Administror Notice
We pray that all is well for you in your local communities.  The USA's economy is currently receading at 6-8%, in excess of that of the depression in 1931, but we are still not calling it a depression. I wanted to post a note on this not relating to prophecy, but to our own situation. The costs of operating this and other sites over the years have been born primarily out of my personal income with little to no support from the community. Due to my own finances, I am in a situation where I may have to take the sites off line for an extended period. My income provides support for over 20 people, several who are disabled. My ministry to them is in danger of failing as we are 60 days behind in our mortgage. My personal take-home income has been cut this year by nearly $800 per month. My wife lost $400 in hers. While we struggled through last year, barely keeping afloat, this year we are running with $1200 less personal income than last year. Although we have embedded advertising into the sites to produce a revenue stream, the income is amounts to pennies a day. We do not intend to bring the site down permenantly, but may need to shut our servers down for a period of time to save on electricity and cut our commercial internet connection. Please pray that Elohim provides the resources necessary to sustain our home as there are a dozen children and others that will have no home if we lose ours.
Shalom,
Rabbi Netzar ben Yaacov
UNJS, INBD
| A Study: Count to Shavout |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Administrator |
| Wednesday, 02 January 2002 09:34 |
IntroductionShalom all, this is in response to to the request to begin discussions on each of the Feasts. I would like to begin a thread on how one should count the 50 days to shavout. Let us look at YHWH's words concerning these things. Lev 23:9 And the YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, 10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: There seems to be at least two different schools of thought. First, the modern Rabbinical view, which many claim to be the same view held by the Pharisees of our messiah's day, reasons that the "Sabbath" mentioned in Lev 23:11 refers to the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Second view, held today by the modern Karite Jews, and the purported view of the Sadducees of Messiah's day, reasons that the "Sabbath" mentioned is actually the weekly sabbath that falls on or during the passover week. To this very day a division exists between messianic believers over this issue. Some heavily influenced by modern rabbinism continue to accept the rabbinical view. However, today it seems as if there is a majority of messianic followers leaning toward the Saducean concept. This article is intended to look at facts from both sides and allow the reader to determine the correct method for themselves but In order to be completely fair in this approach I must admit that I have come to my own conclusion. I want to share it with you up front in order that you may weigh any bias that I may have toward the issue. After I have carefully reviewed the scriptures I have determined that the Saduceann view is correct, however I readily admit I have struggled with the issue and to this day I am searching for more evidence in order that I may correctly divide the word of truth. Section 1One of the points used to support the Sadducean view of counting the omer from the Day after the Weekly sabbath is rooted in the hebrew word for sabbath. The Hebrew word for sabbath is strongs' hebrew concordance # 7676 shabbath and simply means a period of rest. Another similar term is also used to indicate a period of rest that word is strongs' hebrew concordance # 7677 shabbathown, it is rendered a sabbatism( which simply means period of rest) or special holiday. The special holiday here refers to the commanded festivals of YHWH. As we could easily prove in scripture the latter term shabbathown is most often used to refer to specific sabbaths ie the feasts. This fact is the argument used by the Saducean view. The word in hebrew rendered sabbath in Lev 23:11 is shabbath and not shabbathown. This argument seems acceptable, one can easily argue that had YHWH wanted us to count from the day after the first day of unleavened bread he could have quelled all controversy by using the hebrew word shabbathown. Yet one must question whether this evidence by itself proves without a dough the intent of the word sabbath used here. Which leads us to the modern Rabbinical stance on this subject.While those supporting the Rabbinical view admit that the word shabbath in Lev 23:11 is shabbath and not shabbathown they are quick to show that the feasts are not exclusively referred to as shabbathown. Both sides ready admit that the Day of Atonement is mentioned in scripture as a shabbath which supports the Rabbinical claim. This Author can easily see both sides of the issue here. Clearly both Shabbath and Shabbathown mean " a period of rest" as there priority meaning. Clearly the Day of atonement is a day of rest and also is a high holy day and yet the scriptures refer to this day as simply a shabbath. I feel the reason the Day of Atonement is not rendered shabbathown is because of the nature of the observance itself, one of repentance and inward reflection. The other feast days are days of rejoicing. By this I do not want to indicate that the weekly sabbath is not to be a day of rejoicing, I believe that we should rejoice each weekly sabbath. To me however as the second of the strongs' concordances definition suggests shabbathown can mean " special holiday" this term in my mind points to merriment and may be the reason this word is not used to describe The Day of Atonement. In conclusion I admit that the use of the word shabbath here is not conclusive evidence, however let me add once more that if the rabbinical view is correct YHWH could have quelled all controversy by using the term shabbathown. Just to add a little of my own flavor to the argument I would like to point out that in this specific area of scripture when YHWH declares the First day of Unleavened bread in Lev 23:6-8 neither term shabbath nor shabbathown is used. This is not to say The Feast of Unleavened bread is neither, it is both in my view, however in my learning the scriptures I have found CONTEXT to be everything. This being true the first usage of the term shabbath in Lev ch 23 refers to the weekly sabbath. Of course as I have pointed out the First day of Unleavened Bread in this particular section of scripture neither the word shabbath nor shabbathown is used but clearly could have been. Did YHWH use the term Miqra or as it is translated into english convocation, used to prevent a misunderstanding just like this ? And if YHWH had wanted us to assume the sabbath in Lev 23:11 is linked to The First Day of Unleavened bread would he not have used the same term shabbat ? Section 2Before we begin Part 2 of our discussion concerning the differing views concerning the count of the 50 days to the feast of weeks or shavout I would like to point out that this study is largely in response to an article entitled " Quelling the Controversy of Counting the Feast of Weeks. You may all readily find this article by simply searching the internet using the aforementioned title. I am indebted to the author of this article for setting forth the modern rabbinical view. In order that we are very well learned we must at all times look at the views that diff from our own. This article is very well researched and although I cannot agree with its conclusions I respect the effort very much. The writings of Jewish Historian Josephus are readily used to lend weight to the modern Rabbinical view of the count to Shavout. Josephus is a well respected historian and his high respect is justly earned. In his book 'Antiquities of the Jews' we read. " 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 they do not touch them.... This tidbit of information from Josephus is a direct reference to the wave sheaf offering mentioned in Lev 23:14 14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. This is very significant to our discussion because Josephus in effect states that this wave sheaf was offered on Abib 16 allowing the them to partake of the fruits of the earth, therefore the count to shavout according to Josephus would always begin on Abib 16. What lends more weight to this issue is the fact that Josephus wrote in the 1 century C.E. about 30 years after the messiah walked the earth. Having said all of this what do the words of Josephus actually prove ? Do Josephus's words conclusively prove the intentions of YHWH ? Or rather do Josephus's words represent the majority view of his day ? Clearly the words of any man, be it Josephus or my own, can not be held conclusive, and simply because his views are recorded near the time of our messiah do not indicate the view of the messiah himself. It is easy proved in scripture that Yahshua himself rebuked many of mainstream thought.In conclusion what can we actually gather from the words of Josephus from the above statement ? We can conclude that in the 1 century C.E. the view held by the majority and by Josephus is that the count should begin Abib 16. Frankly, even as highly as I regard Josephus, I can not lend more weight to his words than should be. In all actuality there is ample historical evidence to prove that long before the first century C.E. a debate existed between factions of Judaism as to when the count should begin. Some historians list as many a four differing views. History itself lends support to Josephus's conclusions that in the first century the majority used this method, however the majority view does not lend itself to conclusive evidence. Section 3In the third part in our series on the count of the feast of shavout we shall discuss the differing views of the phrase used in Lev 23:15 "seven sabbaths shall be complete" The Saducean view holds strongly to the view that this phrase means seven complete sabbath cycles should be completed beginning with the first day of the week one could count seven sabbath days then the next day would be the feast of shavout. If one started counting days on the first day of the week and counted every day through seven complete sabbaths one would have counted 49 days the next day being the 50th day would always fall on the first day of the week one would have also counted 7 sabbath days in the process. In order to assess the validly to this claim lets look at the hebrew word translated "Sabbaths" in the above phrase the word again is the hebrew word shabbath the same hebrew word used to describe the weekly sabbath. This author concludes that according to the correct usage of the hebrew word shabbath the Saducean view can be easily supported. This leads us to examine the Rabbinical view. The Rabbinical view states that word shabbath should be understood to mean a period of 7 days and can begin on any day of the week for example according to the Rabbinical view if the first Day of Unleavened Bread happens to fall on the 2nd day of the week one would begin to count from the 3rd day of the week, seven cycles of weeks and the 50th day would always fall on the same day of the week in which the count began in this case the 3rd day of the week. Therefore the Rabbinical view believes that the word sabbath here should actually mean week. If this is the case then we should find other examples were the word shabbath is translated week into the english language, however in the King James version the hebrew word "Shabbath" is NEVER translated week or weeks from the hebrew scriptures . Look for yourselves. Get a Strong's Concordance and look up the words week and weeks and you will never see the hebrew word # 7676 shabbath(Sabbath) used as a reference. In the King James version the only hebrew word translated week or weeks into english is #7620 shabuwa. While it is clearly true that the hebrew terms for sabbath and week are related, there is no evidents to prove the two words are used interchangeably in the hebrew language.In Ex 34:22 we read this:
Here the word rendered weeks is the hebrew # 7620 shabuwa. Clearly this indicated that 7 cycles or weeks of days are to be counted. Also see Deut 16:9
Again the word translated weeks here is the same hebrew word shabuwa. Much importance is applied to these scriptures by those who hold the modern Rabbinical view. The feast in scripture is often referred to as " The feast of Weeks" They quickly point out that the word translated weeks in these verses are not from the hebrew word meaning sabbath therefore they concluded we are to count 7 cycles of days to the 50th day and not 7 weekly sabbaths cycles. Those who hold to the Saducean view acknowledge the fact that 7 weeks are counted however they concluded that since the word shabbath is used in Lev 23:15 and not shabuwa that the count must also include 7 sabbath cycle of days in which each week ends with a weekly sabbath. The only possible method in which 7 weeks and 7 sabbath cycles of days that end with weekly sabbaths occurs if one begins counting on the first day of the week any other method results in 7 cycles of weeks but none of the weeks would end on weekly sabbaths. In conclusion this author holds this truth to be POWERFUL evidence that lends itself to the Saducean view. In the article "Quelling the Controversy of Counting the Feast of Weeks" you will find that the author quotes from the Septuagint Version, a version of the hebrew scriptures translated into greek in about the year 250 B.C.E. The Author Quotes Lev 23:11 and Lev 23:15 I will post both the King James Version of both verses as well as the quote from the Septuagint and we shall compare the two. first Lev 23:11 from the King James 11 ...on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. then Lev 23:11 from the Septuagint Lev 23:11 ...On the morrow of the first day the priest shall lift it up. The words "first day" above refer to the first day of the of the feast of unleavened bread which is a sabbath as we have determined. However where did the authors of the Septuagint get the authority to translate the hebrew word "Shabbath" to the phrase " First Day" ? The Answer is they had no authority what so ever to do so. This translation is clearly reckless and shows the need and desire of those who wish to lend support to a weak hypothesis. One should not add to scripture but should translate the scripture without including ones own bias which is clearly not the case here. The same is true with the next verse Lev 23:15. I will show the King James first. 15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:"shabbath" to weeks and week however in verse 11 the hebrew "shabbath" is rendered "first day" which is correct ? Lets apply this method to see if it makes since can we use the translation First day in the second verse and have it make sense ? Lets try. Lev 23:11 ...on the morrow of the week(weeks) the priest shall lift it up. Can you see how this type of translation is inaccurate ? The Author of the afore mentioned article is also quoted as saying " So at least as far back as 250 B.C.E. it was believed "seven sabbaths" means seven weeks. What does this prove exactly ? It proves that even as far back as 250 B.C.E people misunderstood the scriptures because they failed to harmonize them. And in the cases where accurate translation would confuse there mistaken doctrine they simply changed the meaning to support there mistaken belief. Not much has changed has it ? Later in the article the author attempts to solidify his claim by Quoting Deut 16:9 and stating that the word weeks is the hebrew word "shabuah" and not the hebrew word "shabbat" he admits " Shabuah is never used in reference to the weekly Sabbath however he fails to mention that the hebrew word in Lev 23:11 is SHABBAT and not shabuah he also fails to prove that the word SHABBAT can be translated week apart from its direct meaning of a sabbath day or a sabbath year. The author continues by admitting that SHABBAT is used in reference to sabbath years, I guess he thinks this supports his view ,however he fails to state that like every 7th day a day of weekly rest, every 7th year is a yearly rest in which the fields must lie fallow. In my view this fact seriously defeats his cause. I hope all of you are able to follow this it can be confusing. The jest of it all is this the word SHABBAT can be a reference to a week but only in the context of the sabbath day being the 7th day of the week or in the case of years the word Shabbath can refer to a period of 7 years in which the 7th year is a time of rest for land to lie fallow. To try to take the hebrew word SHABBAT and completely take it out of context and have it mean any period of 7 days or years is making an error in failing to include CONTEXT. Section 4The fourth part in our series to discuss the differing views relating to the count to the feast of weeks brings us to review Joshua 5:10-12. 10 And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.Lets see why all the fuss over two words look at Lev 23:10-11, 14
Here we read that once the Israelites have come into the land of canaan they were neither to eat of bread, parched corn(dried corn, grain is dried to preserve it) , nor green ears(fresh corn) until the wave sheaf offering had been made. Therefore the rabbinates claim that the "old corn" eaten by the Israelites was not from the land of canaan in order to support there view that the wave sheaf was not offered until abib 16. Can this conclusion be gathered from the CONTEXT of the above verses ? The Saducean view states that the " old corn" of Lev 5:12 was stored grain left over from the previous years harvest therefore this was "dried corn" from the land of canaan which is forbidden to be eaten until the wave sheaf had been offered. The Saducean therefore claim the wave sheaf had to have been offered on abib 15 or the actions of the israelites eating left over dried corn from the land of canaan would have been lawless. To be quite honest here the Saducean view wins over big in this area. The CONTEXT certainly agrees with the Saducean view. No where in the context can one assume the "old corn" comes from provisions that were stored up before the crossing of the Jordan. In fact any such provisions would have been quickly used up in the months after the crossing while the battle for the land in sued. The CONTEXT of the verses mentioned entail entering into the land and eating provisions from that land. The word translated "old corn" in these verses is the hebrew strongs # 5669 abuwr and means passed over in the sense of kept over; USED ONLY OF STORED GRAIN-old corn. The Author of "Quelling the controversy over the feast of weeks readily admits this fact and yet continues to attempt to make this Stored grain kept over from the previous years harvest from the desert wonderings when the CONTEXT does not support such AT ALL. The hebrew word abuwr is only used in this one instance therefore to accurately understand its meaning all we have is CONTEXT. The CONTEXT does none other than suggest that the grain eaten by the Israelites was left over stored grain from the previous years harvest from the land of canaan and therefore unlawful to be eaten until the wave sheaf had been offered, leaving very little room to maneuver for the rabbinical view to support an abib 16 sheaf offering. This evident is very damaging for the rabbinical view. Section 5Our 5th part in a series on the proper count to the feast of weeks brings us to objections brought by those who hold the rabbinical view regarding a count from the day after a weekly sabbath when that sabbath happens to fall on the day of passover abib 14. These objections stem from misinterpretation of the scriptures we just studied Joshua 5:10-12. If the those who hold the rabbinical view accurately understood these passages there would be no objections. Clearly the passover in Joshua 5:10-12 had to have fallen on a weekly sabbath, or the wave sheaf could not have been offered and the children of Israel could not have eaten of the "old corn" of the land of Canaan on Abib 15. Therefore in his mercy YHWH leads the way in correct interpretation. Without these few verses in Joshua we could not be sure how to handle this situation, but because YHWH is faithful he has allowed complete understanding. The very first year that the feast of weeks was observed in the land of canaan the weekly sabbath fell on the day of Passover. With this example we conclude that when the weekly sabbath falls on Passover day the wave sheaf is to be harvested that same evening at sunset beginning the first day of unleavened bread. The wave sheaf would then we offered the morning of Abib 15 and the count to the feast of weeks would begin. If the weekly sabbath does not fall on Passover day then the weekly sabbath that falls during the feast of unleavened bread would be used, THEREFORE THE DAY WE BEGIN THE COUNT TO SHAVOUT WILL ALWAYS FALL DURING THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. It is not ness that the sabbath day itself fall within the feast as YHWH has so mercifully shown. Section 6Our 6th part in a series regarding the proper count to the feast of weeks leads us to discuss Yahshua's fulfillment of the wave sheaf offering with his resurrection in the context of his words in Matt 12:40: Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Can we take Yahshua at his word ? Did he mean for us to interpret this verse literally regarding the days and nights of his confinement in the grave or was his statement a figurative gesture. In my view considering the amount of controversy over this matter and Yahshua's role as one who comes to teach us accurate interpretation of torah, I personally must conclude that we may take Yahshua's words as literal. First let me state the obvious Yahshua did not need to give them a sign at all but he did WHY ? Was it to prove to them he was messiah ? In my opinion this is most definitely not the case because of their dought even after his many miracles which was specifically prophesied concerning the messiah and in which he preformed. The only conclusion I can come to is this, he has given us his words concerning his confinement in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights in order that for once and for all he may put and end to controversy concerning the count to the feast of weeks with his very own WORDS.The facts are clear the only way an abib 16 wave sheaf offering lines up with the example given by Yahshua is if he happened to have died on the sixth day of the week and happened to have been risen by the first day of the week. Any other means totally destroys the concept of an Abib 16 sheaf offering. Those who hold to the rabbinical view would have us believe Yahshua's words here are figurative because they know full well that a literal interpretation would destroy their doctrine. There is no possible way to get even parts of 3 days and 3 nights between Fri at the time of his death and his resurrection sometime in the night of the first day of the week. It all boils down to this simple question :
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. Your Brother in Messiah Yahshua, Yahnathan L. White Addendum ASome have requested more information concerning the Rabbinical and Sadducean views of Joshua 5:10-12 concerning the pivitall phrase " Old Corn" Many of you will not have the translation "Old Corn" in your bibles. For example the NKJ version renders this phrase in Joshua 5:11 and 12 as " the produce of the land" which is not a bad translation but a better translation would have been " The Stored Grain of the land" it is interesting that the NKJV renders the hebrew word for parched grain # 7039 qaliy the same as the hebrew word strongs # 5669 abuwr which in my opinion is correct. Stored grain is parched to preserve it, therefore stored grain has been parched. Parched is a word that describes the drying process use to preserve grain. This being true, if the Israelites ate stored grain( parched) from the land of canaan on Abib 15 as the CONTEXT certainly suggests, then it would have been unlawful unless the wave sheaf had been offered. Because it is true the count to shavout always begins from the same day the wave sheaf is offered, this would mean the israelites would have counted from Abib 15 destroying the rabbinical concept of an Abib 16 sheaf offering. We know this is true do to YHWH's faithful words in Lev 23:10-11 and 14.10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 14 And ye shall eat neither bread, NOR PARCHED CORN( stored grain, dried ), nor green ears(fresh grain)until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. Addendum BSome who hold to the rabbinical method of counting to shavout when presented with the evidence of the simple fact that provisions carried over from Jordan would most likely have been consumed during the months during the conquest for the land will readily admit that "most likely" they did eat the stored or left over grain of the land of canaan, however then they maintain that it would have been lawful for them to eat the stored grain before the wave sheaf offering but not from the newly harvested grain which they maintain was not partaken of until abib 16 ,after their supposed wave sheaf offering. They maintain this because they claim " how else would they have been able to eat Unleavened cakes ?" The simple answer to this is the fact that the Israelites did not need grain at all to make unleavened cakes. Manna is bread from heaven and is most definitely unleavened. This Truth WITHOUT DOUBT proves the Saducean method is correct and exposes the fatally flawed Rabbinical method. Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites           |
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, 10 November 2010 09:42 ) |
User Login
Promote at Nazarene.net
Comments