (Acts
23:8; cf. Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27;
Acts 23:6).
Also consider that in Acts 4,
immediately following the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit at Shavuot/Pentecost, it was the
chief priests or Sadducees that harassed and
detained the Apostles.
Theologically speaking, if we
were to emphasize the resurrection as a definite
teaching of Scripture—then why would we follow
the halachic ruling of a First Century
Jewish sect that denied the resurrection?
The doctrine of resurrection was Pharisaical.
Unfortunately, many Messianics who insist that
the Saddusaical determination for Shavuot
is proper often fall prey to the long-standing
Christian belief that the Pharisees are the “bad
guys,” not realizing that Yeshua never
criticized them for their theology, but
instead their hypocritical attitudes.
Furthermore, the Pharisaism of the Apostle Paul
is often glossed over. (Consult the editor’s
article “You Want to be a Pharisee” for a
further discussion of this topic.)
Between the two major Jewish
sects in the First Century, following the
Pharisaical (and consequently the traditional,
modern Jewish way) of observing Shavuot
actually affirms the reality of Yeshua’s
resurrection.
7. The Believers in Jerusalem are
seen keeping Shavuot with the majority of
the population, all of whom followed the
Pharisaic method according to history:
The testimony of Acts is clear
that the Apostles observed Shavuot with
the majority of those Jews who had traveled from
afar to attend:
“Now there were Jews living in
Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under
heaven…Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and
residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,
Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt
and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and
visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own
tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God”
(Acts 2:5, 9-11).
Were these Jews assembled
observing Shavuot according to the method
of the Sadducees—or the Pharisees? Aside from
the calendar debates that ensued in First
Century Judaism, it is notable that the majority
of Diaspora Jews were Pharisaical in their
theology—often with their Diaspora synagogues
planted by Pharisees. The historical record
indicates that the Temple priesthood, in spite
of their favoring the Saddusaical view, had to
conform to the majority view and offer of the
sheaf offering on the 16th of Nisan, two days
after Passover. The First Century historian
Josephus attests,
“But
on the second day of unleavened bread, which is
the sixteenth day of the month,
they first partake of the fruits of the earth,
for before that day they do not touch them… They
take a handful of the ears, and dry them, then
beat them small, and purge the barley from the
bran; they then bring one tenth deal to the
altar, to God; and, casting one handful of it
upon the fire, they leave the rest for the use
of the priest; and after this it is that they
may publicly or privately reap their harvest.
They also at this participation of the
firstfruits of the earth, sacrifice a lamb, as a
burnt offering to God” (Antiquities of the
Jews 3.250-251).
The Jewish philosopher Philo also
confirms,
“There is also a festival on the
day of the paschal feast, which succeeds the
first day, and this is named the sheaf, from
what takes place on it; for the sheaf is brought
to the altar as a first fruit both of the
country which the nation has received for its
own, and also of the whole land; so as to be an
offering both for the nation separately, and
also a common one for the whole race of mankind;
and so that the people by it worship the living
God, both for themselves and for all the rest of
mankind, because they have received the fertile
earth for their inheritance; for in the country
there is no barren soil but even all those parts
which appear to be stony and rugged are
surrounded with soft veins of great depth,
which, by reason of their richness, are very
well suited for the production of living things”
(Special Laws 2.162).
The historical record is clear
that the Pharisaic method for beginning the
omer count was followed in the Jerusalem
Temple in the First Century. The Jews who had
come to Jerusalem to observe Shavuot in
Acts—and hence hear the gospel message
proclaimed—followed the Pharisaic lead. Notably,
many of them also probably used the Greek LXX as
their main Scripture, which likewise instructed
them to follow the Pharisaic method.
8. What do you do with the method
of the Essenes?
Even though the exegetical,
theological, and historical evidence favors the
counting of the omer and observance of
Shavuot according to the Pharisaic method,
it is interesting that the method of the First
Century Essenes is often never considered by
Messianics. While the theology of the early
Messianic community had far, far more in common
with the Pharisees than the Sadducees (in fact
no Sadducee is ever recorded as having come to
faith in Yeshua), there are strands of
commonality with the Essenes who gave us the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Essenes interpreted “the day
after the sabbath” in Leviticus 23:11 to
actually be the weekly Sabbath following the
week of Unleavened Bread, not the Sabbath during
the week of Unleavened Bread like the Sadducees.
If we are basing our observance of Shavuot
on theological commonality, while there is more
evidence in favor of following the Pharisaic
method than any other—why is the Essenic method
often not mentioned or even considered? There is
at least limited theological commonality between
the early Messianic Believers and the Essenes—when
compared to no theological commonality with the
Sadducees.
Reaching a Consensus
The debate over whether the
method of counting the omer via the
Sadducees or Pharisees—and which one is
correct—has been debated for over 2,300 years,
and it is doubtful that today’s emerging
Messianic community will reach a solution in the
near future. As you can see, this issue is
probably more complicated than you originally
thought, and time may be the only answer.
While the editor favors the
traditional, Pharisaic determination of
Shavuot, he does not hold any ill feelings
or negativity toward those who hold the
Saddusaical determination. Most who hold to the
Saddusaical view have not examined the
additional factors that play into one’s
examination of this issue, that have a more
significant impact on other, and far more
important aspects of our theology. In the
Messianic community today,
we must have the proper attitude
that allows for some variance and respects
others whether they celebrate Shavuot in
concurrence with or in modification of the
standard Rabbinical calendar.
Some have thought that the First
Century Messianic community did not have uniform
agreement about this issue, and as the Apostle
Paul wrote, “Who are you to judge the servant of
another? To his own master he stands or falls;
and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make
him stand. One person regards one day above
another, another regards every day alike.
Each person must be fully convinced in his own
mind” (Romans 14:4-5). It is entirely possible
that Paul—as a Pharisee—saw this issue as
ultimately being personal and entirely one of
choice. Should we not allow for some variance in
the Messianic community, and encourage tolerance
and understanding? Will we accomplish this if we
throw our fists down on a pulpit and assert that
our view is the only correct one? Advocates of
both positions are guilty of doing this.
For a further examination of this
issue from both the sides, consult the article “The
Beginning and End of the Omer Count”
by Mark Huey (pro-Saddusaical), “Counting
the Omer: An Inquiry Into the Divergent Methods
of the 1st Century Judaisms”
by Tim Hegg (pro-Pharisaical), and “Sadducees,
Pharisees, and the Controversy of Counting the
Omer” by J.K. McKee
(synthesis).
updated 12 March, 2007
One New Man:
What do you think about Messianic Bible teachers
who advocate a belief in Jews and Christians
becoming “one new man”? This seems to be
connected to groups who support Israel, but do
not want Christians to pursue a Torah obedient
lifestyle.
The only Scriptural reference to
“one new man” appears in Ephesians 2:14-15: “For
He Himself is our peace, who made both groups
into one and broke down the barrier of the
dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the
enmity, which is the Law of commandments
contained in ordinances, so that in
Himself He might make the two into one new man,
thus establishing peace.” Those who often
advocate “one new man” teachings believe that
Messianic Jews and Christians today are being
united by acknowledging the other as legitimate
members of Messiah’s Body. However, the same
advocates believe that non-Jewish Believers have
no responsibility to keep the Torah, even though
they may emphasize the richness that the Torah
has for us.
Ephesians 2:14-15 tells us that
Yeshua the Messiah has made Jewish and
non-Jewish people one in Him. The “dividing
wall” spoken of is not the Torah, but what the
Greek calls ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin
(ton
nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin),
literally, “law of commandments in dogma.”
Dogma (dogma)
can be defined as “something that is taught
as an established tenet or statement of belief,
doctrine, dogma” (BDAG, 254)
or “that which seems to one, an opinion,
dogma” (LS, 207). It can relate to
extra-Biblical laws or ordinances that
contradict God’s Biblical law itself. The
“dividing wall” literally manifested itself in
the First Century with a stone wall placed
between the Temple and the Court of the Gentiles
in Jerusalem, including a warning that any
non-Jew entering the Temple complex would be put
to death. This barrier of a dividing wall, while
intending to keep the Temple complex undefiled,
in actuality kept outsiders away from the Temple
which was to be a place of worship for all
nations.
The “one new man” teachings often
fail to consider that the barrier was not the
Torah, because the Torah allows for sojourners
within Israel, but extra-Biblical regulations or
dogmas
which prohibit people from entering the
community of Israel, and thus Israel
accomplishing its Divine mandate of being a
blessing to all.
The “one new man” is Israel, as
Paul writes earlier in Ephesians 2:12 that prior
to their conversion of faith the non-Jewish
Believers were “were at that time separate from
Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers to the covenants of
promise, having no hope and without God in the
world.” But, this is something enacted by the
work of Yeshua, truly making it new.
updated 14 March, 2007
Original
Order, Books of the Bible:
Is it true that the order of the books of the
Bible used today is not the original order?
It is true that the order of the
books of the Bible, both of the Tanach (Old
Testament) and Apostolic Writings (New
Testament), is not the original order that was
employed in ancient times.
The order of the Old Testament
that Protestant Bibles follow today comes from
the Greek Septuagint order, which was probably
arranged by Egyptian Christians in the Second
and Third Centuries C.E. They did not follow the
standard pattern of Law, Prophets, and Writings
that was employed by the Jews at the time of
Yeshua. Yeshua Himself refers to this book
order, telling us, “These are My words which I
spoke to you while I was still with you, that
all things which are written about Me in the Law
of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be
fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). The original book order
of the Tanach that was employed during the time
of Yeshua, and remains to be used by Judaism to
this day is as follows:
Torah (Law)
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Nevi’im (Prophets)
Joshua
Judges
1&2 Samuel
1&2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Ketuvim (Writings)
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1&2 Chronicles
The order of the Apostolic
Scriptures (New Testament) that is used by most
Bibles today is that which was laid out by the
Roman Church in the Third and Fourth Centuries,
originally employed by the Latin Vulgate. The
major difference between this order and the
order that was employed by the Greek Church of
Asia Minor is that it placed the Pauline
Epistles before the General Epistles. Brooke
Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, the
two Nineteenth Century English theologians who
pioneered work in New Testament textual
criticism, placed the books of their critical
edition Greek New Testament in the original
order that was used by the ancients:
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
James
1&2 Peter
1,2,&3 John
Jude
Romans
1&2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1&2 Thessalonians
Hebrews
1&2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Revelation
The only two problems that we
would have with this book order is that we
believe that the Gospels should be placed in the
historical order of them being written. A few
new translations of the New Testament are
placing the Gospels in the order of: Mark,
Matthew, Luke, and John. We believe that this is
more appropriate, as the available historical
evidence does suggest that Mark was written
first, and that Matthew and Luke borrow
extensively from this Gospel.
The second problem we would have
would be with the placing of the Epistle to the
Hebrews among the Pauline Epistles. There is no
conclusive evidence that the Apostle Paul wrote
Hebrews. While this text is Pauline in
character, the writing style is much different
than Paul, and because the authorship of Hebrews
is contested, it is best placed after the
Pauline Epistles, before the Book of Revelation.
The history surrounding the
original book order of the Bible is discussed in
the book Text and Canon of the New Testament
by Caspar René Gregory, and the entry for
“Epistles, Catholic” by Robert L. Webb, in
ABD (2:570).
updated 14 March, 2007 |
