Nazarene

Jewish
Manifesto

Second Edition

by
James Scott Trimm
Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism
Box 471
Hurst, TX 76053
(817) 284-7039
http://www.nazarene.net
[email protected]

2
Copyright © 2002 James Scott Trimm. All rights reserved.

Limited Permission to Copy:

Permission is granted to copy this book
provided that the book is not altered or added
to in any way whatsoever including the contact
information for the Society for the
Advancement of Nazarene Judaism.

Published by

Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism

Box 471
Hurst, TX 76053
(817) 284-7039
http://www.nazarene.net
[email protected]

Second Edition

3
 PREFACE
The purpose of this manifesto is to lay out a systematic biblical and historical basis for
the restoration of Nazarene Judaism as a movement. There is a lot of talk these days
about “getting back to the New Testament Church” but most fail to recognize that the so-
called “New Testament Church” did not have either a New Testament or a Church.

Yeshua did not come to earth to create a new religion, but to be the Messiah of Judaism.
The first believers in Yeshua as Messiah were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes" or in
Hebrew "N'tzarim" thus we read that Paul was a “ringleader of the sect of the
Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).

The "church father" Jerome (4th Cent.) described these Nazarenes as those "...who accept
Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." (Jerome; On. Is.
8:14).

The fourth century "church father" Epiphanius gives a more detailed description:

But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians—

but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews.
They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well,
as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything
exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for
their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both
the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things,
and declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Y'shua the Messiah.
They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law,
the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely
are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from
Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they
have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law—
circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with
Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Goodnews
according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they
still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

In closing let me add that the opinions here-in are my own. They express my own view
of what Nazarene Judaism is and should be. Certainly not everyone will agree with me
on every issue however this should not prevent one from finding the book useful as a
general model for the movement. You will also notice that the cover page clearly reads
“First Edition”. There is no doubt in my mind that as time goes on this initial work will
be modified, expanded and improved. – James S. Trimm November, 2002

4
 But these... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes,"
-Epiphanius; Panarion 29

Chapter 1
What’s in a Name?
You may be surprised to find out that the original Jewish followers of Yeshua were not
known as “Messianic Jews”. As Daniel Juster admits:

No form of Judaism or Christianity… has used the term

“Messianic Judaism” as its appropriate designation.
(Jewish Roots; 1986 edition, p. viii)

The original followers of Yeshua were a sect of Judaism known as “Nazarenes” (as we
read in Acts 24:5 that Paul was a “ringleader of the teaching of the Nazarenes”).
Epiphanius writes of these Nazarenes:

But these... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes,"

-Epiphanius; Panarion 29

The term “Messianic Judaism” was invented in the late 60’s and it is a human invention.
David Stern writes in his book Messianic Jewish Manifesto:

According to Scripture the word “Christian” does not

denote Jewish believers in Yeshua at all. The New
Testament calls them followers of “this way” (Acts 9:2,
22:4) and “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5)… the New Testament
does not call Jewish believers “Christians”. According
to New Testament usage the term “Christian” is reserved
for Gentile believers in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.

Acts 11:19-26 tells how in Antioch some Jewish believers…

did not limit their proclamation of Yeshua as the Messiah
to Jews, as had been the norm previously, but broke new
ground… Many of these Gentiles came to believe… the
other Gentiles in Antioch… coined the word christianoi
(Christians),… Thus the term “Christian” was invented

5
 by Gentiles to describe Gentiles in a Gentile environment.
The New Testament tells us explicitly that “the disciples
were first called Christians in Antioch.” [Acts 11:26]
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 32)

Now it is important here to note that David Stern himself in his Jewish New Testament
and Complete Jewish Bible, translates Acts 11:26 this way:

…it was at Antioch that the talmidim for the first time
were called “Messianic”. (Acts 11:26 JNT)

In his commentary to this passage (Acts 11:26) in his Jewish New Testament
Commentary Stern writes:

“Messianic,” or “Messianics,” Greek Christianoi, which

could be rendered… as in other translations, “Christians.”
…the name “Christianoi” was applied to Gentile believers
by Gentile nonbelievers. The name nonbelieving Jews gave
to Jewish believers was “Natzaratim”… (“Nazarenes”),…

Again in Messianic Jewish Manifesto Stern writes:

“Messianic” comes from the Hebrew mashiach, which means

“anointed.” “Christian” comes from Greek christos, which is
the [Greek] New Testament’s translation of mashiach and
means the same thing. …in the New Testament
the term “Christian,” which appears only three times,
apparently denotes being a Gentile believer in Yeshua,
so that scripturally “Jewish Christian” is a contradiction in terms.
(Emphasis and brackets added)
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 20)

Now we can see from David Stern’s own words above:

1. The terms “Christian” and “Messianic” are alternate translations of the Greek word
“Christianoi” “and mean the same thing”.

2. The term “Christianoi” or “Christian” is used in the scriptures only to denote a gentile
believer in Yeshua, so that scripturally the term “Jewish Christian” is “a contradiction in
terms”.

Therefore we may conclude that the term “Messianic” is used in the scriptures only to
denote a gentile believer in Yeshua, so that scripturally the term “Messianic Jew” is a
contradiction in terms. The logic is inescapable… the term “Messianic Judaism” is
scripturally invalid, it is a human invention and a contradiction in terms.

6
So what were the original Jewish followers of Yeshua called if they were not Messianic
Jews? Stern admits:

The New Testament calls them followers of “this way”

(Acts 9:2, 22:4) and “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5)
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 32)

“Messianic,” or “Messianics,” Greek Christianoi, which

could be rendered… as in other translations, “Christians.”
…the name “Christianoi” was applied to Gentile believers
by Gentile nonbelievers. The name nonbelieving Jews gave
to Jewish believers was “Natzaratim”… (“Nazarenes”),…
(Jewish New Testament Commentary on Acts 11:26; David Stern)

In fact if we quote Stern, but substitute the word “Messianic” for “Christians” (since
Stern admits “they are the same”) we read:

According to Scripture the word “Messianic” does not

denote Jewish believers in Yeshua at all. The New
Testament calls them followers of “this way” (Acts 9:2,
22:4) and “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5)… the New Testament
does not call Jewish believers “Messianic”. According
to New Testament usage the term “Messianic” is reserved
for Gentile believers in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.
(Messianic Manifesto by David Stern p. 32 modified)

So the biblical term for Jewish believers in Messiah is not “Messianic Jews” but
“Nazarene Jews”. We should be seeking a restoration of “Nazarene Judaism” not creating
“Messianic Judaism” which, being “Christian Judaism” (i.e. “Christianized Judaism”) is
a contradiction in terms.

SHOULD NAZARENES DENY BEING “MESSIANIC JEWS”?

Absolutely not! Although the term is scripturally inaccurate, we are Jews who believe in
Messiah. In fact any Jew who believes in the concept of “Messiah” (even if that
“Messiah” is not Yeshua) might reasonably be termed a “Messianic Jew”. So we need
not deny that we are “Messianic Jews” to those who ask.

7
 Chapter 2
History of Nazarene Judaism

John the Baptist and Qumran

To trace the origin of the Nazrenes we must first examine the figure of John (Yochanan)
the Baptist. As the Goodnews according to Mark begins:

The beginning of the goodnews of Yeshua the Messiah,...

John came immersing in the wilderness...
(Mk. 1:1, 4)

As George Howard has pointed out, "...there was a John the Baptist sect that existed from
early times and continued perhaps for centuries."1 Such a sect still exists in Iraq today.
Howard has also noted:

In Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew John the Baptist emerges as a much more

important figure than in Greek Matthew. The Greek Matthew may well represent
a later corrective to the more primitive statements made about John the Baptist in
Hebrew Matthew before the followers of John the Baptist were seen as a threat to
trunkline Christianity.
(ibid).

A careful reading of the Gospels will show that John the Baptist had his own "disciples"
(Jn. 1:35) who continued on as such, apart from the Yeshua movement even after John
and Yeshua had died (Acts 19:1-3). The flavor of John chapter one also indicates that
John did not live alone in the wilderness, but lived with a community of followers near
Bethabara (Jn. 1:28) a town just eight miles from Qumran.

Now one of the most important similarities between John the Baptist and his disciples,
and the Qumran community is quite obviously that of geography. As mentioned, John
and his disciples resided "in the wilderness" near a town just eight miles from Qumran. In
fact the caves in which the scrolls were found are just five miles from the location along
the Jordan at which John was baptizing. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New
Testament use the phrase "in the wilderness" (drawn from Is. 40:3) almost as a proper
noun, to describe this area. One NT passage in particular seemed a mystery until the
discovery of the Scrolls. Luke 1:80 states

...the child [John the Baptist] grew and became strong in spirit,

1
The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text by George Howard; 1987; p. 205; see Acts
18:5-19:7; Justin, Trypho 80; Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1:54:60

8
 and was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel.

What would a child be doing "in the wilderness?" Could John have been raised at the
Qumran community? An apocraphal tradition once circulated in the Church of the East
may offer some insight. The Protevangelion of James, once read in some eastern
churches, records a tradition that at the time of the slaughter of the innocents,

Elizabeth took her son and went up unto the mountains,

and looked around for a place to hide him;
and there was no secret place to be found.
Then she groaned within herself, and said,
O mountain of YHWH, receive the mother with the child.
For Elizabeth could not climb up.
And instantly the mountain was divided and received them.
And there appeared to them an angel (or messenger) of YHWH,
to preserve them." -Protevangelion 16:3-8

Could this text be preserving an ancient tradition that John and his mother were taken in
through an opening in the mountains (a cave) and a "messenger of YHWH" at Qumran
took them in. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that Hugh Schonfield has shown
that there are a number of parallelisms between DuTillet Hebrew Matthew and the
Protevangelion, "which cannot be accidental."2. Moreover Joesphus tells us that the
Essenes commonly raised other peoples children (Josephus; 2:8:3). Thus it would seem
that John the Baptist was raised up in the Qumran community. As a Levite, and
descendant of Zadock, John would have held a prominent place in the Qumran
community, which favored the priesthood heirs. However, John's normal life at Qumran
was interrupted when "the word of G-d came to John... in the wilderness" (Lk. 3:2). In a
rigid community where everyone had a rank and no one spoke out of turn, John's
message may not have been welcome. This would explain why John and his disciples
relocated near nearby Bethabara.

Both Matthew and Mark tell us that John ate locusts (Mt. 3:4; Mk. 1:6). Of course, Lev.
11:20-23 lists these insects as kosher. Now The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that the Qumran
community also made locusts as part of their diet. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls even tell
us how they were to be cooked (Dam. Doc. xii, 11-153).

Both the Qumran community, and John quoted Is. 40:3 as being a prophecy foretelling of
their work (Mt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk. 3:4; Jn 1:23; Manual of Discipline. viii, 12-14; ix, 204).
This verse appears in most New Testament as:

The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

"Prepare the way of YHWH;
make straight in the desert a highway for our G-d."

2
An Old Hebrew Text of Matthew's Gospel by Hugh Schonfield; 1927; p. 25-30, 40
3
The Dead Sea Scrolls; A New Translation by Wise, Abegg and Cook; 1996 p. 70
4
The Dead Sea Scrolls; A New Translation by Wise, Abegg and Cook; 1996 pp. 138 & 140

9
However, the cantor markings in the Masoretic Text give us the understanding:

The voice of one crying "In the wilderness

prepare the way of YHWH;
make straight in the desert a highway for our G-d."

As a result of their use of this verse, both John and the Qumran community referred to
themselves as being "in the wilderness" and both the Qumran community and the early
believers in Yeshua called their movement "the way".

Another strong parallel between John and the Qumran community is that of the
importance given to the practice of water immersion/baptism (Heb: T'vilah). The Torah
requires "washing" for "uncleaness" (Lev. 16-18) and "uncleaness" can result from sin
(Lev. 18:1ff for example.) King David spoke of this practice in the Psalms (Ps. 51:2, 7).
In the Qumran community this practice was given great importance (Man. Disc. iii, 4f; v,
13; Dam. Doc. x, 10-13) and it was certainly regarded as of high priority to John (Mt. 3:6,
11; Mk. 1:4-5; Lk. 3:2-3, 7; Acts 19:3-4). Both believed that water baptism was only
symbolic of a greater cleansing of wickedness performed by the Ruach HaKodesh (Man.
Disc. iv, 12-13).

One final similarity between John and the Qumran community was that both stressed that
the day of fiery judgment was eminently approaching.

Now having discussed the similarities between John the Baptist and the Qumran
Community, let us note the differences. Essenes always wore white (Josephus; 2:8:3) yet
John wore camel's hair (Mt. 3:4). Secondly, the Qumram community only ate food
provided by their community yet John foraged for himself (Mt. 3:4). Finally and most
importantly the Qumran community was not even a little bit evangelical. The Manual of
Discipline specifically commands its adherents to:

bear unremitting hatred towards all men of ill repute...

to leave it to them to pursue wealth and mercenary gain...
truckling to a depot.
(Man. Disc. ix 21-26).

But John called these men of ill repute to "Repent, for the Kingdom of G-d is offered."
(Mt. 3:2). This new teaching must have been the "word of G-d" which John "received in
the wilderness" (Lk. 3:2) since it is later echoed by Yeshua (Mt. 4:17) and Yeshua's
disciples (Mt. 10:7).

As a result of the new light shined on the NT by the Dead Sea Scrolls, we may now
conclude that John the Baptist was raised in the very community which wrote the Dead
Sea Scrolls. That the word of G-d came to John, and he began teaching an evangelical
message of repentance. A message which was unacceptable to the Qumran community.
That message probably caused a schism which resulted in John the Baptist and his

10
disciples relocating to Bethabara, just eight miles from Qumran. This new group became
a John the Baptist sect which has continued to this very day, and which held a close
relationship to the Messianic movement surrounding Yeshua.

Yeshua the Messiah

Yeshua came to be immersed by John in the wilderness at about the age of 30 and was
proclaimed by John to be the "lamb" of Isaiah 53:7 (Jn. 1:29). Certain of John's students
then became students of Yeshua (Jn. 1:35-51). Yeshua then began to proclaim, as John
had proclaimed: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is offered." (Mt. 3:17). Later He
sent his twelve students out with the same proclamation (Mt. 10).

Yeshua, however, differed somewhat from John (Mt. 11:18-19). Whereas John was
primarily of an Essene background, Yeshua's teaching was largely Pharisaic.
Not only was Yeshua's teaching largely Pharisaic, but it largely followed that of the
School of Hillel rather than that of the School of Shamai.

One of the most significant parallels between Yeshua and Hillel is their profound
teaching of Love. Yeshua's teaching of love was a radical departure from the teachings at
Qumran. Now Philo tells us that the Essenes had great "desire to promote brotherly love"
(Philo; The Hypothetica 11:2) this brotherly love seems to have been only to fellow
members of the Yachad (unity). This is reflected in the Damascus Document's use of
Lev. 19:18. In the Torah Leviticus 19:18 reads:

You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of my people, But you
shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am YHWH.

Now the Damascus Document interprets this passage as follows:

As for the passage that says, "Take no vengeance and bear no grudge against your
kinfolk" (Lev. 19:18) any covenant member who brings against his fellow an accusation
not sworn to before witnesses or who makes an accusation in the heat of anger or who
tells it to his elders to bring his fellow into repute, the same is a vengence-taker and a
grudge-bearer….
(Damascus Document 9, 2)

Note that this Qumran interpretation of Lev. 19:19 would limit "neighbor" in Lev. 19:18
to "any covenant member" i.e. a member of the Yachad. In fact the Qumran sect taught:
…bear unremitting hatred towards all men of ill repute… to leave it to them to pursue
wealth and mercenary gain… truckling to a depot.
(Man. Of Disc. Ix, 21-26)

11
By contrast Hillel is quoted as saying:

Be disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and drawing them
near to the Torah.
(m.Avot 1:12)

The Qumran attitude was one of hatred to the sinner. There was no concept of "drawing
them near to the Torah" but rather to "leave it to them to [sin]… truckling to a depot."
Yet Hillel took the opposite approach. Hillel's attitude was to "Love" the men of ill repute
and draw them near to the Torah. This was also Yeshua's approach.
Yeshua taught:

You have heard that it was said "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But
I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate
you, and pray for those who spitefully use you persecute you that you may be sons of
your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends
rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have
you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only,
what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
(Mt. 5:43-47)

Yeshua here begins by quoting the Tenach "Love your neighbor" (Lev. 19:18) but then
gives the Qumran corallary "hate your enemy." Yeshua differs with this "hate your
enemy" teaching in agreement with the love philosophy of Hillel. Apparantly the Qumran
community inferred from "Love your neighbor" (Lev. 19:18) that they should therefore
bear unremitting hatred toward their enemies. To Yeshua (and presumably Hillel) the
issue is the interpretation of "neighbor." In his Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:29-
36) Yeshua argues that we cannot be sure who our "neighbor" is, so in order to make sure
we do not violate Lev. 19:18 we should love everyone.

Another strong parallel between Hillel and Yeshua is that of the so called "Golden Rule."
There is a story in the Talmud in which Hillel gives a summary of the Torah. The Talmud
says:

…it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a
prosolyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot."
Thereupon he repulsed him with the builders cubit which was in his hand. When he went
before Hillel, he said to him "Do not to others what you would not have them do to you:
that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it."
(b.Shab. 31a)

A similar incident occurs in the Gospels:

But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.
Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, "Teacher,
which is the great commandment in the law?" Yeshua said to him, " 'You shall love

12
YHWH your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is
the first and great commandment. "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your
neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."
(Mt. 22:34-40 = Mk. 12:28-31 = Lk. 10:25-37)
Here Yeshua is pressed to summarize the Torah and answers with the Sh'ma (Dt. 6:4-9)
and the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18). This is
remarkably similar to Hillel's answer to the same question. It is important to note that the
Pharisees agreed that Yeshua's answer was correct. Yeshua elswere gives a summary of
the Torah which parallels Hillel's answer even closer:
Whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even to them, for this is the
Torah and the Prophets.
(Mt. 7:12 = Lk. 6:31)

Within Rabbinic literature we have record of over 350 disputes between the School of
Hillel and the School of Shammai. Generally Shammai gave the stricter interpretation,
while Hillels understandings were more relaxed. According to the Zohar (Ra'aya
Meheimna 3:245a) The School of Shammai was based on GEVURAH ("severity") while
the School of Hillel was based on CHESED ("grace"/"mercy"). This is very significant.
In Mark's account of Yeshua's summary of the Torah (Mk. 12:28-33) A "scribe" comes to
question Yeshua. In Matthew's account this "scribe" is identified as a Pharisee (Mt.
22:34-36).

According to Mark's account this Pharisee not only agreed with Yeshua's summary of
Torah and repeated it adding:

…and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and
sacrifices.
(Mt. 12:33b)

It is not unlikely from this context that the Pharisee was quoting a now-lost saying of
Hillel here. In making this statement the Pharisee, who apparently was from the School of
Hillel, was pointing to Hosea 6:6:

For I [YHWH] desire mercy (CHESED), and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of
ELOHIM more than burnt offerings.

This Pharisee seemes to have identified "love your neighbor" of Lev. 19:18 with the
CHESED of Hosea 6:6. Remember the relaxed halachic positions of the School of Hillel
were based on CHESED, it is indeed likely that Hosea 6:6 served as a proof text for many
of their halachic rulings, since this passage assigns a halachic weight to CHESED. We
also find Yeshau using Hosea 6:6 in support of his relaxed halachic rulings regarding the
Shabbat (Mt. 12:7 = Hosea 6:6) hereYeshus argues from Hosea 6:6 that CHESED is of
>greater weight than the sacrifices. Since CHESED out weighs sacrifice, and sacrifice out
weighs Shabbat, then CHESED out weighs Shabbat.

13
It seems that both Yeshua and Hillel emphasised love for all men, taught the "gloden
rule" and had many of their halachic rulings rooted in CHESED ("mercy").

Despite the fact that Yeshua's teachings largely agreed with that of the Pharisaic School
of Hillel, there were occasions where Yeshua's teachings agreed with the School of
Shammai agains the School of Hillel. An important example of this is the issue of divorce
where Yeshua agreed with Shammai against Hillel (Mt. 5:31-32 & m.Gittin 9:10).
There were also occasions when Yeshua's teachings agreed with that of the Essenes
against that of the Pharisees. One example is on the issue of oaths (compare Mt. 5:33-37
& Damascus Document- Geniza A; Col. 15; Lines 1-3).

While Yocahan was essentially an Essene, Yeshua did not apear to live the Essene
lifestyle, as we read in Mt. 11:18-19:

Yochanan came neither eating nor drinking…

The Son of man came eating and drinking…

Nonetheless there are many important similarities between the teachings of Yeshua and
those of the Essenes/Qumran community. Yeshua went out into the wilderness to be
tempted (Mt. 4:1f). Yeshua’s twelve talmidim (students) remind us of the council of
twelve at Qumran (Manual of Discipline 1QS 8:1). Yeshua’s twelve talmidim seemed to
be headed by three (Kefa (Peter), James (Ya’akov) and Yochanan (John) and the twelve
laymen of Qumran were headed by three priests (1QS 8:1).

Josephus, speaking of the Essenes writes:

...and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just
as if it were their own; and they go into such as they never knew before, as if they had
been ever so long acquained with them. For which reason they carry nothing with them
when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for
fear of thieves.
Accordingly there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take
care of strangers, and provide garments and other necessaries for them.
(Josephus; Wars 2:8:4)

This provides interesting cultural context for Yeshua's instruction to his Talmidim:

...Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your moneybelts, nor bag for your
journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for the worker is worthy of his food.
Now whatever city or town you enter, enquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you
go out.
(Mt. 10:9-11)

Also note that Yeshua and his Talmidim traveled armed (Lk. 22:38) Were Yeshua and his
Talmidim circulating to some extent within the Essene community network?

14
Many of Yeshua’s halachic teachings parallel those of the Qumran community. Yeshua
opposed the taking of oaths (Mt. 5:34) as did the Essenes (Josephus; Wars 2:8:6; Manual
of Discipline 1QS 15:1-3). Y'shua's use of Gen. 1:27 to prove his halachic position on
divorce is paralleled in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

...they are caught in two traps: fornication, by taking two wives in their lifetimes although
the principle of creation is: "male and female He created them."
(Dam. Doc. Col. 4 line 20 through Col. 5 line 1)

Yeshua’s halachah on the issue of "CORBAN" (an offering) being used as an excuse to
violate Torah in Matthew 15:1-8 parallels a similar ruling at Qumran (Damascus
Document 16:13).

Matthew records a very interesting event involving Yeshua and the Temple Tax:
...they that received tribute came to Kefa (Peter) , and said, Does not your master pay
tribute? He said, Yes. And when he came into the house Yeshua prevented him, saying,
what do you think, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of
their own children, or of strangers? Kefa (Peter) said to him, of strangers. Yeshua said to
him, Then the children are free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go you to
the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up; and when you have
opened his mouth, you shall find a piece of money: that take, and give to them for me and
you.
(Mt. 17:24-27)

Here Kefa indicates the Yeshua pays the Temple tax, but Yeshua indicates that neither
himself, nor Kefa nor aparantly any of his followers owe the Temple tax. Yeshua does
not seem to argue that he does not owe such a tax because he is the Messiah, for he
extends the same privilage to Kefa and aparantly all of his followers. Is Yeshua teaching
against Torah? The answer is no. The Torah does command that a Temple tax must be
payed by every male 20 and older (Ex. 30:11-16) but is ambiguos as to how often it must
be payed. The Pharisaic Halachah (and aparenetly the Sadducean Halachah) had the tax
being paid annually during the month of Adar (m.Shek. 1:1, 3) However the Qumran
community had a different Halachah. They taught:

...concerning the Ransom: the money of the valuation which a man gives as ransom for
his life shall be half a shekel in accordance with the shekel of the sanctuary. He shall give
it only once in his life.
(4Q159 Frag 1; Col. 2; lines 6-7)

Now if Yeshua held to this Essene Halachah then He would not believe that he or his
followers owed the tax, if they had already paid it at least once in their lifetime. This
would explain why Kefa said that Yeshua pays the tax, while Yeshua claims that he and
his followers don't owe the tax.

Like the Qumran community Yeshua speaks allegorically of "Living Water" coming
from a well. . In John chapter four "living water" is symboliclly drawn from Jacob's well,

15
and brings salvation and eternal life. In the Manual of Discipline "living water" is the
teachings of the community and is symbolicly drawn from the well of Num. 21:18 which
is identified by the Scroll to be symbolic of the Law. Thus we may conclude that in Jn. 4
Yeshua draws upon a Midrash (allegorical interpretation) which existed in his time (Jn.
4:10 & Dam. Doc. VI, 4-5; VII, 9-VIII, 21).

Yeshua’s use of the Passover Sader as a sort of Messianic banquet certainly reminds us of
the Messianic banquet of the Qumran Essenes (Josephus; Wars 2:8:5; Manual of
Discipline 6:3-6 & 1QS Sa. 2, 17-20). The Qumran material even reads "the Messiah of
Israel shall reach for the bread" (1QSa. 2:20-21) a phase which certainly reminds us of
the "Last Supper" account of the New Testament. There were however some very
important point with which Yeshua greatly disagreed with the Essenes. The Essenes held
the strictest rules of resting on the Sabbath than any of the Jews (Josephus; Wars 2:8:9)
The Qumran community, with its stricter Halacha likely did not permit healing on the
Shabbat at all. They did not allow carrying medicine on the Shabbat nor did they allow
using a tool to save a life on the Shabbat (Dam. Document col. 10; lines 14-18). Now
Y'shua's Halacha on the issue seems to have been less strict. There is conflict between
Yeshua and Qumran on the plucking and rubbing of wheat in Mt. 12:1=Lk. 6:1=Mk.
2:23. The activity described is clearly permitted by the Torah in general, though not
necessarily on the Shabbat (Duet. 23:26 (23:25 in non-Jewish editions)). This was
forbidden by Qumran halacha which stated:

"A man may not go about in the field to do his desired activity on the Sabbath... A man
may not eat anything on the Sabbath except food already prepared."
(Dam. Doc. Col. 10; lines 20-22).

Also Yeshua’s teaching that it is permitted to rescue an animal from a pit. (Mt. 12:11 and
Lk. 14:3-6) is in direct conflict with Qumran Halacha.(Dam. Doc. col. 10; lines 14-18).
Finally the Qumran community had a intense hated for outsiders. The Manual of
Discipline even states the community members should "bear unremitting hatred towards
all men of ill repute…" (1QS 11:21f). This hatered greatly contrsts with such teachings of
Yeshua as the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

James the Just

Another important figure to the ancient Nazarenes was that of James the Just (Ya'akov
HaTzadik). After the death of Yeshua, the Nazarenes recognized his brother James the
Just as legal heir to the throne of David. For this reason the Nazarenes recognized James
the Just as the Nasi of their Nazarene Sanhedrin (Acts 15). It is likely that James the Just
had students of his own, and that his movement merged into the Yeshua movement after
Yeshua's death. This is evident because there is scarcely any mention of James the Just
prior to Yeshua's death, however very early on he became leader of the Nazarene
movement (Acts12:17; 15:13-29; 21:18-26 & Gal. 1:19; Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 2:23).
According to the Goodnews of Thomas, it was Yeshua himself who named James the
Just as their new leader:

16
 The students said to Yeshua: "We know you will leave us.
Who is going to be our leader then?" Yeshua said to them:
"No matter where you reside, you are to go to James the Just,
for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
(Goodnews of Thomas saying 12)

The Goodnews according to the Hebrews relates the following regarding James the Just:

Now the L-rd, when he had given the linen cloth

to the servant of the priest, went to James
and appeared to him (for James had sworn that
he would not eat bread from that hour wherein
he had drunk the L-rd's cup until he should see
him rise again from among them that sleep),
and again after a little, "Bring you," said the L-rd,
a table and bread", and immediately it is added",
"He took bread and blessed and broke and gave it
to James the Just and said to him:
"My brother, eat your bread, for the son of Man
is risen from among them that sleep."
(Quoted by Jerome; Of Illustrius Men 2)

This is likely the event Paul refers to in 1Cor. 15:7 and it likely had a profound effect
upon James. The Nazarene historian Hegesippus (c. 180 C.E.) is quoted by Eusebius (4th
century) as describing James the Just this way:

But James, the brother of the L-rd, who,

as there were many of his name, was surnamed the Just
by all, from the days of our L-rd until now,
received the government of the assembly with the emissaries.
This emissary was consecrated from his mother's womb.
He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors,
and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head,
he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath.
He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary.
He never wore woolen, but linen garments.
He was in the habit of entering the Temple alone,
and was often found upon his bent knees,
and interceding for forgiveness of the people;
so that his knees became as hard as camel's.
in consequence of his habitual supplication
and kneeling before G-d. And indeed, on account
of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just,
and Oblias (or Tzadik and Ozleam) which signifies
justice and protection of the people; as the prophets

17
 declare concerning him.
(Hegesippus in the fifth book of his [lost] commentaries,
quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 2:23)

James the Just was very popular with the Jewish community in general. Under his
influence the Nazarene movement grew until his death in 63 C.E, as Hegesippus goes on
to say:

Some of the seven sects, therefore, of the people,

mentioned by me above in my commentaries, asked him
what was the door to Yeshua? and he answered:
"That he was the Saviour." From which, some believed
that Yeshua is the Messiah. But the aforementioned heresies
did not believe either a resurrection, or that he was coming
to give to every one according to his works; as many however,
as did believe, did so on account of James. As there were many
therefore of the rulers that believed, there arose a tumult
among the Jews, Scribes and Pharisees, saying that there was danger,
that the people would now expect Yeshua as the Messiah.
They came therefore together, and said to James:
"We entreat you, restrain the people, who are led astray after Yeshua,
as if he were the Messiah. We entreat you to persuade all that are coming
to the feast of the Passover rightly concerning Yeshua;
for we all have confidence in you. For we and all the people hear
the testimony that you are just, and you respect not persons.
Persuade therefore the people not to be led astray by Yeshua,
for we and all the people have great confidence in you.
Stand therefore upon a wing of the Temple, that you may be conspicuous on high,
and your words may be easily heard by all the people; for all the tribes have come
together on account of the Passover, with some of the Gentiles also. The aforesaid
Scribes and Pharisees, therefore, placed James upon a wing of the Temple, and
cried out to him: "Oh you just man, whom we ought all to believe, since the
people are led astray after Yeshua that was crucified, declare to us what is the
door to Yeshua that was crucified." And he answered with a loud voice, "Why do
you ask me respecting Yeshua the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens,
on the right hand of Great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of
heaven." (Ps. 110:1 & Dan. 7:13). And as many were confirmed, and glorified in
this testimony of James, and said, Hosanna to the son of David, these same priests
ans Pharisees said to one another: "We have done badly in affording such
testimony to Yeshua, but let us go up and cast him down, that they may dread to
believe in him." And they cried out: "Oh, oh, the Just himself is deceived," and
they fulfilled that which is written in Isaiah: Let us take away the just, because
he is offensive to us; wherefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings. (Is.
3:10) Going up therefore, they cast down the just man, saying to one another:
"Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him, as he did not die
immediately when cast down; but turning round, he knelt down saying, "I entreat

18
 you, O L-rd G-d and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Thus
they were stoning him, when one of the priests of the sons of Recheb, a son of the
Rechabites, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out saying: "Cease, what are
you doing? Justus is praying for you." And one of them, a fuller, beat out the
brains of Justus with the club that he used to beat out clothes. Thus he suffered
martyrdom, and they buried him on the spot where his tombstone is still
remaining, by the Temple. He became a faithful witness, both to the Jews and the
Greeks, that Yeshua is the Messiah. Immediately after this, Vespian invaded and
took Judea.
(Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 2:23)

Josephus also records the death of James the Just this way:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road;
so he [Ananus the High Priest] assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges,
and brought before them the brother of Yeshua, who was called Messiah,
whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions;]
and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law,
he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable
of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws,
they disliked what was done.
(Josephus; Antiquities 20:9:1)

According to Eusebius, his version of Josephus's works contained the following in

relation to the destruction of Jeusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E.:

These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just,

who was brother of him that is called the Messiah,
and whom the Jews had slain, not withstanding his pre-eminant justice.
(Josephus quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 2:23)

There are also many parallels between Ya’akov HaTzadik (James the Just) and the
Essenes of Qumran. The title "HaTzadik" ("the righeous"; or "the Just") reminds us of the
title of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran scrolls. Ya’akov, like Yeshua
discouraged swearing (James 5:12) as did the Essenes (Essenes (Josephus; Wars 2:8:6;
Manual of Discipline 1QS 15:1-3). Ya’akov’s admonition to be "doers" of the word
(James 2:21-27) reminds us of the very term "Essene" which may come from the Hebrew
"OSSIM" ("doers" [of the Torah]). Finally Ya’akov’s discourse on the use of the toungue
(James 3:1-12) closely parallels the Manual of Discipline (Col. 10:21-11:2).

Paul the Pharisee

Another important figure to the early Nazarenes was Paul. Paul was a ringleader of the
Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). Paul was of Pharisaic background (Acts. 23:6) and had been a
student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) the grandson of Hillel. Paul was at first an enemy of the

19
Nazarene movement, however after his vision on the road to Damascus, he became a
ringleader of the movement. Kefa tells us that Paul's writings are "hard to understand"
(2Pt. 3:15-16). Paul knew that his teachings were being twisted and that he was
misunderstood as teaching against the Torah (Rom. 3:8; 6:1-2, 15). Paul went to great
lengths to prove that this was not true (Acts 21:20-26).

Nonetheless there are several parallels between Paul and Qumran. Paul’s conversion on
the road to Damscus reminds us of the Qumran community who made a New Covenant at
Damascus. It is also of interest that Paul spent years in Damascus before beginning his
ministry (Gal. 1:16-17). There are several Parallels between Paul’s teachings and those
at Qumran. Paul’s teaching often involved what he called "mysteries" (Eph. 3:3-4; Col.
1:12 etc.) as did the Qumran Scrolls (Hab. Commentary 1QpHab 7, 4-5; Man. Of Disc.
40, 5; Hodayot 7, 26). Paul often used metaphores of light and darkness (2Cor. 6:14;
Rom. 13:12) as the Qumran scrolls do ( Damascus Document 4, 3). Paul allegorically
compared the Nazarene community to the Temple (Eph. 2:20-22) while the Manual of
Discipline makes the same comparison of the Temple with the Qumran society (1Qs 8:5-
9). Paul’s use of the phrases "works of darkness" and "works of light" (Eph. 4:17; 5:14)
are paralleled at qumran (Dam. Doc. 4:3). Both Paul and the Scrolls refer to men as
"vessels of clay" (2Cor. 4:7 & Hodayot 11, 3). Paul’s concept of "partakers of the
inheritance of the Holy Ones" (Col. 1:12) is similar to the phrase "heirs in the legacy of
the Holy Ones" (1Qs 11:7-8) found in the Manual of Discipline. Paul’s terms "Belial"
(2Cor. 6:14) and "Angel of Satan" (2Cor. 12:7) also appear in the scrolls ("Belial" in 1Qs
4, 13 and "Angel of Satan" in 1Qs 16:4). However Paul also contrasts Qumran theology.
His commentary on Hab. 2:4 (in Gal. 3:11, Rom. 1:17 & Heb. 10:37-38 see my Hebrews
Commentary on this passage) seems to be a rebuttal to that of the Qumran community
(1QpHab 8, 1-3). In fact Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews seems aimed at those with an
Essene background. (See SEMITIC LIGHT ON HEBREWS by James Trimm).

The Dynasty

The leaders of the Nazarene movement were a sort of “dynasty” sorrounding Yeshua’s
family. There were however good reasons for this. In his discussions of the Nazarenes
Epiphanius mentions that Messiah Yeshua was heir to King David’s throne as King
David’s seed:

David’s throne continued to exist until Messiah himself…

The royal dignity coming from our Lord Yeshua the Messiah…
From the fact that he is of King’ David’s seed…
Ya’akov having been ordained at once the first Bishop (Nasi)
he who is called brother of the Lord and emissary, Yosef’s
son by nature… he is David’s stock through being Yosef’s son…

Following Ya’akov’s death in 63 C.E. the Nazarenes chose his relative Shim’on as his
successor as Eusebius writes:

20
 After the martyrdom of Ya’akov… those of the emissaries and talmidim
of our Lord, that were yet surviving, came together from all parts with
those that were related to our Lord according to the flesh. For the greater
part of them were yet living. These consulted together, to determine
whom it was proper to pronounce worthy of being the successor of Ya’akov.
They all unanimously declared Shim’on the son of Cleophas…
They say he was the cousin of our Saviour, for Hegesippus asserts that
Cleophas was the brother of Yosef.
(Eccl. Hist. 3:11)

It should be noted that the Ketuvim Netzarim mentions a Shim’on who was the SON of
Yosef and BROTHER of Ya’akov. It is possible that THIS was the Shim’on who
succeeded Ya’akov as heir to the throne. At any rate the second Nasi, Shim’on was also
a Yeshua’s relative and it seems that the office of Nasi among the ancient Nazarenes was
passed along the “dynasty” of the heirs to King David’s throne. Shim’on served as Nasi
until 98 C.E. During his time in office Rome became particularly concerned that heirs of
King David including grandchildren of Yeshua’s brother Y’hudah might still exist.
Vespian had earlier attempted to wipe out any such heirs. In 94 CE the Emporer
Evocatus had the two son’s of Yeshua’s brother Y’hudah brought before him. They
confessed to being David’s heirs but upon examination the emporer found that they had
only a small amount of money between the two of them and that they had calluses from
farming a mere thirty-nine acres which they farmed to suppor their family and pay their
taxes. When asked about Messiah’s Kingdom they indicted that it would only appear at
the end of the world. The emporer dismissed them as “simpletons” (Eccl. Hist. 3:20). It
is likely that “Justus” who succeeded Shim’on in 110 C.E. was one of these two sons of
Y’hudah (Eccl. Hist. 3:35).

This dynasty of the heirs to David’s throne extended beyond Jerusalem and had an
outpost in the Parthen Empire, outside of the power of Rome. The overseer of the
assembly at Babylon from 90-107 C.E. was Adon Abris who was said to be a relative of
Miriam the mother of Yeshua. He was said to have been elected at Jerusalem and sent to
serve as overseer in Babylon. He was succeeded in Babylon by Adon Avraham who
served from 130-152 C.E. and was said to be a relative of Ya’akov HaTzadik (James the
Just). Also another overseer of the assembly at Babylon was a certain Adon Ya’akov
who served from 172-190 and was said to be a relative of Yosef the step-father of
Yeshua. He also had been sent from Jerusalem to serve as overseer of the assembly at
Babylon.

The Nazarenes and Essenes

Yeshua’s ministry got started when he visited Yochanan’s community in the wilderness.
It was here that Yochanan decalred him to be the Messiah and it was here that he first met
the first of his talmidim (disciples/students) Kefa (Peter), Andrew and an unnamed
student whom most identify as Yochanan (John) the Talmid (Yochanon tends to avoid

21
mentioning himself by name in his Gospel). These men were likely of an Essene
background as Yochanan the imnmerser had been (John 1).

Yeshua’s followers had much in common with the Essenes. Both were called "The Way"
(Acts 9:2 & 1QS 9,18) and "B’nai Or" (Sons of Light) (Lk. 16:8; Jn. 12:36; Eph. 5:8;
1Thes. 5:5; Man. Of Disc. 1,9; 2, 24; 1QM). Like the Essenes they shared all things in
common (Acts 2:44-45; Josephus; Ant. 18:1:5; Wars 2:8:3) and lieing about such assets
was regarded as a great sin (Acts 5:1-10). Although further study is needed, there may be
some good connections between the Qumran hierachy and that of the Nazarenes. Both
groups seemed to have made some use of the Book of Enoch (1Enoch 1:9 is quoted in
Jude 1:14-15; seven fragmentary copies of Enoch were found at Qumran). Like the
Qumran community, the Nazarenes also seem to have used Hebrew manuscripts of Tanak
books which agreed in places with the text behind the Septuagint. The Nazarene belief in
two comings of the Messiah is similar to the Qumran belief in two Messiahs. The
Qumran community believed in a priestly Messiah who was a Melchizadek figure whom
they termed EL, ELOHIM and YHWH (11Q13), a figure they believed was prophecied
of in such passages as Dan. 9:24-27; Is. 52 (and presumably 53) and Is. 61:1. In like
manner the Nazarenes saw their Messiah Yeshua as a Melchizadek figure (Hebrews 7)
who fulfilled the very same prophecies.

What do the similarities mean? First of all these many similarities place both the
Nazarenes and the New Testament firmly in the context of first century Judaism. These
similarities also make it apparent that the Essenes were likely forerunners of the
Nazarenes. This however should not subtract from the Pharisaic roots which are also
apparent among the Nazarenes (which I will soon cover in another companion article).
By recognizing that the Essenes were our forerunners we may now move forward in
greater light. Knowing where we came from helps us to move forward with accuracy in
reconstructing the Nazarene movement. Moreover understanding the Essene element in
the sayings of Yeshua (and the rest of the New Testament) will help us to understand
them better. Finally recognizing the Essene factor in Nazarene halachah will aid us in
understanding the nature of Nazarene Halachah and Halachic authority and how it relates
to that of Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees as well as modern Rabbinic Judaism (which
descends from the Pharisees).

I quote from the Introduction to THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS; A New Translation; by
Wise, Abegg and Cook:

For Jews the Qumran texts say, "Our family was larger than you knew."
The watchword is diversity. Modern [Rabbinic] Judaism comes from
Pharisaism, but in the first two centuries B.C.E. and C.E. there were also
ther kinds of Judaism, and it was not obvious that the Pharisees would
be the ones still standing at the end of the day. Understanding the world
of the first century C.E. now means understanding the fact of diversity,
and the scrolls have helped cultivate a sense of the historical complexity
of the matrix of Judaism and early Christianity. The scrolls teach, indirectly,
a message the scroll writers themselves would have repudiated; that is,

22
 that there are different ways of being authentically Jewish. Any effort to
"reclaim the scrolls for Judaism" must acknowledge that truth.
(THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS; A New Translation;
by Wise, Abegg and Cook; p. 34)

70 C.E. The Coalition Divides

70 C.E. was a very important year to the Nazarenes. In this year the Romans laid seige to
Jerusalem and after five months, invaded the city. This event had many profound effects
on the Nazarenes.

When the city was brought under siege, the Nazarenes remembered the words of Yeshua:

And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,

then know that its desolation is near.
Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains...
- Luke 21:20-21a

The Nazarenes heeded these words and fled to Pella, most likely dwelling in the caves of
the wilderness which are outside of Pella.

The Historian/”Church Father” Eusebius records the event this way:

The whole body, however, of the Assembly at Jerusalem,

having been commanded by a divine revelation, given
to men of approved piety there before the war, removed
from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan,
called Pella. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:5)

It is likely that the Pharisees and other Jews resented the Nazarene flight to Pella as an act
of cowardice.

The flight to Pella itself also had a profound effect on the Nazarenes. A great deal of
confusion resulted and the coalition fell apart. It was at Pella that the Ebionites first
emerged as a separate sect. The “Church Father” Epiphanius records this event saying:

Their sect [the Ebionites] began after the capture of Jerusalem.

For when all those who believed in Messiah settled at that time
for the most part in Peraea, at a city called Pella belonging to
the Decapolis… then they moved there and stayed and that provided
an opportunity for Ebion. He took up residence in a village called
Cocabe … from which he began his… teaching.
(Ephiphanius; Panarion; 30:2:7-8)

23
73 C.E. The Nazarenes Build a Synagogue on Mount Zion

In 73 C.E. , after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. the Nazarenes returned to

Jerusalem. Unlike Gentile Christians who belonged to an outlaw religion, the Nazarenes
were simply Jews who believed Yeshua had been the Messiah of Judaism. Since they
were simply a sect of Judaism and Judaism was a recognized and protected religion under
Roman Law, they were permitted to take stones from the Temple to Mt. Zion and build a
Nazarene Synagogue there. It is especially significant that certain Greek manuscripts of
Matthew contain marginal notes from an alternate Jewish version. This alternate Jewish
version is called the “Judaikon” (Jewish) and is described as being a standard copy on
Zion the Holy Mount5. This ancient Nazarene Synagogue still stands and was
incorporated into the structure now wrongly called “King David’s Tomb.”6

90 C.E. Cast out of the Synagogues

In 90 C.E. Samuel the Lesser was commissioned to add what came to be called the Birkat
haMinim to the Eighteen Benedictions of the Amidah. The Talmud records the event this
way:

Our Rabbis taught: Simeon ha-Pakuli arranged the eighteen

benedictions in order before Rabban Gamaliel in Jabneh.
Said Rabban Gamaliel to the Sages: "Can any one among you
frame a benediction relating to the Minim?" Samuel the Lesser
arose and composed it. (b.Berakot 29a)

The Birkat haMinim as it appears today reads:

And for slanderers let there be no hope,

and let all wickedness perish as in a moment;
let all thine enemies be speedily cut off,
and the dominion of arrogance do you uproot and crush,
cast down and humble speedily in our days.
Blessed are you, O L-rd, who breakest the enemies
and humbles the arrogant.

However an old copy of the Birkat haMinim found at the Cairo Genizah reads:

For the renegades let there be no hope,

and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days,
and the Nazarenes and the Minim perish as in a moment
and be blotted out from the book of life

5
All of these alternate readings are given in the footnotes of the Hebraic Roots Version NT and are
discussed in the HRV Introduction).
6
See Biblical Archaeology Review; May/June 1990 “Church of the Apostles Found on Mount Zion” by
Bargil Pixner

24
 and with the righteous may they not be inscribed.
Blessed are you, O L-rd, who humbles the arrogant.

This benediction was in the form of a curse on the Nazarenes which would have the
effect of casting them out of the Pharisaic synagogues (see Jn. 16:2) since Nazarenes who
attended would be expected to recite a curse upon themselves. As Epiphanius records in
the fourth century:

Not only do Jewish people have a hatred of them;

they even stand up at dawn, at midday, and toward evening,
three times a day when they recite their prayers in the synagogues,
and curse and anathemize them. Three times a day they say,
"G-d curse the Nazarenes." For they harbor an extra grudge
against them, if you please, because despite their Jewishness,
they proclaim that Yeshua is Messiah...
(Epiphanius Panarion 29)

132 C.E. The Bar Kokhba Revolt

In 132 a second Jewish revolt against Rome began. The Emporer Hadrian banned
circumcision. In reaction the Jews, Nazarenes and Pharisees alike, took up arms. During
the revolt Akiva, a leading Pharisee Rabbi at the time, decaled the leading Jewish general
known as Bar Kosiba to be the Messiah. Bar Kosiba was renamed Bar Kochba (son of the
star) and was declared the Messiah based on Num. 24:17. The Nazarenes could not
accept Bar Kokhba as the Messiah and so they left the army. From this time forward
Nazarenes were labled "meshumed" (traitor). Though the Pharisees later admitted Bar
Kokhba was not the Messiah, their resentment toward the Nazarenes for refusing to
follow him continued.

After the Romans defeated the Jews around 135 C.E. Y'huda the last of recorded
Nazarene Nasi was exiled with the rest of the Jews from Jerusalem. A Gentile Christian
named Markus was made Bishop of Jerusalem in his stead.

The Assimilation

By the fourth century the Nazarenes had communities in Beorea near Colesyria, in the
Decapolis near Pella, and at Bashanitis at the place called Kokhba. (Epiphanius; Pan. 29).
However, the Nazarenes by this time were a small sect which Epiphanius described as
"small," "like an insect." (ibid)
According to a tradition preserved by the Assyrian Christians known as Nestorians, these
Nazarenes escaped the Roman empire into the Parthian Empire to its east. Here they
either assimilated into the Nestorian Church of the East, finding fellowship with there
fellow Semite Assyrians, or they were wiped out by the rise of Islam.

25
 …false teachers, who, seeing that none
of the apostles any longer survived,
at length attempted with bare and uplifted
head to oppose the preaching of the truth…
- Hegesippus the Nazarene c. 185 CE

Chapter 3
The Apostasy and Restoration

Now in 2Thes. we read about a coming "apostasy":

3. Do not let anyone deceive you in any way,

because [it will not come] except
an apostasy should come first
and the son of man of Torah-less-ness be revealed,
the son of destruction ,
(2Thes. 2:3)

The scriptures abound with prophecies about this great apostasy.

We read in the Tanak:

11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord YHWH,

that I will send a famine in the land,
not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water,
but of hearing the words of the YHWH:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea,
and from the north even to the east, they
shall run to and fro to seek the word of YHWH,
and shall not find it.
(Amos 8:11-12)

Now just what is "The Word of YHWH"? In Isaiah we read:

...For the Torah will go out from Zion;

and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem.
(Isaiah 2:3)

Thus the "Word of YHWH" would seem to be the Torah.

26
Micah writes:

5 Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets

that make my people err, that bite with their teeth,
and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths,
they even prepare war against him.
6 Therefore night shall be unto you,
that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you,
that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the
prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.
7 Then shall the seers be ashamed,
and the diviners confounded:
yea, they shall all cover their lips;
for there is no answer of God....
11 The heads thereof judge for reward,
and the priests thereof teach for hire,
and the prophets thereof divine for money:
yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say,
Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us.
(Micah 3:5-7, 11)

And Isaiah says:

1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty,

and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down,
and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest;
as with the servant, so with his master;
as with the maid, so with her mistress;
as with the buyer, so with the seller;
as with the lender, so with the borrower;
as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.
3 The land shall be utterly emptied,
and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word.
4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away,
the world languisheth and fadeth away,
the haughty people of the earth do languish.
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof;
because they have transgressed the Torahs,
changed the ordinance,
broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth,
and they that dwell therein are desolate:
therefore the inhabitants of the earth
are burned, and few men left.
(Is. 24:1-6)

27
The authors of the Ketuvim Netzarim also refer to this great apostasy:

11 And many false prophets will arise,

and will lead many astray.
12 And because apostasy will abound,
the love of many will wax cold.
(Mt. 24:11-12 DuTillet Hebrew text)

Do not let anyone deceive you in any way,

because [it will not come] except
an apostasy should come first
and the son of man of Torah-less-ness be revealed,
the son of destruction ,
(2Thes. 2:3)

Now the spirit plainly says that in the last times

some men shall depart from the faith
and shall go after deceiving spirits
and after teachings of shadim,
Those who deceive by false appearance
and are speaking a lie,
and are seared in their conscience,
(1Timothy 4:1-2)

What does it mean "depart from the faith"? There is only one true faith (Eph. 4:5) which
was once and for all delivered (Jude 1:3). But that faith was the faith of Abraham Isaac
and Jacob ( Rom. 4 ) not Christianity. In fact that faith is inseparable from Torah:

Remove the false way from me,

and graciously grant me your Torah.
I have chosen the way of faith;
I have placed your ordinances before me.
(Psalm 119:29-30)

Also what does Paul mean by "decieving spirits...who deceive...speaking a lie"?

Remember the Torah is truth (Ps. 119:142, 151) Now if the Torah is truth, then what is
HaSatan's lie? His lie is that there is not a Torah, that the Torah has been done away
with.

Now that we know what these terms mean lets look again at 1Tim. 4:1-2:

Now the spirit plainly says that in the last times

some men shall depart from the faith
and shall go after deceiving spirits
and after teachings of shadim,
Those who deceive by false appearance

28
 and are speaking a lie,
and are seared in their conscience,
(1Timothy 4:1-2)

Now we can see that 1Timothy 4:1-2 refers to a departure from the faith of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob (Judaism) to a new faith which is without the Torah.

Now lets look at 2Timothy 3:1-7:

1. But this know, that in the last days difficult times will come.
2. And sons of men will be lovers of their nefeshot,
and lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers,
those who are not obedient to their parents,
ungrateful, wicked,
3. Slanders, slaves to lust, cruel, haters of good,
4. Betrayers, unrestrained, proud, lovers of lusts
more than the love of Eloah,
5. Those who have the form the awe of Eloah7 but are far removed from his power.
Those who are thus,
thrust them out from you.
6. For from them are those who creep from house to house and captivate women
who are loaded down with sins and are led away by various lusts,
7. Who always are learning and are not ever able to come to the knowledge of the
truth8.

Once again Paul writes to Timothy about a great apostasy which he associates with a lack
of Torah observance by those "Who always are learning and are not ever able to come to
the knowledge of the truth". Remember, the Torah is truth (Ps. 119:142, 151).

A few verses down Paul writes:

3. For the time will come when they will not hear sound teaching, but
according to their lusts, they will multiply teachers to their nefeshot with the
itching of their hearing,
4. And they will turn their ear from the truth9,
and they will turn aside to myths.
(2Tim. 4:3-4)

Once again he associates this great apostasy with a rejection of the Torah.

Kefa also speaks of this last days apostasy as follows:

1 But there were also false prophets among the people,

7
By implication a "God fearer"
8
Psalm 119:142, 151
9
Psalm 119:142, 151

29
 even as there will be false teachers among you,
who will secretly bring in destructive sects,
even denying the Lord who redeemed them,
and bring on themselves swift destruction.
2 And many will follow their destructive ways,
because of whom the way of truth10
will be blasphemed.
(2Kefa 2:1-2)

Then a little further down he writes:

19 While they promise them freedom,

they themselves are slaves of corruption;
for by whom a person is overcome,
by him also he is brought into bondage.
(2Kefa 2:19)

Remember we learned that the Torah is Truth (Ps. 119:142) and that Yeshua said:

... if you continue in my word,

then are you my disciples indeed.
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8:31-32)

So as we look once again at 2Kefa:

19 While they promise them freedom,

they themselves are slaves of corruption;
for by whom a person is overcome,
by him also he is brought into bondage.
(2Kefa 2:19)

Two entire books of the New Scriptures, 2Peter and Jude, are dedicated to combating this
apostate treaching. These books warn us of men who will promise "freedom" but turn
from the "holy commandment" (the Law) (2Pt. 2:18-21) turning "the grace of our God"
into a license to sin (Jude 1:4, 14-18).
We have already discussed some of the many prophecies in both the Tanak and the
Ketuvim Netzarim of this apostasy. We have already noted that the grafted in branches
would apostasive if they were not fed by the root. This apostasy began as early as the
first century. Even within the lifetimes of the emissaries many of these grafted in
branches were turning not to Israel as their root, but to Babylon. Paul writes:

8 For then when you did not know Eloah, you served those that from their nature
are not Eloah
10
Psalm 119:105, 142, 151; Prov. 6:23

30
 9 But now that you know Eloah, or rather you are known from Eloah you have
again returned concerning those weak and poor elements and again desire to be made
subject to them.
10 Days and months and times and years you observe
11 I fear lest vainly I have labored among you.
(Gal. 4:8-11)

Here Paul is writing to some grafted in gentiles who are turning away from the root of
Judasim and turning back to their Pagan systems rooted in Babylon. They are attempting
to incorportate the same "Days and months and times and years" that they had observed
as Pagans into their new religion. This attempt at grafting Judaism into Babylonian
Paganism eventually came to be the religion we today call "Christianity". These apostate
branches which often boast against the natural branches have not been fed by the root and
have in fact become Babylonians.

98 C.E. Antinomian Apostasy at Antioch Complete

As early as the first century many of the gentile assemblies were already having problems
with the anti-nomian heresy. Now the first Gentile Assembly was at Antioch in Syria
(Acts 11:19-26) it was here that Gentile Messianic Believers were first called
“Christians”. After the assembly was established Bar Nabba (Barnabas) was sent from
Jerusalem to the assembly. Bar Nabba seems to have felt that he need help because he
went to Tarsus to get Paul and bring him back to Antioch with him. Antioch became the
initial center of the Gentile Messianic movement and became a sort of “home base” from
which Paul launched his voyages to take the message to the nations (Acts 14:21-28).
Early on there was a debate raised at Antioch over whether or not a gentile had to become
circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:1) which escalated to an issue brought before the Beit-
Din in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and the sending of a letter to Antioch setting basic essential
standards for gentiles just coming to the faith. Now even in his own era Paul’s teachings
were being twisted and misinterpreted. Kefa writes of Paul that in his letters he speaks of
things “in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and
unstable twist to their own destruction” (2Pt. 3:15-16). Paul himself speaks of
“slanderous reports” that “some affirm that we say” That we may “do evil” and “sin”
because “we are not under Torah but under grace” (Rom. 3:8; 6:1-2, 15). When he
returned to Jerusalem in Acts 21 he was informed that the Jews of Jerusalem had been
“informed about” him that he was teaching “the Jews who are among the Gentiles to
forsake Moses” and that “they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk
according to the customs.” (Acts 21:20-21). No doubt these slanderous reports, mis-
information and twistings of Paul’s teachings were coming largely out of Antioch, his
home base. From the very beginning there were unstable individuals at Antioch twisting
Paul’s teaching into anti-nomianism. Paul also said to the Ephesians on his last visit to
them:

I know that after I am gone fierce wolves will enter in among you
without mercy upon the flock.

31
 And also from among you there will rise up men speaking
perverse things, so that they might turn away the talmidim
to follow after them.
(Acts 20:29-30)

Paul seems to indicate that after his death leaders would begin to rise up in his stead that
would draw people to follow themselves and draw them away from Torah. Perhaps the
some of the very men who had twisted Paul’s teaching into anti-nomianism would one
day become the leadership. In fact Paul died in 66 C.E. and the first overseer (Bishop) of
Antioch to take office after his death was Ignatius in 98 C.E.. Ignatius fulfilled Paul’s
words precisely. Upon taking the office of Bishop over Antioch Ignatius sent out a series
of epistles to other assemblies. His letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallianns,
Romans, Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans as well as a personal letter to Polycarp overseer
of Smyrnaea have survived to us.

In these letters Ignatius asserts the absolute authority of the office of “bishop” (his own
office) over the assembly. Ignatius writes:

…being subject to your bishop…

…run together according to the will of God.
Jesus… is sent by the will of the Father;
As the bishops… are by the will of Jesus Christ.
(Eph. 1:9, 11)

…your bishop…I think you happy who are so joined to him,

as the church is to Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is to the Father…
Let us take heed therefore, that we not set ourselves
against the bishop, that we may be subject to God….
We ought to look upon the bishop, even as we would
upon the Lord himself.
(Eph. 2:1-4)

…obey your bishop…

(Mag. 1:7)

Your bishop presiding in the place of God…

…be you united to your bishop…
(Mag. 2:5, 7)

…he… that does anything without the bishop…

is not pure in his conscience…
(Tral. 2:5)

…Do nothing without the bishop.

(Phil. 2:14)

32
 See that you all follow your bishop,
As Jesus Christ, the Father…
(Smy. 3:1)

By exalting the power of the office of bishop (overseer) and demanding the absolute
authority of the bishop over the assembly, Ignatius was actually making a power grab by
thus taking absolute authority over the assembly at Antioch and encouraging other
Gentile overseers to follow suite. In the past such disputes were resolved by the
Nazarene Sanhedrin of the Nazarene assembly in Jerusalem (Acts 15).

Moreover Ignatius drew men away from Torah, not only at Antioch but at other Gentile
assemblies to which he wrote:

Be not deceived with strange doctrines;

nor with old fables which are unprofitable.
For if we still continue to live according to the Jewish Law,
we do confess ourselves not to have received grace…

let us learn to live according to the rules of Christianity,

for whosoever is called by any other name
besides this, he is not of God….

It is absurd to name Jesus Christ, and to Judaize.

For the Christian religion did not embrace the Jewish.
But the Jewish the Christian…
(Mag. 3:1, 8, 11)

(This is the first time in History that Christianity is characterized as a new and different
religion apart from Judaism).

But if any one shall preach the Jewish law unto you,
hearken not unto him…
(Phil. 2:6)

Now Paul’s prophecy was being fulfilled. Gentile leaders were causing men to follow
after themselves and drawing people away from Torah, and it was springing forth from
the first Gentile assembly. The result was the birth of a new Gentile religion that had
effectively rebelled against Torah based Judaism, a religion known as Christianity.

Thus the Ancient Nazarene Historian and commentator Hegesippus (c. 180 CE) writes of
the time immediately following the death of Shim’on, who succeeded Ya’akov HaTzadik
as Nasi of the Nazarene Sanhedrin and who died in 98 CE:

Up to that period (98 CE) the Assembly had remained like a virgin
pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were
disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching

33
 of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment
or other. But, when the sacred band of Emissaries had in various
ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it
had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their
own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless
error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who,
seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length
attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching
of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."
(Hegesippus the Nazarene; c. 185 CE)

Hegisippus indicates the apostasy began the very same year that Ignatious became bishop
of Antioch!

The Council of Nicea

In 325 C.E. A Pagan Gentile named Constantine conqured Rome and made himself
emperor. Constantine , although a Pagan himself, declared Christianity to be the Catholic
(Latin: universal) religion, thus making Christianity the enforced state religion of the
Roman empire. Constantine, who was an anti-Semite called the council of Nicea in 325
C.E. to standardize Christianity. Nazarenes were excluded from the meeting. Jewish
practices were banned. For the first time Gentile Christianity officially labled the
Nazarenes as apostates. From this time forward Nazarenes begin to be listed in the
catalogs of apostate movements (the first of these to include the Nazarenes was
Epiphanius's "Panarion" (around 370 C.E.).

CHRISTMAS

Following the great flood mankind attempted to centraliz on the plains of Shinar and built
a city called Babel (Babylon and Babel are the same word in Hebrew: Bavel). HaSatan
immediately sought to turn mankind away from the true Messiah by introducing a false
Messiah. HaSatan found the perfect tool, an ambitious woman named Semeramis. She
was the widow of Nimrod, "the mighty hunter before YHWH" (Gen. 10:9) who had met
with a violent death. Nimrod had been deified as being a deliverer from the menace of
wild animals. Semeramis, seeking to perpetuate his worship and also to retain her throne,
deceived them into joyfully believing that by way of a miraculous conception she had
given birth to a son called Tammuz, who was claimed to be Nimrod reincarnated. This
woman
with her mamzer (illegitimate) child was thenceforth worshipped as "mother of (a) G-d"
(Madonna)-- "the queen of heaven."

This was the birth of the ancient Babylonian-Akkadian religion, the fountainhead of all
idolatry. Every form of paganism, can be traced to this source.

34
Alexander Hislop, in his book. THE TWO BABYLONS, has clearly documented that
Christian worship is none other than the worship of
Nimrod and his wife, disguised Concerning the Christmas festival Hislop writes:

The Christmas was originally a pagan festival is beyond all

doubt. The time of the year, the ceremonies with which it is
celebrated, prove its origin. In Egypt, the son of Isis, the
Egyptian title for the queen of heaven, was born at this
very time, about the time of the winter solstice. The very
name by which Christmas is popularly known among
ourselves-- Yule day-- proves at once its pagan and
Babylonian origin. "Yule" is the Chaldee name for "infant," or
"little child"; and as the 25th of December was called by our
pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors "Yule-day" or "the child's day",
and the night that preceded it, "Mother night", long before
they came in contact with Christianity, that sufficiently
proves its real character. Far and wide in the realms of
paganism was this birthday observed
(THE TWO BABYLONS; Alexander Hislop; p. 93)

It may be demonstrated that Y'shua was not born in the winter at all,
but during the Fall Feasts. Since YHWH has not in his Torah authorized the celebration
of Christmas, then where did it come from? As early as the first century Paul was
condemning those from the Gentiles who were attempting to incorporate their old pagan
"days, and months and seasons and years" into their new
faith (Gal. 4:8-11). About the year 230 the Gentile Christian "Church
Father" Tertullian wrote:

By us [Gentile Christians] who are strangers to (Jewish)

Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, ...
the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and
Matronalia are now frequented, with gifts being carried to
and fro.

Since Tammuz was identified with Ba'al, the sun god, and since the
sun noticeably began to grow stronger at about the 25th of December, at the winter
solstice this season came to be celebrated as the rebirth of Nimrod. The feast of
Saturnalia, lasting about a week, was held at this time.

Now it was the policy of Roman Catholicism to incorporate pagan festivals into
Christianity so as to bring in more converts.
Pope Gregory wrote to Augustine the first missionary to the British Isles (C.E. 597):

Do not destroy the temples of the English gods; change them

to Christian churches. Do not forbid the "harmless" customs

35
 which have been associated with the old religions;
consecrate them to Christian use.

Thus Rome retained a pagan form for "Xmas" but could not restrain its pagan spirit--
existing to this day.

Sir James Fraser in "The Golden Bough" writes:

Thus it appears that the Christian Church chose to celebrate

the birthday of its founder on the 25th of December in
order to transfer the devotion of the heathen from the sun
to him who was called the Sun of Righteousness. If that was
so, there can be no intrinsic improbability in the conjecture
that motives of the same sort may have led the ecclesiastical
authorities to assimilate the Easter festival of the death and
resurrection of their Lord to the festival of the death and
resurrection of another Asiatic God which fell in the same
season.

The name "Christmas" appeared around 450 C.E. when Pope Julius
decreed that all Christians must observe the birth of Jesus at the
same time that the pagans were observing the Saturnalia, etc. It was then called "Christe-
masse", or Christ's mass.

The so-called "Christmas tree" had its origin in Babylonian religion, The tree was used to
represent Tammuz (a name meaning "branch" or "sprout") HaSatan's counterfeit of "The
Branch" (Hebrew: NETZER;
branch; shoot; sprout)-- Messiah, who was also prophetically called "The Root out of dry
ground" (Is. 11:1; 53:2; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 6:12-- "Behold the man whose name is The
Branch"). Ancient coins have been found picturing a tree stump (representing dead
Nimrod) and a small tree growing nearby (Tammuz).

EASTER

The present variable time was appointed

by early Romanism in amalgamation with the very
ancient pagan spring festival to the goddess
of the spring. It was fixed on the Sunday
immediately following the 14th day of the
paschal moon which happened on or first
after the vernal equinox.
(Schaff-Herzog Ency. Of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 2, p. 682)

36
Eostre was the Anglo-Saxon name for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar11. The celebration
of the Christian holiday "Easter" goes back to the pagan Babylonian spring festival also
known as the Roman
Pagan festival Veneralia held on April 1st in honor of Venus , the Romasn equivelant of
the Greek Aphrodite who was the same as the Babylonian Ishtar.12

So-called "Lent" is of purely Babylonian origin. The word "Lent" actually came from the
Saxon word "Lenct",meaning "spring." Lent began as the forty days of "weeping for
Tammuz" (see Ezek. 8:13-14) leading up to the spring equinox and the festival of Ishtar.

Tammuz was the supposed reincarnation of Ishtar’s (i.e. Semeramis’) husband (Nimrod).
In the spring, his death and reappearance was celebrated. A season of lamentation was
followed by one day of joy at the rising of the sun at the spring equinox (as in Ezek. 8:15-
18 )
with the Isthar sunrise service:

Turn you yet again and you shall see

greater abominations than these.
And he brought me into the inner court
of the House of YHWH and behold,
at the door of the Temple of YHWH
between the porch and the alter,
were about five and twenty men
with their backs to the Temple of YHWH
and their faces toward the east;
and they worshipped the sun toward the east…
and though they cry in my ear with a loud voice,
yet will I not hear them.

Ishtar (the queen of heaven) was worshipped with nice fluffy cakes (Jer. 7:18; 44:17-19)
today's hot-cross buns. By contrast Passover which occurs at about the same time is
observed with unleavened bread. In fact Easter eggs and Easter bunnies are both fertility
symbols associated with the fertility goddess Ishtar.

Notice that Ishtar worship was a big family event for the children:

The children gather wood

and the fathers kindle the fire
and the women knead their dough,
to make cakes to the queen of heaven
and to pour out drink offerings to other gods, that
they may provoke me to anger,
(Jer. 7:18; 44:17-19)

11
Encyclopedia of Gods p. 77
12
ibid p. 20-21, 280-281

37
The custom of wearing new clothes at Easter also seems to be the antipathy of Passover
during which traveling clothes are to be worn (Ex. 12:11).

STEEPLES

The steeple originates from the vile phallic worship referred to in Isa. 57:5-8 and Ezek.
16:17. The "groves" connected with "high
places" that Israel so frequently "went whoring with" (Ps. 106:28-39) were the images
and places where these "queen of heaven" festivals were carried on. The word "groves,"
found forty times in the KJV English, comes from the Hebrew word asherah and is
always associated with the worship of Ashtoreth, alias Ishtar, Eostre,
the goddess of spring, Easter. This phalic worship often involved the use of phalic
symbols (see Ezek. 16:17). Egyptian obelisks are just such phalic symbols. Today many
churches are also topped with these Babylonian phalic symbols known today as
"steeples".

CROSSES, DOVES AND FISHES

Tammuz (Ezek. 8:14) also called Dumuzi was the Sumerian and Babylonian Akkadian
name for the Phoenician god Ba'al Shamin13.
Ba'al Shamin (the Lord of Heaven) originated in Canaanite culture as Ba'al14 (Lord) so
often mentioned in the Bible. Ba'al also appears in the Babylonian pantheon as Bel15.
Which was also a title of the Babylonian god Marduk16 called in Hebrew Merodach17.
One of the Biblical titles of Ba'al was "Ba'al Gad" (pronounced Ba'al Gawd or Ba'al God)
(Josh. 11:17; 12:7; 13:5). Ba'al Gad (the Lord God) is also listed in the Encylopedia of
Gods as a Western Semetic god.

According to the Encyclopedia of Gods:

He is the first "dying-and-rising" god

to be historically recorded by name...
He is commanded by Inana [Ishtar] to
enter the underworld for a period each
year, which accounts for the seasonal
demise of the green world to drought.
... as late as biblical times there are
references to women "weeping for Tammuz".18

13
The Encyclopedia of Gods identifies "Ba'al Shamin" as the consort of Astarte (p. 29) who is the
Phonecian version of the Babyloian-Akkadian goddess Ishtar (p. 119) who is synonymous with the
Sumerian goddess Inana (p. 119) whose consort is Dumuzi (Tammuz) (p. 70, 114).
14
ibid pages 36-37
15
ibid p. 41
16
ibid
17
ibid p. 158
18
ibid p. 70

38
Ba'al also is said to have died, descended into the underworld and been restored19

The Greek version of the Babylonian god Tammuz was Adonis. Adonis was
synonymous with the Phonecian diety Adon (lord)20.
Regarding Adonis the Encyclopedia of Gods say:

Adonis is modeled on the Mesopotamian dying

vegitarian god Dumuzi (Hebrew: Tammuz)...
Tradition has it that he was killed... and is
condemned to the underworld for six months
of each year, during which the earth's vegetation
parches and dies under the Summer sun and drought.
He was honored in a spring festival...21

The first letter in Tammuz is the Semitic letter TAW which appeared in Canaanite script
as a cross. As a result Tammuz was often worshiped with the symbol of the cross.

Thus Tammuz was also known as Adon (Lord); Ba'al (Lord); "Ba'al Shamin" (The Lord
of Heaven) and Ba'al Gad (The Lord God). He died, descended into the underworld
and was resurected. His resurectiuon was celebrated with a spring festival and he was
worshipped with the symbol of the cross.

Dagon is mentioned as the god of the Philistines in Judges 16:23; 1Sam. 5:2-7 and
1Chron. 10:10. Dagon (Strong's # 1712) means "fish-god" and is taken from DAG
(Strong's # 1709 "fish"). According to the Encyclopedia of Gods Dagan (Dagon) was a
grain and fertility god and the father of Ba'al. His attributes included a fish tail. Thus
the father of Ba'al was worshiped with the symbol of the fish.

Ishtar was the Babylonian equivelant of the Sumarian goddess Inan22 who was the
consort of Tammuz23. She was known to the Greeks as Aphrodite24 and to the Romans as
Venus25 and worshipped her with the symbol of the dove. She was known to the
Amorites, Canaanites and Phonecians as Asherah26. The Phonecians also called her
Astarte the consort of Ba'al Shamin27.
Her festival was the Roman feast of Veneralia on April 1st28. This coresponded to the
Babylonian Spring Equinox festival of Ishtar also called "Easter" still oberved today.

19
ibid p. 37
20
ibid page 3
21
ibid p. 4
22
ibid p. 119
23
ibid p. 70
24
ibid p. 20-21
25
ibid p. 280
26
ibid p. 27.
27
ibid p. 29
28
ibid p. 281

39
THE CHRISTIAN CHALDEANS

The Chaldean peoples, the literal Babylonians converted to Christianity early on. In the
1500's they joined the Roman Catholic Church becoming Chaldean Roman Catholics.
Thus the literal Babylonians, the Chaldean peoples are Christians.

COME OUT OF HER AND BE SEPERATE

Now comes the call to come out from Babylon. This call is repeated several times in the
Scriptures:

Go you forth of Babylon....

(Is. 48:20)

Depart you, depart you, go you out from thence,

touch no unclean thing;
go you out of the midst of her;
be you clean, that bear the vessals of YHWH.
(Is. 52:11)

Remove out of the midst of Babylon,

and go forth out of the land of the Chaldeans,
and be as the he goats before the flocks....
Flee out of the midst of Babylon,
and deliver every man his soul:
be not cut off in her iniquity;
for this is the time of YHWH's vengeance;
he will render unto her a recompence....
My people, go ye out of the midst of her,
and deliver ye every man his soul
from the fierce anger of YHWH.
(Jer. 50:8; 51:6, 45)

6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north,
saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad
as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with
the daughter of Babylon.
(Zech. 2:6, 7)

14. And be not yokefellows to those who do not believe29,

for what fellowship has righteousness with Torahlessness?
Or what communion has light with darkness?
29
see Deut. 22:10

40
 15. Or what agreement has the Messiah with HaSatan?
Or what part has he who is faithful with him who is not faithful?
16. And what unity has the temple of Eloah with shadim?
But you are the temple of the living Eloah,
as it is said, I will dwell with them, and I will walk with them, and I will be their
Eloah, and they will be my people.30
17. Because of this, Go out from among them and be separated31 from them, said
YHWH, and do not come near the unclean32, and I will receive you,33
18. And I will be to you a father and you will be sons and daughters to me, says
the almighty, YHWH.34
(2Cor. 6:14-18)

Here Paul creates an allegory from the Torah command against yoking different kinds of
animals together. He then gives various sets of diametrically opposed things which
generally are associated with Torah vs. Torahlessness. The word translated
"unrighteousness" in the KJV text of 2Cor. 6:14 is actually ANOMIA (without Torah).
It is important to come out from Babylon and be separate from these Torahless ones.
Jeremiah foretells of those who fail to heed the call to come out of Babylon hoping
instead to heal her (Jer. 51:6-8) but she will not be healed (Jer. 51:9). We must not be
yoked to them for Isaiah warns us that at the last days judgment of Babylon (Is. 13:1, 10)
that:

Everyone that is found shall be thrust through;

and everyone that is joined to them shall fall by the sword.
(Is. 13:15)

As the cry appears in Revelation:

4. And I heard another voice from heaven saying,

Come out from within her, my people,
so that you do not partake in her sins35,
so that you do not receive of her plagues36,
(Rev. 18:4)

The Remnant

Now if we return to the parable of the olive tree (Rom. 11) Romans 11:8 quotes Is. 29:10-
11 likening this apostasy to a "sleep" and blindness. following this apostasy there would
be a restoration of the natural branches (Rom. 11:23-27). to the olive tree. These are a
30
Lev. 26:12; Exodus 6:7; Jer. 31:32 (33); 32:38; Ezekiel 37:27
31
Jer. 50:8, 28; 51:6, 9, 45; Zech. 2:11 (2:7); Is. 52:11; see also Rev. 18:4
32
Isaiah 52:11; Zech. 2:7, 11
33
Ezek. 20:34, 41
34
2Sam. 7:8, 14; Is. 43:6
35
Jer. 50:8, 28; 51:6, 9, 45; Zech. 2:11 (2:7); Is. 52:11; see also 2Cor. 6:17
36
Jer. 50:13

41
"remnant" (Rom. 11:5 & Rev. 12:17) they are the seed of Israel (woman in Rev. 12) who
observe Torah and accept Messiah (Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 15:3; Rev.6:9).

…the remnant of her seed,

which keep the commandments of Eloah,
and have the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah.
(Rev. 12:17)

Note how well this description of the “remnant” agrees with the descriptions of the
ancient sect of Nazarene Judaism given by ancient Christian “Church Fathers”:

The Nazarenes... accept Messiah in such a way

that they do not cease to observe the old law...
(Jerome; On Isaiah 8:14; 4th Century)

They [the Nazarenes] have no different ideas,

but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it
and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah...
but since they are still fettered by the Law-- circumcision,
the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with Christians.
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29; 4th Century)

Obviously the last days “remnant” of Rev. 12:17 are a restoration of the ancient sect of
Nazarene Judaism. They are a “remnant” because there have always been Nazarene Jews
(Torah observant Jews who believe Yeshua was Messiah) but they had not been
organized as a movement.

This remnant sound a call to come out from Babylon and be separate. Now lets look at
another prophecy in Zech. 8:23:

Thus said YHWH of hosts, 'In those days ten men

from all languages of the nations take hold,
yea, they shall take hold of the edge of the garment of a man,
a Yehudite, saying, "Let us go with you,
for we have heard that Elohim is with you ."

Now lest anyone think that the "Jew" (Yehudite) in this passage is a certain Jew, such as
the Messiah, I must point out that in the Hebrew the word "you" in "let us go with "you"
and "Elohim is with you" is PLURAL and therefore refers not to an individual Jew, but to
the remnant of the House of Judah, Nazarene Judaism.

42
 They use not only the New Testament
but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do...
- Epiphanius; Panarion 29
-

Chapter 4
The Canon

The Canon of the Ketuvim Netzarim

One of the best ancient descriptions we have of the ancient Netzarim is made by the
ancient writer Epiphanius who says of them:

They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)

Epiphanius contrasts this description of the Nazarenes with a description of the Ebionites
in the following section of Panarian. Epiphanius described the Ebionites as using a
version of Matthew which omitted the first two chapters and began with the story of the
ministry of Yochanan (Pan. 30:13:6) Epiphanius notes that this is because the Ebionite
version of Matthew was "not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated (30:13:2).
This in contrast to the Nazarenes whom he said had Matthew "in its entirety". Moreover
while Epiphanius says of the Nazarenes: "They use... the New Testament..." (Epiphanius;
Panarion 20) Irenaeus writes of the Ebionites: "But the Ebionites use only... Matthew..."
(Irenaeus; Against Heresies 1:16:2). So the Nazarenes used the "New Testament" and had
Matthew "in its entirety" but the Ebionites used only Matthew in a version that was "not
wholly complete but falsified and mutilated" in such a way that it among other things,
omitted the virgin birth story in the first two chapters. It is important to note that this
important distinction (among others) distinguished Nazarenes from Ebionites.

We must also ask the question, what did Epiphanius mean when he said:

They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)

43
Well certainly part of what he meant was that the Nazarenes were NOT like the Ebionites
in that they used the entire NT including a Matthew which was complete and contained
the first two chapters (and therefore the virgin birth account). Epiphanius's book Panarian
is a list of groups which Rome had labeled apostate. In this book Epiphanius seeks to
discredit each of these groups. One issue that comes up frequently is that Epiphanius does
not hesitate to attack groups for rejecting all or parts of books he [Epiphanius] regarded
as canon, or for accepting books that he [Epiphanius] regarded as apostate or
questionable. He even questions the Nazarenes for using the "Old Testament" right along
side of the "New Testament". If the Nazarenes rejected all or parts of what Epiphanius
knew as the "New Testament" then Epiphanius would not have hesitated to make this
clear in his attack on them. While he clarifies that they use Hebrew Matthew rather
than Greek Matthew (and I believe that they used the Aramaic NT as well) he does NOT
question their choice of canonical NT books. Now since Epiphanius clearly did not
disagree with the Nazarene NT canon, if we can determine the NT canon Epiphanius
understood as canonical, we would seem to also know what books the Nazarenes used as
NT canon.

At this point I want to address the false claim that the 27 books we know as the NT canon
today was the product of Rome or that it was manipulated and altered by Roman Catholic
Monks. While it is true that Rome officially acknowledged the 27 books we call the NT
as the NT canon at the council of Carthage in 397 CE this was simply an act to
acknowledge the books which were already accepted as the canon. Now the earliest list
of NT books that matches our own exactly was given by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367
CE. Shortly afterward Jerome and Augustine also listed the same 27 books. Now at this
point I should clarify that two NT canons existed. In the east a 22 book canon was used
(it lacked 2Pt. 2&3 John, Jude and Rev.) while in the west the familiar 27 books were
used. Note that this eastern canon of 22 books was the standard in the Parthian Empire,
which bordered the Roman Empire as a rival and was never under Roman control. The
historian Eusebius (300-320 CE) gave a list of books identical to our 27 though he
omitted Hebrews. This was likely an oversight because he elsewhere acknowledges
Hebrews as a Pauline epistle. Much earlier Origen (245 CE) had listed the books he
called "homologoumena" (acknowledged) books. His list lacked only 2Peter, 2 & 3 Jn,
Jude and Hebrews. However this may have been an error because he elsewhere identifies
Hebrews as an authentic Pauline production and he cites 2Peter as "scripture". The only
variances then would be between the 22 book canon of the east and the 27 books of the
west). Prior to this time, if we trace back the so-called "church fathers" of Christendom
all the way back through and into the first century. we find them quoting as "Scripture"
from the same 27 books we know today as the "New Testament". And if we go all the
way back to "New Testament times" we find Paul quoting Matthew=Luke right along
side the Torah as "Scripture" (1Tim. 5:18 quotes Mt. 10:10 = Lk. 10:7 with Deut. 25:4 as
"scripture") we also find 2Kefa referring to the Pauline Epistles as being twisted by some
as the do with "the rest of the scriptures" (2Kefa 3:15-16). So in NT times it seems that at
least Matthew and/or Luke and the Pauline epistles had already been canonized. In other
words, like the Tanak, the various sections of the NT were being canonized as they went.

44
Now when Epiphanius wrote in 370 CE of the Nazarenes:

They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)

It is clear that he is saying that the ancient Nazarenes accepted and used the same New
Testament books that we know today as the New Testament.

Order of the Books of the Ketuvim Netzarim

Just as the manuscript order of the books of the Tanak (OT), (followed by Judaism) does
not agree with the ordering of the same books in the Christian "Old Testament" as printed
today, so also does the manuscript order of the NT differ. The ancient manuscript order
of the books of the "New Testament" has first the "Gospels" then "Acts" followed by the
Jewish Epistles (Ya’akov (James); 1 & 2 Kefa (Peter); 1, 2 & 3 Yochanan (John) and
Y'hudah (Jude)) followed by the Pauline epistles which are followed by Revelation. This
order was rearranged by Rome in the Latin Vulgate in which the Pauline epistles were
given first place and the Jewish epistles given second place. The original manuscript
order had an important significance. It agreed with the precept that the message was to
the Jews first and then to the Goyim (Gentiles). It also agrees with the concept that
Ya'akov, Kefa and Yochanan were emissaries that come BEFORE Paul (Gal. 1:17) and
with the concept that Kefa, Ya'akov and Yochanan served as three pillars which lend
authority upon which Paul's message was built (Gal. 2:9) and not vice-versa. The reader
of the NT was intended to read the "Jewish" epistles FIRST and then to read the Pauline
epistles already having understood the Jewish epistles. The NT reader was intended to
read Ya'akov's (James') admonition concerning faith and works (Ya'akov 2) as well as
Kefa's warnings about Paul being difficult to understand and often twisted (2Kefa 3:15-
16) etc. before ever attempting to understand the writings of Paul.

45
 They have the Goodnews according to Matthew
in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still
preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
- Epiphanius; Panarion 29

Chapter 5
The Semitic New Testament

Language of First Century Israel

The Middle East, through all of its political turmoil, has in fact been dominated by
a single master from the earliest ages until the present day. The Semitic tongue has
dominated the Middle East from ancient times, until the modern day. Aramaic
dominated the three great Empires, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian. It endured until
the seventh century, when under the Islamic nation it was displaced by a cognate Semitic
language, Arabic. Even today some few Syrians, Assyrians and Chaldeans speak
Aramaic as their native tongue, including three villages north of Damascus37.
The Jewish people, through all of their persecutions, sufferings and wanderings
have never lost sight of their Semitic heritage, nor their Semitic tongue. Hebrew, a
Semitic tongue closely related to Aramaic, served as their language until the great
dispersion when a cognate language, Aramaic, began to replace it. Hebrew, however
continued to be used for religious literature, and is today the spoken language in Israel.

The Babylonian Exile

Some scholars have proposed that the Jews lost their Hebrew language, replacing
it with Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity. The error of this position becomes
obvious. The Jewish people had spent 400 years in captivity in Egypt38 yet they did not
stop speaking Hebrew and begin speaking Egyptian, why should they exchange Hebrew
for Aramaic after only seventy years39 in Babylonian captivity? Upon return from the
Babylonian captivity it was realized that a small minority could not speak "the language
of Judah"40 so drastic measures were taken to abolish these marriages and maintain the
purity of the Jewish people and language41 One final evidence rests in the fact that the

37
The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation; Bible Society of Jerusalem; 1986; p.
iii
38
Ex. 12:40-41; Acts 7:6
39
Jer. 5:11-12; 29:10; Zech. 7:5; Dan. 9:2
40
(Neh. 13:23-24) A euphemism for Hebrew as opposed to Aramaic (see 2Kn. 18:26)
41
Neh. 13:23-31; Ezra 10:3-19

46
post-captivity books (Zech., Hag., Mal., Neh., Ezra, and Ester) are written in Hebrew
rather than Aramaic.

Hellenization

Some scholars have also suggested that under the Helene Empire Jews lost their
Semitic language and in their rush to hellenize, began speaking Greek. The books of the
Maccabees do record an attempt by Antiochus Epiphanies to forcibly Hellenize the
Jewish people.42 In response, the Jews formed an army led by Judas Maccabee 43 This
army defeated the Greeks and eradicated Hellenism44. This military victory is still
celebrated today as Chanukkah, the feast of the dedication of the Temple45 a holiday that
even Yeshua seems to have observed at the Temple at Jerusalem in the first century46 .
Those who claim that the Jews were Hellenized and began speaking Greek at this time
seem to deny the historical fact of the Maccabean success.
During the first century, Hebrew remained the language of the Jews living in
Judah and to a lesser extent in Galilee. Aramaic remained a secondary language and the
language of commerce. Jews at this time did not speak Greek, in fact one tradition had it
that it was better to feed ones children swine than to teach them the Greek language. It
was only with the permission of authorities that a young official could learn Greek, and
then, solely for the purpose of political discourse on the National level. The Greek
language was completely inaccessible and undesirable to the vast majority of Jews in
Israel in the 1st century.70a Any gauge of Greek language outside of Israel cannot, nor can
any evidence hundreds of years removed from the 1st century, alter the fact that the Jews
of Israel in the 1st century did not know Greek.

The Testimony of Josephus

The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the
fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that
Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the
only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According to
Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into
"their own language" 47. Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the
language of his people during his time:

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning

of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek
language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak
our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with
sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those
42
1Macc. 1:10-15, 41-64; 2Macc. 4:9-17; 6:1-11; Josephus ;Ant. 12:5
43
1Macc 2:19-9; 2Macc. 8f; Josephus ;Ant. 12:6
44
1&2 Macc.; Josephus ;Ant. 12:7;
45
1Macc. 4:52-59; 2Macc. 10:5-8; Josephus ;Ant. 12:7:6-7; b.Shabbat 21b
46
Jn. 10:22
70a
see below next to note 103b
47
Josephus; Wars 5:9:2

47
 that learn the languages of many nations.48

Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or understand
Greek, but spoke "their own language."

Archaeology

Confirmation of Josephus's claims has been found by Archaeologists. The Bar

Kokhba coins are one example. These coins were struck by Jews during the Bar Kokhba
revolt (c. 132 C.E.). All of these coins bear only Hebrew inscriptions. Countless other
inscriptions found at excavations of the Temple Mount, Masada and various Jewish
tombs, have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions49
Even more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language during the first
century may be found in ancient Documents from about that time, which have been
discovered in Israel. These include the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters.
The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more than 500 scrolls
dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls are primarily in Hebrew and
Aramaic. A large number of the "secular scrolls" (those which are not Bible manuscripts)
are in Hebrew.
The Bar Kokhba letters are letters between Simon Bar Kokhba and his army,
written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These letters were discovered by Yigdale
Yadin in 1961 and are almost all written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Two of the letters are
written in Greek, both were written by men with Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One of the
two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar Kokhba in Greek, saying "the
letter is written in Greek, as we have no one who knows Hebrew here."
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba letters not only include first and second
century Hebrew documents, but give an even more significant evidence in the dialect of
that Hebrew. The dialect of these documents was not the Biblical Hebrew of the Tenach
(Old Testament), nor was it the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Mishna (c. 220 C.E.). The
Hebrew of these documents is colloquial, it is a fluid living language in a state of flux
somewhere in the evolutionary process from Biblical to Mishnaic Hebrew. Moreover,
the Hebrew of the Bar Kokhba letters represents Galilean Hebrew (Bar Kokhba was a
Galilean) , while the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an example of Judean Hebrew. Comparing
the documents shows a living distinction of geographic dialect as well, a sure sign that
Hebrew was not a dead language.
Final evidence that first century Jews conversed in Hebrew and Aramaic can be
found in other documents of the period, and even later. These include: the Roll
Concerning Fasts50 in Aramaic (66-70 C.E.), The Letter of Gamaliel51 in Aramaic (c. 30

48
Josephus; Ant. 20:11:2
49
Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus; David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jr.; 1984; pp. 55-68
50
A list of days on which fasting is forbidden.
51
This letter, according to the Talmud (j.San. 18) was written by Gamliel I, who was Pauls's teacher (Acts
22:3) and who appealed on Peter's behalf (Acts 5:34).

48
- 110 C.E.), Wars of the Jews52 by Josephus in Hebrew (c. 75 C.E.), the Mishna in
Hebrew (c. 220 C.E.) and the Gemara53 in Aramaic (c. 500 C.E.)

Scholars on the Language of the New Testament

Having thus demonstrated that Hebrew and Aramaic were languages of Jews
living in Israel in the first century, we shall now go on to demonstrate that the New
Testament was first written in these languages.
A number of noted scholars have argued that at least portions of the New
Testament were originally penned in a Semitic tongue. This argument has been asserted
of the four Gospels54, Acts55, and Revelation56.

The following is just some of what these scholars have written on the topic:

When we turn to the New Testament we find that

there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic
original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John
and for the apocalypse.
- Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text
of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii

The material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian,

and the language in which it was originally written
is Aramaic, then the principle language of the land...
-C. C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936 p. ix

The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was

Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956),... His work however fell short
of completeness; as a pioneering effort, in the nature of the case,
some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main
contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct. ...

The translation into Greek from Aramaic must have been made from

52
Was first written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek (Wars preface:1)
53
Commentary on the Mishna which together with the Mishna forms the Talmud.
54
See Our Translated Gospels by Charles Cutler Torrey; Harper and Brothers, New York; 1936; p. ix; An
Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels
by Frank Zimmerman; New York; 1979
55
The Composition and Date of Acts by Charles Cutler Torrey; Cambridge Mass.; 1916; p. 7; An Aramaic
Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black; Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by
David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jr. 1984; p. 23; See also The Semitisms of Acts by Max Wilcox; 1965
56
The Original Language of the Apocalypse by R. B. Y. Scott; University of Toronto Press; 1928;
Documents of the Primitive Church by Charles Cutler Torrey; 1941

49
 a written record, including the Fourth Gospel. The language was
Eastern Aramaic, as the material itself revealed, most strikingly
through a comparison of parallel passages. ...

One group [of scholars], which originated in the nineteenth century

and persists to the present day [1979], contends that the Gospels
were written in Greek...

Another group of scholars, among them C. C. Torrey ... comes out flatly
with the proposition that the Four Gospels... including Acts up to 15:35
are translated directly from Aramaic and from a written Aramaic text....

My own researches have led me to consider Torrey's position

valid and convincing that the Gospels as a whole were translated
from Aramaic into Greek.
- Frank Zimmerman; The Aramaic Origin
of the Four Gospels; KTAV; 1979

Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle

the question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel;
and quickly convincing himself that the theory of an
original Aramaic document was no chimera, but a fact
which was capable of the fullest verification...
- Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin
of the Fourth Gospel; 1922; p. 3

...this [Old Syriac] Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least

to be built upon the original Aramaic text which was the work
of the Apostle himself.
- William Cureton; Remains of a Very
Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels
in Syriac; 1858; p. vi)

...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language,

and that the Greek translation... is a remarkably close
rendering of the original."
- C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church
1941; p. 160

We come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse

as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic...
- R. B. Y. Scott; The Original Language of the Apocalypse
1928; p. 6

The question of the Luke/Acts tradition holds particular interest to us. This is
because the common wisdom has been to portray Luke as a Greek speaking, Greek

50
writing Gentile who wrote his account to the Gentiles. The reality of the matter is
(whether Luke himself knew Greek or not) that Luke was most certainly written in a
Semitic language. as Charles Cutler Torrey states:

In regard to Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the

Four Gospels it is the one which gives by far the plainest
and most constant evidence of being a translation.
- C.C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels p. lix

TESTIMONY OF THE "CHURCH FATHERS"

All of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, testified to the Semitic origin of
at least the Book of Matthew, as the following quotes demonstrate:

Papias (150-170 C.E.)

Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each
translated as he was able.57

Ireneus (170 C.E.)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in
their own dialect.58

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)

The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same
that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of
Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish
believers, wrote it in Hebrew.59

Eusebius (c. 315 C.E.)

Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew,
when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed
it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of
his presence to them by his writings.60

Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported

that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been
delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of
Messiah, to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is
said, had proclaimed, and left them the writing of Matthew in
Hebrew letters.61

57
quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39
58
Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1
59
quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25
60
Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:24
61
Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 5:10

51
 Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew
quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still
preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew
letters.62

Jerome (382 C.E.)

"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be
an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of
Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the
benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the
library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently
collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this
volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be
remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the
testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the
authority of the seventy translators [the Greek Septuagint], but
that of the Hebrew."39

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve

emissaries, had there [India] preached the advent of our Lord
Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which
was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to
Alexandria, he brought with him."39

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)

His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in
Hebrew...63

Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's
epistles. These "church fathers" claim that Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was translated
into Greek from a Hebrew original, as the following quotes demonstrate:

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)

In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly
he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of
all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he
asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew

62
Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4
63
Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels

52
 tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and
published among the Greeks.64

Eusebius (315 C.E.)

For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle.65

Jerome (382)
"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own
tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek66

It should be noted that these church fathers did not always agree that the other
books of the New Testament were written in Hebrew. Epiphanius for example, believed
"that only Matthew put the setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New
Testament in the Hebrew language and letters." 67 Epiphanius does, however, tell us that
the Jewish believers would disagree with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew
copies of John and Acts in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius, Israel.68
Epiphanius believed these versions to be mere "translations"69 but admitted that the
Jewish believers would disagree with him.70 The truth in this matter is clear, if Greek had
replaced Hebrew as the language of Jews as early as the first century, then why would
fourth century Jews have any need for Hebrew translations. The very existence of
Hebrew manuscripts of these books in fourth century Israel testifies to their originality,
not to mention the fact that the Jewish believers regarded them as authentic.

TESTIMONY OF THE TALMUDIC RABBIS

In addition to the statements made by the early Christian church fathers, the
ancient Jewish Rabbis also hint of a Hebrew original for the Gospels. Both the Jerusalem
and Babylonian Talmuds and the Tosefta relate a debate among Rabbinic Jews over the
method of destruction of manuscripts of New Testament books71 . Specifically
mentioned is a book called by them as Nwylgnw)72 (or "Gospels"). The question which
arose was how to handle the destruction of these manuscripts since they contained the
actual name of God. It is of course, well known that the Greek New Testament

64
Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2
65
Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3
66
Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V
67
Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3
68
Epipnanius; Pan. 30:3, 6
69
Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3, 6, 12
70
Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3
71
t.Shab. 13:5; b.Shab. 116a; j.Shab. 15c
72
(b.Shab. 116a) The word Nwylgnw) is part of the title of the Old Syriac manuscripts, and is also used in
some passages of the Peshitta (such as Mk. 1:1) and may be a loan word from the Greek word for "Gospel"
and in Hebrew and in Aramaic may mean "a powerful scroll." The exact same spelling is used both in the
Talmud, the Old Syriac and the Peshitta.

53
manuscripts do not contain the Name but use the Greek titles "God" and "Lord" as
substitutes. This is because the Name is not traditionally translated into other languages,
but instead is (unfortunately) translated "Lord", just as we have it in most English Bibles
today, and just as we find in our late manuscripts of the Septuagint 73. The manuscripts
these Rabbi's were discussing must have represented the original Hebrew text from which
the Greek was translated.

History of the Movement

That the New Testament, like the Old Testament, was originally written in
Hebrew and Aramaic is further verified by the history of the early believers in Yeshua as
the Messiah. The first believers in Yeshua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes"74 .
Sometime later the first Gentile believers in Yeshua called "Christians" appeared75 . This
first congregation of Gentile Christians formed in Antioch, the capital of Syria, where
some of the people spoke Greek and almost all spoke Aramaic, which is also called
"Syriac". Then in 70 C.E., there was a mass exodus of the Nazarenes from their center at
Jerusalem to Pella.76 Eventually, they established communities in Beroea, Decapolis,
Bashanitis and Perea.77 These Nazarenes used Hebrew Scriptures78 and in the fourth
century Jerome traveled to Borea to copy their Hebrew Matthew.79 As a result, while at
least the book of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, very early on Aramaic and Greek
New Testament books were needed.

The Eastward Spread

In addition to these factors we must also consider the Eastern spread of

Christianity. We have heard much about the so called "Westward spread of Christianity"
but little is written of the equally profound Eastward movement. While Paul made
missionary journeys from his headquarters in Antioch Syria, into the Western world,
most of the emissaries (apostles) traveled eastward. Bartholomew traveled eastward
through Assyria into Armenia, then back down through Assyria, Babylon, Parthia
(Persia) and down into India where he was flayed alive with knives. Thaddeus taught in
Edessa (a city of northern Syria) Assyria and Persia, dying a martyr by arrows either in
Persia or at Ararat. Thomas taught in Parthia, Persia and India. He was martyred with a
spear at Mt. St. Thomas near Madras in India. To this very day a group of Christians in
India are called "St. Thomas Christians. Finally Kefa (Peter) traveled to Babylon and
even wrote one of his letters from there80 .
That the emissaries brought Semitic New Testament Scriptures eastward with
them is affirmed to us by the Church fathers. Eusebius writes:

73
Greek translation of the "Old Testament"
74
Acts 11:19; 24:5
75
Acts 11:26
76
Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:5
77
Epiphanius; Panarion 29:7:7-8
78
Epiphanius; Panarion 29:7:2-4; 9:4
79
Jerome; Of Illustrious Men 3
80
1Pt. 5:13

54
 Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported
hat he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been
delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of
Messiah, to whom Bartholomew
one of the emissaries, as it is said, had preached, and left them
the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters.81

And as Jerome writes:

Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve

emissaries, had there [in India] preached the advent of our
Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew,
which was written in Hebrew letters...82

This entire region of the Near East stretching from Israel through Syria, Assyria,
Babylon, Persia (Parthia) and down into India, became known as the "Church of the
East." At its high point the Church of the East stretched as far east as China! By the fifth
and sixth Centuries Christological debates had split the Church of the East into two major
factions, Nestorians and Jacobites . Today, the Church of the East has been split into
even more groups: Nestorians83, Jacobites84, Chaldean Roman Catholics, and
Maronites85. All of whom continue to use an Aramaic New Testament text.
When the Roman Catholic Portuguese invaded India in 1498 they encountered
over a hundred churches belonging to the St. Thomas Christians along the coast of
Malabar. These St. Thomas Christians, according to tradition, had been there since the
first century. They had married clergymen, did not adore images or pray to or through
saints, nor did they believe in purgatory. Most importantly they maintained use of the
Aramaic New Testament which they claimed had been in use at Antioch86.

81
Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 5:10
82
Jerome; De Vir. 3:36
83
Nestorians prefer the name the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. Nestorius the
Syrian was Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431 C.E.. His name in Aramaic means "banner on a
mountain" (see Is. 13:2) One Rabbinic tradition claims that this Nestorious was closely associated with the
Nazarenes (Toldot Yeshu 7). Nestorius refused to call Miriam (Mary) "Mother of God" because he
claimed that in Messiah a divine and a human person acted as one, but did not fuse inseparably, as a result
Nestorius taught that Miriam was only the mother of Yeshua the man, but that God existed before Yeshua
was ever born. In 431 the Council of Ephesus excommunicated Nestorious and his followers who became
known as "Nestorians."
84
The Jacobites are Monophysites. They prefer the name Syrian Orthodox Church. They were founded in
570 C.E. when Jacob Baradai, Bishop of Edessa united the Monophysites. These Jacobites are headed by
the Patriarch of Antioch and claim to be the original Christians of Antioch.
85
The Maronites are the Christians of Lebanon. They were originally Monophysites in the seventh century,
but joined the Roman Catholic Church in the twelfth Century.
86
The Syriac New Testament sixth ed. ; James Murdock; Scripture Tract Repository; 1883; pp. xvi-xvii

55
The Westward Spread

Now while many of the emissaries were spreading the Messianic movement
eastward, Paul was taking the movement into the Western world. From his headquarters
at Antioch, the capitol of Syria, Paul conducted several missionary journeys into Europe.
At this time there came a need for Greek versions of New Testament books.
As time progressed several events occurred which resulted in a great rise of anti-
Semitism in the West. This began when the Jews revolted against the Roman Empire in
70 C.E.. A second revolt by Jews in Egypt occurred in 116 C.E.. Things were further
complicated by the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 C.E.. In the Roman Empire anti-Semitism
became very popular, and even patriotic. In the West, Gentile Christianity sought to
distance itself from Judaism and Jewish customs. The Greek text began to be favored
over the Semitic text and many Semitic writings were subsequently destroyed.
By 325 C.E. anti-Semitism and the priority given in the West to the Greek
Scriptures had solidified. Constantine invaded Rome, making himself emperor.
Constantine proclaimed Christianity to be the Catholic (universal) religion, thus making
Christianity the enforced state religion of the Roman Empire. Before this occurred one
could be killed for being a Christian, afterwards one could be killed for not being a
"Christian." Constantine, who was an anti-Semite, called the council of Nicea in 325
C.E. to standardize Christianity. Jews were excluded from the meeting. Jewish practices
were officially banned and the Greek translations officially replaced the original Semitic
Scriptures.
Having alienated the Jewish Nazarenes in 325 at the Council of Nicea, subsequent
councils alienated the Assyrians and Syrians over Christological debates. The Nestorian
Assyrians were alienated in 431 C.E. at the Council of Ephesus while the Jacobite
Syrians were alienated in 451 C.E. at the Council of Chalcedon. The division between
the Semitic peoples of the Near East, and the Roman Catholic Church grew ever steeper.
With the rise of Islam in the Near East the Near Eastern Christians were even
further separated from their European counterparts in the West. Relations between the
Christian West and the Islamic Near East were non-existent.
As time progressed, in the West the Roman Catholic Church began to suppress
the Scriptures in Europe. Those who would try to make the Scriptures available to the
common man were often burned alive. Such suppression was impossible in the Near
East, where the Scriptures were already in Aramaic, the common language of the people.
When the Protestant reformation emerged, claiming the Greek New Testament as the
original, it was a time when most Europeans were not even aware that an Aramaic
version existed.
In was in this atmosphere, in 1516 that the first printed edition of the Greek New
Testament was published in Europe. This edition, published by Erasmus, would become
known as the Textus Receptus, and serve as the standard Greek text until the 19th
Century. The first edition of this work was based solely on six manuscripts, while later
editions used only ten. None of these manuscripts were complete, and only one was even
particularly old, dating to the tenth century. Since none of his manuscripts were complete,
Erasmus was forced to invent many of his Greek portions of Revelation by translating
from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. It was this poor edition which served as the evidence

56
by which the West would embrace the Greek as the original. This edition would later
serve as the basis for the King James Version.

Grammar of the New Testament

It has long been recognized that the New Testament is written in very poor Greek
grammar, but very good Semitic grammar. Many sentences are inverted with a verb >
noun format characteristic of Semitic languages. Furthermore, there are several
occurrences of the redundant "and". A number of scholars have shown in detail the
Semitic grammar imbedded in the Greek New Testament books.87
In addition to the evidence for Semitic grammar imbedded in the Greek New
Testament, the fact that serious grammatical errors are found in the Greek New
Testament books may be added. Speaking of the Greek of Revelation, Charles Cutler
Torrey states that it "...swarms with major offenses against Greek grammar."88 He calls it
"linguistic anarchy", and says, "The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their
number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of
literature." 89 Torrey gives ten examples90 listed below:

1. Rev. 1:4 "Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come"
(all nom. case)

2. Rev. 1:15 "His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gender dative case) as in a
furnace purified" (Fem. gender sing. no., gen. case)

3. Rev. 11:3 "My witness (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in
sackcloth."

4. Rev. 14:14 "I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a Son of Man (accus.) having
(nom.) upon his head a golden crown."

5. Rev. 14:19 "He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem),
the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God."

6. Rev. 17:4 "A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things"
(accus.)

7. Rev. 19:20 "The lake of blazing (fem.) fire (neut.).

8. Rev. 20:2 "And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.) who is the Devil
and Satan, and bound him."
87
For example: Our Translated Gospels By Charles Cutler Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church by
Charles Cutler Torrey; An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black; The Aramaic
Origin of the Fourth Gospel by Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels by Frank
Zimmerman and Semitisms of the Book of Acts by Max Wilcox
88
Documents of the Primitive Church; Charles Cutler Torey; Harper and Bothers, New York; 1941; p. 156
89
ibid p. 158
90
ibid

57
9. Rev. 21:9 "Seven angels holding seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last
plagues."

10. Rev. 22:5 "They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.)."

Mistakes in the Greek New Testament

In addition to grammatical errors in the Greek New Testament, there are also a
number of "blunders" in the text which prove that the present Greek text is not inerrant.
One of the mistakes in the Greek New Testament may be found in Matthew 23:35
where Zechariah the son of Jehoidai (2Chron. 24:20-21; b.San. 96; j.Ta'anit 69)
mistakenly appears as Zechariah the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1).91 This error was not to
be found in the ancient Hebrew copy which Jerome held. Jerome writes of Hebrew
Matthew: "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, for 'Son of Barachias' I find 'of Joiada'
written"92
Another mistake in the Greek New Testament is to be found in Matthew 27:9
which quotes Zech. 11:12-13 but falsely credits the quote to Jeremiah93. The Shem Tob
Hebrew correctly attributes the quote to Zechariah, while the Aramaic (Old Syriac and
Peshitta) simply attribute the quote to "the prophet."
Yet another apparent mistake in the Greek text of the New Testament is the name
"Cainan" in Luke 3:36. In this passage the name appears but not in the corresponding
Masoretic genealogies in Gen. 10:24; 11:12 and 1Chron. 1:18, 24. 94 The Old Syriac does
not contain this reading, but reads "Elam" a name which appears in the Masoretic
genealogy of Gen. 10:22 and 1Chron. 1:17 as a brother, who apparently is inserted into
this family line based on Deut. 25:5-6.
Greek Mt. 1:1-17 subtracts a name in the Messiah's genealogy. The genealogy in
Matthew is supposed to contain three sets of fourteen names each (Mt. 1:17) yet the last
set contains only 13 names in the Greek. The missing name, Abner (Av'ner) does appear
in the DuTillet Hebrew text of Mt. 1:13.

Semitic Idiomatic Expressions

Another evidence for a Semitic background for the New Testament is the
abundance of Semitic idiomatic expressions in the New Testament text. Idiomatic
expressions are phrases whose literal meanings are nonsense, but which have special
meanings in a particular language. For example, the English phrase "in a pickle" has
nothing to do with pickles, but means to be in trouble. When translated into Aramaic it is
meaningless.
91
It has been claimed that a similar mistake, found in the Koran, which confuses Miriam (Mary) the mother
of Yeshua with Miriam the sister of Aaron and Moses (Koran; Surah 19:16-28) proves that the Koran is not
inspired.
92
Jerome; Com on Mt. 23:35
93
Perhaps because of a similar prophecy in Jer. 18:2; 19:2, 11; 32:6-9
94
The name does appear in the LXX in Gen. 11:12 but not in the other passages where it would appear if it
were a true reading.

58
 Several Semitic idiomatic expressions appear in the New Testament, the
following are only a few:

• "good eye" meaning "generous" and "bad eye" meaning "stingy"

(Mt.6:22-23; 20:15; Lk. 11:34)95 96

• "bind" meaning "prohibit" and "loose" meaning "permit"

(Mt. 16:19; 18:18)97

• "destroy the Law" meaning to teach a precept of the Law incorrectly,

and "fulfil [the Law]" meaning to teach its precepts correctly (Mt. 5:17).98

• Use of the word "word" to mean "matter" or "thing" (1Cor. 12:8)

• Use of the word "Heaven" as a euphemism for "God"99

(Mt. 5:3; 21:25, Lk. 15:18; Jn. 3:27)100

• Idiomatic use of the word "face" (Lk. 9:51-52)

• The phrase "cast out your name as evil" (Lk. 6:22)101

is a poor translation of "cast out your evil name." meaning to defame someone102.

• "Lay these sayings in your ears" (Lk. 9:44)103 means to listen carefully.104

95
Other examples: Prov. 22:9; 23:6; 28:22
96
Understanding the Difficult Sayings of Jesus; David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr.; Austin, TX;1984; pp.
143f; Jewish New Testament Commentary; David H. Stern; 1992; p. 57
97
Other examples: j.Ber. 5b; 6c; j.San. 28a; b.Ab.Zar. 37a; b.Ned. 62a; b.Yeb. 106a; b.Bets. 2b; 22a; b.Ber.
35a; b.Hag. 3b
98
Understanding the Difficult Sayings of Jesus; David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr.; Austin, TX;1984; pp.
152
99
Understanding the Difficult Sayings of Jesus; David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr.; Austin, TX;1984; p. 85
100
Other example: 1En. 6:1-2 = Gen 6:1-2
101
Other examples: Deut. 22:13, 19
102
Understanding the Difficult Sayings of Jesus; David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr.; Austin, TX;1984; p.
156f
103
Other example: Ex. 17:4
104
Understanding the Difficult Sayings of Jesus; David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr.; Austin, TX;1984; p.
160f

59
The Pauline Epistles

The common wisdom of textual origins has always been that the Pauline Epistles
were first written in Greek. This position is held by many, despite the fact that two
"church fathers" admitted the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's Epistles and one
(Jerome) admits to the Semitic origin of most, if not all, of Paul's Epistles105. Still, Paul
is generally seen as a Helenist Jew from Tarsus who Hellenized the Gospel. So strong
has this image of Paul been instilled in Western scholarship that even those who have
argued for a Semitic origin for significant portions of the New Testament have rarely
ventured to challenge the Greek origin of the Pauline Epistles.

Paul and Tarsus

In addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must first examine the
background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a Greek speaking city? Would Paul have learned
Greek there? Tarsus probably began as a Hittite city-state. Around 850 B.C.E. Tarsus
became part of the great Assyrian Empire. When the Assyrian Empire was conquered by
the Babylonian Empire around 605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that Empire as well.
Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including Tarsus, was incorporated into the
Persian Empire. Aramaic was the chief language of all three of these great Empires. By
the first century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus. Coins struck at Tarsus
and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic inscriptions on them106.
Regardless of the language of Tarsus, there is also great question as to if Paul was
actually brought up in Tarsus or just incidentally born there. The key text in question is
Acts 22:3:

I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia,

but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel,
taught according to the strictness of our father's Torah.
and was zealous toward God as you all are today.

Paul sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his being "brought up" in
Jerusalem. Much argument has been given by scholars to this term "brought up" as it
appears here. Some have argued that it refers only to Paul's adolescent years. A key,
however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat parallel passage in Acts
7:20-23:

At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God;
and he was brought up in his father's house for three months.
And when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away
and brought him up as her own son.

105
As noted in the previous chapter.
106
Greek Coins; Charles Feltman; p. 185

60
 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians...

Note the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic = ityiled); "brought up" (Greek =
anatrepho; Aramaic = itrabi); "learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di).
Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the language, we can
see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and then taught. Paul's entire
context is that his being raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was
merely born at Tarsus.

Was Paul a Helenist?

The claim that Paul was a Hellenistic is also a misunderstanding that should be
dealt with. As we have already seen, Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was
spoken. Whatever Hellenistic influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to have
left there at a very early age and been "brought up" in Jerusalem. Paul describes himself
as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5), and "of the tribe of
Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). It is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in the
first century. The term Hebrew was not used as a genealogical term, but as a
cultural/linguistic term. An example of this can be found in Acts 6:1 were a dispute
arises between the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenistic." Most scholars agree that the
"Hellenistic" here are Helenist Jews. No evangelistic efforts had yet been made toward
non-Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10). In Acts 6:1 a clear contrast
is made between Helenists and Hebrews which are clearly non-Helenists. Helenists were
not called Hebrews, a term reserved for non-Helenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a
"Hebrew" he is claiming to be a non-Helenist, and when he calls himself a "Hebrew of
Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Helenist. This would explain why Paul
disputed against the Helenists and why they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why
he escaped to Tarsus (Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Helenist Jewish population in
Tarsus, this would have been a very bad move.

Paul's Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt that he was in any
way a Helenist. Paul claimed to be a "Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6)
meaning that he was at least a second generation Pharisee. The Aramaic text, as well as
some Greek mss. have "Pharisee the son of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic expression
meaning a third generation Pharisee. If Paul were a second or third generation Pharisee,
it would be difficult to accept that he had been raised up as a Helenist. Pharisees were
staunchly opposed to Helenism. Paul's claim to be a second or third generation Pharisee
is further amplified by his claim to have been a student of Gamliel (Acts 22:3). Gamliel
was the grandson of Hillel and the head of the school of Hillel. He was so well respected
that the Mishna states that upon his death "the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and
modesty died."107 The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under Gamliel is witnessed
by Paul's constant use of Hillelian Hermeneutics. Paul makes extensive use, for example,

107
m.Sotah 9:15

61
of the first rule of Hillel.108 It is an unlikely proposition that a Helenist would have
studied under Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center of Pharisaic Judaism.

The Audience and Purpose of the Pauline Epistles

Paul's audience is another element which must be considered when tracing the
origins of his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were addressed to various congregations in the
Diaspora. These congregations were mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and
a complimentary group of Gentiles. The Thessalonian congregation was just such an
assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the Corinthians109. It is known that Aramaic remained a
language of Jews living in the Diaspora, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have
been found at Rome, Pompei and even England.110 If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Hebrew
or Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then passed the message on
to their Gentile counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul's phrase
"to the Jew first and then to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). It would also shed more
light on the passage which Paul writes:

What advantage then has the Jew,

or what is the profit of circumcision?
Much in every way!
To them first, were committed the Words of God.
- Rom. 3:1-2

It is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues of the cities to which he
wrote. Certainly no one would argue for a Latin original of Romans.
One final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin of Paul's Epistles, is
their intended purpose. It appears that Paul intended the purpose of his Epistles to be:

1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27)

2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37)

All Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and Aramaic111
Paul would not have written material which he intended to be read in the congregations in
any other language. Moreover all religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic
(doctrinal) authority, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul could not have expected
that his Epistles would be accepted as having the authority he claimed for them, without
having written them in Hebrew or Aramaic.

108
kal v'khomer (light and heavy).
109
Certain passages in the Corinthian Epistles are clearly aimed exclusively at Jews (1Cor. 10:1-2 for
example.)
110
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology "Note on a Bilingual Inscription in Latin and
Aramaic Recently Found at South Shields"; A. Lowy' Dec. 3, 1878; pp. 11-12; "Five Transliterated
Aramaic Inscriptions" The American Journal of Archaeology; W.R. Newbold; 1926; Vol. 30; pp. 288ff
111
see The Words of Jesus By Gustaf Dalman; Edinburg, England; 1909

62
Semitic Style of Paul’s Epistles

Another factor which should be considered in determining the origin of the

Pauline Epistles is the Semitic style of the text. This Semitic style can be seen through
Paul's use of Semitic poetry, Semitic idioms, Hillelian hermeneutics and Semitic terms.
These factors neutralize the claim that Paul was a Helenist writing in Greek with
Hellenistic ideas and style.
Paul's use of Semitic poetry also points to a Semitic background for his epistles. The
following are just a few examples of Paul's use of the Semitic poetic device known as
parallelism:

Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the Law

and make your boast in God, and know his will
and approve the things that are more excellent,
being instructed out of the Law
and are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind
a light of them which are in darkness,
an instructor of the foolish
a teacher of babes
which has the form of knowledge
and of the truth in the Law

You therefore which teach another,

teach you not yourself?
You that proclaim a man should not steal,
do you steal?
You that say a man should not commit adultery,
do you commit adultery?
You that abhor idols,
do you commit blasphemy?
You that makes your boast of the Law,
through breaking the Law, dishonor you God?
(Rom. 2:17-23)

Now there are diversities of gifts,

but the same Spirit.
And there are differences of administrations,
but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of operations,
but it is the same God which works all in all.
(1Cor. 12:4-6)

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,

and have not love,

63
I have become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have prophecy, and understand all mysteries

and all knowledge,
and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains,
and have not love,
I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,

and though I give my body to be burned,
and have not love,
it profits me nothing.
(1Cor. 13:1-3)

Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:

for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion has light with darkness?
and what concord has Messiah with B'lial?
or what part has he that believes with an infidel?
and what agreement has the Temple of God with idols?
(2Cor. 6:14-16a)

Finally, my brothers, be strong in the Lord,

and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God.
that you may be able to stand against the whiles of the devil.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,

but against principalities,
against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Therefore, take unto you the whole armour of God,

that you may be able to withstand in the evil day,
and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth,

and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the goodnews of peace;

Above all, taking the shield of faith,

wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

And take up the helmet of salvation,

and the sword of the Spirit,

64
 which is the word of God.
(Eph. 6:10-17)

Paul clearly writes using Semitic idiomatic expressions. Paul uses the term
"word" to refer to some matter or thing (1Cor. 12:8) Paul also uses the Semitic form of
magnification by following a noun with its plural form. This is used in the Tenach (Old
Testament) in such terms as "Holy of Holies." Paul uses this idiom in such phrases as
"Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5); "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" (1Tim. 6:15).

Paul was born in Tarsus, an Aramaic speaking city, and raised up in Jerusalem as
a staunch non-Helenist. He wrote his Epistles to core groups of Jews at various
congregations in the Diaspora to hold doctrinal authority and to be used as liturgy. There
can be little doubt that he wrote these Epistles in Hebrew or Aramaic and they were later
translated into Greek.

Tanak Quotes

It has often been claimed by the pro-Greek New Testament origin crowd, that the
several quotes in the Greek New Testament which agree with the LXX prove the Greek
origin of the New Testament. This argument is faulty however, for two important
reasons.
First of all, the premise of this argument presumes the conclusion to be true. It is
only in the Greek New Testament that such neat agreements with the LXX occur.
Hebrew Matthew (Shem Tob and DuTillet) tends to agree with the Masoretic Text,
While the Aramaic versions of New Testament books (Old Syriac Gospels, Peshitta New
Testament and Crawford Revelation) tend to agree in many places with the Peshitta Old
Testament.
The second fault with this argument is that recent discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls
have produced first century Hebrew mss. of Old Testament books which in places agree
with the LXX against the current Hebrew Text (the Masoretic text) and at times agree
with the Peshitta Old Testament against the Masoretic text or the LXX. Thus many, but
not all agreements of the New Testament with the LXX may be due to these first century
Old Testament texts which contained such agreements.
An examination of four sample Old Testament quotes as they appear in the
Aramaic New Testament will demonstrate two important facts. First, the Aramaic text of
the Old Syriac and Peshitta New Testament could not have been translated from the
Greek New Testament. Second, the Aramaic New Testament, as we have it today has
been altered in some places so as to agree with the Greek. In all of these examples the
Greek New Testament agrees with the LXX perfectly.

Heb. 10:5-7 = Ps. 40:7-9 (6-8)

With sacrifices and offerings You are not pleased

65
 But You have clothed me with a body
And burnt offerings which are for sins You have not asked for.
Then I said, Behold I come,
In the beginning of the book it is written concerning me
I will do your will, God.

Here the phrase "But You have clothed me with a body" best agrees with the
LXX which has "You have prepared a body for me," a radical departure from the
Masoretic Text which has "Ears You have cut/dug for me." but agreeing with the Zohar
which alludes to the passage saying “Your eyes behold me ere I was clothed in a body
and all things are written in your book”. However the phrase "In the beginning of the
book..." is a unique reading from the Peshitta Old Testament. The Hebrew has "In the
roll of the book..." while the LXX has "In the volume of the book..." agreeing with the
Greek of Hebrews.
Thus, this quote in the Peshitta version of Hebrews is a hybrid text sometimes
agreeing with the LXX against the Masoretic Text and Peshitta Old Testament, and
sometimes agreeing with the Peshitta Old Testament against both the LXX and the
Masoretic Text. In fact this hybrid nature looks just like what such a quote might be
expected to look like, in light of the hybrid texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This quote
could not contain agreements with both the LXX and the Peshitta Old Testament if it
were translated from the Greek New Testament. If this passage were translated from the
Greek it would either have agreed with the LXX only as does the Greek, or inserted the
standard Peshitta reading as a substitute. This quote therefore, is not a translation from
Greek nor a substitute inserted from the Peshitta Old Testament but is a reading which
originated apart from the Greek text.

1Peter 1:24-25 = Isaiah 40:6-8

Because of this all flesh is grass

And all its beauty like a flower of the field
The grass dries up and the flower withers
and the Word of our God abides forever

Here the line "And all its beauty like a flower of the field" agrees with the Peshitta
Old Testament and Masoretic Text against the LXX and Greek New Testament which
has "and all the glory of man like the flower of grass." In fact this quote agrees with the
Peshitta Old Testament exactly except for the omission of Isaiah 40:7 which agrees with
the LXX. Like the previous example, it could not have been translated from the Greek
text.

Acts 8:32-33 = Isaiah 53:7-8

Like a lamb he was led to the slaughter,

and like a sheep before its shearer is silent,

66
 Even thus he did not open his mouth.
In his humiliation he was led from prison and from judgement,
And who will declare his generation?
because his life has been taken from the earth/land

In the first two lines the words "lamb" and "sheep" are reversed in the LXX and
Greek Acts but not here, where they agree with the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Old
Testament. "from prison" agrees with the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Old Testament
against the LXX, but "In his humiliation" agrees with the LXX against both. The final
line contains a special problem. In this line the Peshitta Acts agrees with the LXX and
Greek Acts, but this passage could not have merely come from a variant Hebrew text. In
this passage the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Old Testament agree against the LXX
with "He was cut off out of the land of the living." An examination of the two versions
makes it clear that the LXX translator misunderstood the Hebrew grammar here and took
the word "life/living" to be a direct object rather than a modifier. Thus this phrase could
only have come from the LXX. It is apparent however, because of the agreements with
the Masoretic Text and Peshitta Old Testament against the LXX in the preceding lines,
that this quote could not have been translated from the Greek. Thus, we may conclude
that the Peshitta New Testament has been revised in places to agree with the Greek text,
as our last example will further demonstrate.

Mt. 4:4 = Deut. 8:3

Man does not live by bread alone,

but by every word which comes from the mouth of God.

The word "God" here agrees with the LXX against both the Masoretic Text and
the Peshitta Old Testament. It might first appear that this passage was merely translated
from the Greek of Matthew. However, a look at the Old Syriac version, which is
recognized by most scholars as the ancestor of the Peshitta112 has "Lord" in closer
agreement with the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Old Testament against the LXX.
Thus, it is clear that the Peshitta was revised here to agree with the LXX and the more
primitive text of the Old Syriac retains the original, unrevised reading.

Zech. 12:10 = Jn. 19:37

...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced... (Zech. 12:10)
...they shall look upon him whom they have pierced... (Jn. 19:37)

19:37 They will look at him whom they pierced – Aramaic: wrqdd Nmb Nwrwxnd
The passage is quoting from Zech. 12:10 where the original Hebrew reads:

112
See for example Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac; Arthur Voobus; 1951; p. 46; 54-55;
The Text of the New Testament; Bruce Metzger; 1968; pp. 69-70 note; Handbook to the Textual Criticism
of the New Testament; Sir Fredric G. Kenyon; 1951; p. 164.

67
 wrqd r#) t) yl) w+ybhw
“And they shall look toward me whom they pierced”

The Aramaic Peshitta Tanak translates the phrase into Aramaic with:

wrqdd Nmb ytwl Nwrwxnd

“they shall look toward me at him whom they pierced”

Note that the Aramaic translation adds the phrase “at him” (Nmb) to the passage. This is
because the Aramaic translator was attempting to translate the Hebrew word for word
into Aramaic. In his quest for such a word for word translation, he attempted to translate
the untranslatable Hebrew word t) with “at him” (Nmb) so as to convey the idea of a
pointer to “whom they pierced” as the direct object. The Hebrew word t) is a
preposition which is unique to Hebrew and which points to the next word or phrase as the
direct object receiving the action of the verb. In this case the word indicates that the
wrqd r#) ”whom they pierced” is receiving the action of yl) w+ybhw ”and they shall
look toward me”. The Aramaic translator has added Nmb ”at him” so at to connect
wrqdd ”whom they pierced” with ytwl Nwrwxnd ”they shall look toward me”. Note
that the text as quoted in Yochanan has:

wrqdd Nmb Nwrwxnd

“they shall look at him whom they pierced”

Note that the Aramaic as it appears in Jn. 19:37 differs from the Peshitta Aramaic of
Zech. 12:10 only by one word. This Aramaic reading omits the phrase ytwl ”toward
me” and retains only Nmb ”at him”. Either Yochanan or the scribe of the Aramaic text of
Zech 12:10 which served as his source text, seems to have found the phrase Nmb ytwl
“toward me at him” to be redundant and thus omitted the phrase ytwl ”toward me”.
This shift from “toward me” to “at him” could only have occurred in the Aramaic text of
Yochanan 19:37 and been translated into the Greek text of John 19:37. Thus pointing to
the Aramaic origin of the book and explaining the shift in the reading of this verse.

From the above examples it is clear that Old Testament quotes as they appear in
the Aramaic New Testament demonstrate that the Peshitta New Testament could not have
been simply translated from Greek.

68
THE SEMITIC NEW TESTAMENT SOURCES

Hebrew Sources

DuTillet Matthew

The DuTillet version of Matthew is taken from a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which
was confiscated from Jews in Rome in 1553. On August 12th, 1553, at the petition of
Pietro, Cardinal Caraffa, the Inquisitor General113, Pope Julius III signed a decree
banning the Talmud in Rome. The decree was executed on September 9th (Rosh
HaShanna) and anything that looked like the Talmud, that is, anything written in Hebrew
characters was confiscated as the Jewish homes and synagogues were ravished. Jean
DuTillet, Bishop of Brieu, France was visiting Rome at the time. DuTillet was astounded
to take notice of a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew among the other Hebrew manuscripts.
DuTillet acquired the manuscript and returned to France, depositing it in the Bibliotheque
Nationale, Paris. It remains there to this day as Hebrew ms. No. 132.114
While most scholars have ignored the DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew, two
scholars, Hugh Schonfield and George Howard,115 have stated their opinion that this
Hebrew text underlies our current Greek text.116 Schonfield writes:

...certain linguistic proofs... seem to show that the Hebrew

text [DuTillet] underlies the Greek, and that certain
renderings in the Greek may be due to a misread Hebrew
original.
(An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927, p. 17)

Munster Matthew

The Munster Hebrew Text of Matthew was published in 1537 by Sebastian Munster.
Munster claimed to have received his Hebrew text from the Jews. Munster also noted
that he received the text “in defective condition, and with many lacunae (holes)” which
he himself filled in. Unfortunately Munster did not take steps to preserve his manuscript
source which is now lost, and he did not make note of those places where he filled in
missing text.

113
later to become Pope Paul IV
114
An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, Hugh Schonfield; 1927; p. 3-4
115
Initially Howard concluded that the DuTillet text was a translation from Greek, (JBL 105/1 (1986) p. 53,
62) later Howard concluded that DuTillet is a "revision of an earlier Hebrew Matthew" related to the
Shem Tob version (JBL 105/1 (1986) p. 63 n. 34). Howard elsewhere states his belief that the Shem Tob
text is a descendant of a Hebrew text which served as a model for our present Greek text, as shown later in
this chapter.
116
See An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, Hugh Schonfield; 1927,; The Gospel of Matthew
according to a Primitive Hebrew Text; George Howard; Mercer University Press; 1987; Journal of Biblical
Literature 105/1 (1986) pp. 49-63; 108/2 (1989) pp. 239-257

69
Shem Tob Matthew

The Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew was transcribed by Shem Tob Ben
Yitzach Ben Shaprut into his apologetic work Even Bohan sometime around 1380 C.E..
While the autograph of Shem Tob's Even Bohan has been lost, several manuscripts dating
between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries still exist, complete with the transcribed
text of Hebrew Matthew. George Howard writes of Shem Tob's Hebrew Matthew:

...an old substratum to the Hebrew in Shem Tob is a prior

composition, not a translation. The old substratum, however,
has been exposed to a series of revisions so that the present
text of Shem-Tob represents the original only in an impure
form.
(The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text; 1987;p.223)

It might appear from the linguistic and sociological

background to early Christianity and the nature of some
theological tendencies in Shem-Tob's Matthew that the
Hebrew text served as a model for the Greek. The present
writer is, in fact, inclined to that position.
(ibid p. 225)

Shem-Tob's Matthew... does not preserve the original in a pure

form. It reflects contamination by Jewish scribes during the
Middle Ages. Considerable parts of the original, however,
appear to remain...
(Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; 1995; p. 178

Munster Hebrew Hebrews

In 1537 Munster had published Hebrew Matthew. Twenty years later, in 1557, a second
edition was printed containing a complete Hebrew text of Hebrews in an appendix.

Although we have no clear record of a statement by Munster that he obtained his Hebrew
Hebrews from among the Jews, it seems safe to say that this was the case. Munster did
plainly make this claim of his Hebrew Matthew in 1537 so it seems likely that this was
also the source for the supplemental Hebrew Hebrews in the 1557 edition of his Hebrew
Matthew. (Munster had died before the publication of his second edition in 1557, which
may explain why he had not written an introduction for the Hebrew Hebrews explaining
its origin. The fact that Hebrew Hebrews uses the Jewish substitution h for the Sacred
Name seems to confirm the Jewish source of this document. There is a good deal of
internal evidence which indicates that this Hebrew text of Hebrews descends from the

70
original Hebrew of Hebrews while Greek Hebrews represents a Greek translation of the
original Hebrew.

Aramaic Sources

The Old Syriac Gospels

Another relatively unknown fact to much of Christendom is the existence of two ancient
Aramaic manuscripts of the Four Gospels dating back to the Fourth century. The first
was discovered by Dr. William Cureton in 1842. It was found in a monastery at the
Naton Lakes Valley in Egypt. This manuscript is known as Codex Syrus Curetonianus
or, the Cureton and is catalogued as British Museum Add. No. 14451. The second was
discovered by Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis in 1892. It was found at St. Catherine’s
Monastery at the foot of traditional Mount Sinai in Egypt. This manuscript is known as
Codex Syrus Sinaiticus or the Syriac Siniatic and is catalogued as Ms. Sinai Syriac No.
30. After making his profound discovery Dr. Cureton studied the Old Syriac text of the
manuscript in detail. Cureton concluded that at least the version of Matthew found in the
Old Syriac has its basis in the original Semitic text and was not merely a translation from
the Greek or Latin. Cureton published his findings to the world saying:

...this Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least to be built upon

the original Aramaic text which was the work of the Apostle
himself.
(Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac;
1858; p. vi)

The Peshitta New Testament

The Peshitta Bible is an Aramaic version of the Scriptures which is used

throughout the Near East. The birth of the Peshitta looms beyond the horizon of
antiquity.
Although one tradition has the Tanak portion of the Peshitta being translated at
the time of Solomon at the request of Hiram, and another ascribes the translation to a
priest named Assa sent by the king of Assyria to Samaria117. More likely is that the
Peshitta Tanak was prepared at the edict of King Izates II of Abiabene who with his
entire family converted to Judaism. Josephus records that at his request, King Izates' five
son's went to Jerusalem to study the Jewish language and customs118. It was probably at
this time that the Peshitta Tanak was born.119
The New Testament portion of the Peshitta was added to the Peshitta Tanak in the
earliest Christian centuries. It is universally used by Jacobite Syrians; Nestorian
Assyrians and Roman Catholic Chaldeans. The Peshitta must predate the Christological

117
2Kings 17:27-28; Encyclopedia Judaica Bible article
118
Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews 20:2-4; Encyclopedia Judaica Bible article.
119
Encyclopedia Judaica Bible article; The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation;
The Bible Society of Jerusalem; 1986; p. iii

71
debates of the fourth and fifth centuries, since none of these groups would have adopted
their rival's version. Thus, this version certainly originated in the pre-Nicean Church of
the East. It includes all of the books except 2Peter; 2John; 3John; Jude and Revelation.
These books were not canonized by the Church of the East. The Peshitta is not merely a
translation from the Greek text, but rather a revision of the Old Syriac, as Arthur Voobus
writes:

... the Peshitta is not a translation,

but a revision of an Old Syriac version.
(Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac;
1951; p. 46 see also pp. 54-55).

The Crawford Manuscript of Revelation

The Crawford Aramaic version of Revelation is a very rare, little known version. How
the manuscript made its way to Europe is unknown. What is known is that the
manuscript was purchased by the Earl of Crawford around 1860. In the Earl of
Crawford's possession the ms. became catalogued Earl of Crawford's Haigh Hall, Wigan,
no. 11. It has since come into the possession of the well known John Rylands Library of
Manchester, England. The manuscript contains a complete Peshitta text supplemented by
the extra-Peshitta epistles120 and this unique version of Revelation121. Concerning the
variants of this version John Gwyn Writes:

Two or three... are plausible readings; and might well be

judged worthy of adoption if there were any ground for
supposing the Apocalypse to have been originally written,
or to be based on a document written, in an Aramaic idiom.
(The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown;
1897; p. lxxix)

And to this we may add to show that there is ground for "supposing the Apocalypse to
have been originally written, or to be based on a document written, in an Aramaic
idiom.":

...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language,

and that the Greek translation... is a remarkably close
rendering of the original."
- C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church
1941; p. 160

We come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse

as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic...

120
Being translations from Greek 2Peter, 2John, 3John and Jude.
121
The other Aramaic Revelation which appears in most manuscripts is entirely different and is clearly a
translation from the Greek.

72
 - RBY Scott; The Original Language of the Apocalypse
1928; p. 6

When we turn to the New Testament we find that

there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic
original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John
and for the apocalypse.
- Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text
of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii

73
 Chapter 6
The Covenants

To the ancient Hebrews a blood covenant was the most binding, sacred agreement one
could enter into. The making of blood covenants seems to be a universal concept found
among all peoples in even the most remote parts of the world. The custom of making
blood covenants can be found among American Indians as well as in the deepest most
remote parts of Africa. The origin of the blood covenant custom looms somewhere
beyond the horizon of history. The customs surrounding the making of a blood covenant
among the Hebrews involved:

1. Exchanging garments and swords (1Sam. 18:4)

2. A blood sacrifice (Gen. 15:9-17; 31:43-54; Jer. 34:18-19)
3. A memorial covenant meal (Gen. 31:54)

There are several examples of covenants in the Bible. Laban entered into a covenant
with Jacob (Gen. 31:43-55). And David made a covenant with Jonathan (1Sam. 18:1-4).
When two men were in a covenant relationship, everything they owned and their very
lives were offered to each other. Moreover a person with a covenant relationship held
heirship rights with his coventor. For this reason David was the legal heir to the throne
when Jonathan and Saul were killed. One of the best pictures we have of the power of
the blood covenant is given in 1Samuel 18-20. Because of their covenant, Jonathan
pleaded with his father the King on David's behalf (1Sam. 19:4-7). And because of the
covenant David sought out Jonathan's son Mephilbosheth so as to show kindness to him
and make him as one of his own sons (2Sam. 9). Now our covenants with G-d are
patterened after the Hebrew blood covenant customs. In the same way we:

1. Exchanging garments and swords (Eph. 6:11-17)

2. Have a blood sacrifice (Heb. 9:12-22)
3. Have a memorial covenant meal (Mt. 26:26-29)

As covenentors with the Messiah we also have an inheritence (Rom. 8:15-17; Eph. 1:11,
14, 18; Heb. 9:15-17; 1Pt. 1:4) .

74
THE EDENIC COVENANT

The Edenic Covenant is very similar to what Dispensationalists call "The Age of
Innocence". The terms of this covenant are set forth in Gen.2:15-17 where Adam and
Eve are given the entire Garden of Eden with one exception, the tree of knowledge of
good and evil. They were given eternal life with just one condition, they must not eat
from this one tree. At the encouragement of the serpent, Eve ate from the forbidden tree,
and gave to Adam who also ate. Having stolen the one thing which did not belong to
them, they lost their eternal life and were exiled from the Garden.

THE ADAMIC COVENANT

The Adamic Covenant is very similar to what Dispensationalists call the "Age of
Conscience". The terms of this covenant are found in Gen. 3:14-23 where G-d, having
exiled man from the Garden, established another covenant with man. Under the
conditions of this covenant, women would experience pain in childbirth and are to desire
their husbands, while men would rule over their wives, work for food and contend with
thorns and thistles. As part of this covenant G-d, also promised a "seed" from woman
who would restore the conditions of the Edenic Covenant (Gen 3:15;See also Rom.
5:12-21 & 1Cor. 15:21-22).

THE NOACHDIC COVENANT

The Noachdic Covenant is very similar to what Dispensationalists call the "Age of
Human Government". The terms of this covenant are found in Gen. 9:1-17, where G-d
makes a covenant with Noah and his descendants (Gen. 9:9, 12) the "nations"/Gentiles
[Same word in Hebrew] (Gen. 10:32). This covenant is an "everlasting covenant" (Gen.
9:16) and is for "perpetual generations" (Gen. 9:12). According to the conditions of
this covenant, G-d promised never to flood the earth again the rainbow(Gen. 9:11-15).
The nations/Gentiles were given animal life as food(Gen. 9:2-3); forbidden to eat blood
or flesh from a living animal (Gen. 9:4); forbidden to murder(Gen. 9:5-6); required to
administer justice in accordance with G-d's Law (Gen. 9:5-6);and required to
procreate(Gen 9:1, 7).

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

The Abrahamic Covenant is very similar to what Dispensationalists call "The Age of
Promise". The terms of this covenant are found in Gen.17:1-27, where G-d makes a
covenant with Abraham and his descendants, the Jews (Gen.17:4,7,10,19,21).
This covenant is an "everlasting covenant" (Gen.17:7,13,19), is for all generations of

75
Jews(Gen.17:7, 9,13,19) and is not nullified by later covenants (Gal.3:15-17). According
to the conditions of this covenant; every male must be circumcised on the eighth day
(Gen.17:10-14); G-d would make a multitude of nations from Abraham (Gen.17:4-6); G-
d would have a special relationship with Israel (Gen.17:7-8); and G-d would give Israel
the Land of Canaan (Gen.17:8). Much confusion surrounds this covenant. Many have
confused the Abrahamic Covenant of Gen. 17 with Abraham's justification by faith alone
in Gen 15:6. However, Abraham's justification by faith alone in Gen.15:6 was by
FAITH ALONE, NOT OF WORKS (Rom.4:1-5, 9-12; Gal. 3:6). The Abrahamic
Covenant, to the contrary, REQUIRES circumcision, and anyone who is not circumcised
is OUTSIDE the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:10-14). Though G-d prophesied the
Abrahamic Covenant prior to making this covenant (Gen.12:1-3; 13:14-18; 15:1-6, 18-
21), until Abraham was circumcised, there was no Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:10-
14). Thus, Abraham was justified by faith alone before there was an Abrahamic
Covenant(Rom. 4:1-5, 9-12), the two are not identical.

THE MOSAIC COVENANTS

The Mosaic Covenants are very similar to what Dispensationalists call "The Age of
Law". There are two of these Mosaic Covenants, the first made at Sinai (Horeb) and the
second made at Moab.

1. THE MOSAIC COVENANT AT SINAI (HOREB) - The terms of the Mosaic

Covenant at Sinai (sometimes called the Sinaitic Covenant) are given in Ex. 19:1-
31:18 and throughout most of the Torah, where G-d made a covenant with Israel
alone, which did not apply to the Gentiles (Ex. 19:5; 24:7; Deut. 4:6-8; 5:1-3; Ps
147:19-20; Rom. 9:4; Acts 15; and Galatians). There is no shortage of verses
which state that this covenant is an "everlasting" covenant "for all generations",
"forever" (Ex. 27:21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:17; Lev. 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36;
10:9, 15; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10;
Deut. 5:29;Ps. 119:160) and that this Mosaic Covenant would never be added to
or taken from (Deut. 4:2; 12:32).

2. THE MOSAIC COVENANT AT MOAB - The terms of the Mosaic

Covenant at Moab (sometimes called the Palestinian Covenant, or Covenant of
the Land) are found in Deut. 29-30 and Lev. 26 where G-d promised that if Israel
should turn from the Torah and find herself exiled from the land, that when Israel
would again turn to G-d, G-d would restore her to the land.

76
THE DAVIDIC COVENANT

The terms of the Davidic Covenant are given in 2Sam.7:5-19;1Chron.17:4-15 and

Psalms 89:19-37. Through this covenant G-d promises Israel that the throne of the
Davidic Kingdom will endure forever. Since the Messiah will fulfill this promise, he is
often called "Messiah the Son of David" or "King Messiah"(see Acts 1:6-7; Rev. 20:2-6).

THE NEW COVENANT

The New Covenant is very similar to what Dispensationalists call "The Kingdom Age" or
"The Millennium". The terms of this covenant are found in Jer. 31:31-34; 32:40-44;
Ezkl. 16:60-63; 37:26-27 and Is. 59:20-21, where we are told that G-d will make a "New
Covenant" with "the House of Israel and the House of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), ie. those with
whom the Mosaic Covenant [at Sinai] had been made (Heb. 9:15, 18-20). This
covenant, like the others, is to be eternal (Jer. 31:35-37; 32:40; Ezkl. 37:26). The terms
of this "New Covenant" are:

• G-d will put His Torah in Israel's inward parts and write it in their
hearts. (Jer. 31:33; 32:40)
• G-d will maintain a special relationship with Israel (Jer.31:33;
Ezkl. 37:27-28)
• All Israel shall know the L-RD. (Jer. 31:34)
• Israel's transgressions will be forgiven. (Jer. 31:35; Ezkl. 16:63;
Heb. 9:15, 22)
• ALL of the promised land will be given to Israel. (Jer.32:41-44;
Ezkl. 37:26)
• G-d will multiply Israel. (Ezkl. 37:26)
• The Temple will permanently stand in Israel. (Ezkl.37:26-28)

The truth is that the New Covenant is not the Good News (Gospel) but is a covenant
which HaShem will make with "the House of Israel and the House of Judah" when He
establishes the Kingdom. There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that there is more
than one New Covenant. The following are just a few reasons we know the New
Covenant is not for today:

• The New Covenant is always mentioned in connection with the

Kingdom. (For example Jer. 31:31-34 in context of 34:10-40; Jer.
32:40-44 in context of 32:37-44; Ezkl.37:26-27 in context of 37: 1-
28; See also Mt. 26:28-29 = Mk. 14:25)
• When the New Covenant comes all Israel will know G-d.(Jer.
31:31,34)
• When the New Covenant comes Israel will receive ALL of the
land promised to Abraham. (Jer. 32:41-44; Ezkl. 37:26;This has
yet to happen, see Gen. 16:18-21)

77
 • When the New Covenant comes the Millennial Temple will stand
in Israel forever. (Ezkl. 37:26-28)

• Y'shua refused to partake of the cup of the New Covenant until his
return to establish the Kingdom. (Mt. 26:28-29 = Mk. 14:25 = Lk.
22:20)

Understanding Acts 15

The material below takes the form of a commentary written following material from a
preliminary version of my translation of Acts from the Aramaic:

CHAPTER 15

1. And men came down from Y'hudah and were teaching the brothers, Unless you
are circumcised according to the custom of the Torah, you are not able to have life
[eternal].
______________________
Comments:

In Acts 15 we have a halachic issue being settled by the Rosh Beit Din.
In order to understand the proceedings of that meeting and its ruling we must know what
the issue was that was before it. In this case Paul's position is not clearly spelled out in
the pashat only his opponents' position is clearly spelled out in the pashat.

Pauls opponents' position is:

"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of the Torah,

you are not able to have life [eternal]."

Now we must ask ourselves: "What are the implications or ramifications of this
position?"

We have a good model to work from. A similar position is held today by a group called
the "Church of Christ" also known as "Campbelites". These teach that a person mut be
baptised in order to be saved. This has resulted in adebate between them and other
protestants (especially Baptists). The Baptists often pose the situation of a man who
beccomes a believer while accross the street from a Church of Christ Church. He
immediately runs accross the street to get baptised and is hit by a truck and killed. the
baptists point out that this man according to the Church of Christ position would not be
saved. Many Church of Christ evangelists run around with keys to their church so that at

78
any time they can go get that baptism immediately, perchance the person dies before an
more opertune time comes.

This would also be the mindset of Paul's opponents of Acts 15:1. They would believe
that that person should become circumcised immedtiately upon becoming a believer
perchance they die before doing so.

The more traditional view in Judaism differs. The more traditional view is that since
circumcision and immersion mark the point at which a person becomes a Jew, that they
must learn the Torah first. This is becaue if they are circumcised and become a Jew
before learning the 613 commandments of the Torah then they will immediately be
violating commandments that they do not know, bringing judgement down upon our
whole people (Deut. 28-29 & lev. 26) . The traditional Jewish approach is therefore to
teach the new believer the Torah first.

Now we can see from the remez what Paul's position is. The opponents are teaching that
a person must be circumcised immediatly to be saved and then taught the Torah. Paul
was teaching that they should first learn the Torah.

____________________________________________

2. And Paul and Bar Nabba had much strife and dispute with them. And it happened
that they sent up Paul and Bar Nabba, and others with them, to the emissaries and elders
who were in Yerushalayim, because of this dispute.

COMMENTS:

So they took the matter to the beit din.

_______________________________________________

3. And the assembly escorted [and] all of Phenicia and also among the Samaritans
while recounting concerning the conversion of the Gentiles, and causing great joy to all
the brothers.

COMMENTS: Notice that Paul has been converting Gentiles !?!?!?!

_______________________________________________

4. And when they came to Yerushalayim, they were received by the assembly and
by the emissaries and by the elders, and they recounted to them all that Eloah had done
with them.
5. And men stood up, those from the teaching of the Parushim who had believed,
and were saying, It is necessary for you to circumcise them and you should command
them to observe the Torah of Moshe.

79
COMMENTS:

Here the opponents argument is only abreviated. Here it is stated as:

"It is necessary for you to circumcise them

and you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe."

Why does it say this? This on the surface does not even look like the same argument they
were making in Acst 15:1. However if we recall our remez it makes perfect sense. This
is a statement of chronology:

[first] It is necessary for you to circumcise them

and [second] you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe.

Now we can see that they are still making the same argument as in 15:1.

________________________________________________________________________
_

6. And the emissaries and elders were gathered to look into this matter.
7. And when there had been much debate, Shimon stood up and said to them, Men,
our brothers, you know that from the first days from my mouth, Eloah chose that the
Gentiles should hear the word of the b'sorah and trust.
8. And Eloah, who knows what is in hearts, gave testimony concerning them and
gave to them the Ruach HaKodesh as [he did] to us.
9. And he made no distinction between us and them, because he purified their hearts
by trust.

COMMENTS: Kefa addresses the opponant's position as fully stated in Acts 15:1. He
points to evidence (from Acts 10-11) that salvation preceeds circumcision.

_______________________________________________________________

10. And now, why do you tempt Eloah so that you place a yoke upon the necks of the
talmidim which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11. But by the favor of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah we believe to have life, like
them.

COMMENTS: The "yoke" her in context is NOT the Torah (although often the Torah is
likened to a yoke). The context here is clear. Kefa is calling the argument of Paul'
opponants a "yoke". Thus the "Yoke" in this passage involves earning salvation by
works such as circumcision.

80
Kefa appeals to the patriarchs as an example. Abraham for example was saved by trust
first in Gen. 15:6 and was circumcised LATER in Gen. 17.

Now Kefa has given two case examples:

1. Cornelius and his house (Acts 10-11)

2. The patriarch (especially Abraham) (Gen. 15:6 & Gen. 17)

In both cases Kefa points out that salvation preceeded circumcision. (although in at least
one of them circumcision still came later).

________________________________________________________

12. And all the assembly was silent and listened to Paul and Bar Nabba who were
recounting everything Eloah had done by their hands: signs and mighty deeds among the
Gentiles.

COMMENTS: This paralles verse 3 where Paul is recounting conversions. Paul is

likening these cases to the two case examples that Kefa has presented.

____________________________________________________________________

13. And after they were quiet, Ya'akov stood up and said, Men, our brothers, hear me.
14. Shimon recounted to you how Eloah began to choose from the Gentiles a people
for his name.
15. And to this the words of the prophets agree, like that which is written,
16. After these [things] I will return and set up the tabernacle of David which has
fallen, and I will rebuild that which has fallen of it and I will raise it up,
17. So that the remnant of men might seek YHWH, and all the Gentiles, on whom my
name is called, says YHWH who made all these [things].
18. The works of Eloah are known from old.
19. Because of this I say, They should not trouble those who from the Gentiles have
turned toward Eloah.
20. But let it be sent to them that they should separate [themselves] from the
uncleanness of that which is sacrificed [to idols] and from sexual immorality and from
that which is strangled and from blood.
21. For Moshe, from the first generations, had proclaimers in every city in the
synagogues, who read him on every shabbat.

COMMENTS: A fuller version of the ruling is given below where veres 20 is expanded
so I will comment upon it there.

However it is significant that Ya'akov presumes that these gentiles will be hearing [the
Torah] of Moshe proclaimed in the synagogues on Shabbat.

81
Ya'akov seems to say here that the gentiles would need to maintain a minimum standard
of purity and learn the Torah BEFORE becoming circumcised. Remember the issue
being heard involves chronology of three things:

1. Becoming circumcised
2. Obtaining salvation/eternal life
3. Instruction in the Torah of Moshe

The above chronology is that of Paul's opponents. The beit din is determining if this is
true or if another chronology should be followed, namely:

1. Obtaining salvation/eternal life

2. Instruction in the Torah of Moshe
3. Becoming circumcised

Paul's opponents placed circumcision first in the chronlogy, while Paul placed it last.

The beit-din agrees with Paul.

______________________________________

22. Then the Emissaries and elders, with all the assembly, chose men from them and
sent to Antioch, with Paul and Bar Nabba, Y'hudah who was called Bar Sabba, and Sila,
men who were chiefs among the brothers.
23. And they wrote a letter by their hands [saying] thus: The emissaries and elders
and brothers, to those who are in Antioch and in Syria and in Cilicia, brothers who are
from the Gentiles, shalom.
24. It has been heard by us that men from us have gone out and disturbed you with
words and have upset your nefeshim while saying that you must be circumcised and
observe the Torah, which we did not command them.

COMMENT: Again note the chronology of Paul's opponants:

[1] you must be circumcised

[2] and observe the Torah

Each of the three times their position is stated it is abreviated more (15:1, 5 & 24)

If we put them altogether to get the fullest form of their argument we get:

"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of the Torah,

you are not able to have life [eternal]."
[therefore] It is necessary for you to circumcise them [first]
and [second] you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe.

82
________________________________________________________

25. Because of this, all of us, while gathered together, purposed and chose men and
sent to you, with our beloved Paul and Bar Nabba,
26. Men who have committed themselves on behalf of the name of our Lord Yeshua
the Messiah.
27. And we have sent with them Y'hudah and Sila who will tell you these same
[things] by speech.
28. For it was the will of the Ruach HaKodesh and also of us that a greater burden
should not be placed on you, outside of those [things] that are necessary,
29. That you should abstain from that which is sacrificed [to idols] and from blood
and from[that which] is strangled and from sexual immorality, that as you keep your
nefeshim from these, you will do well. Be steadfast in our Lord.

COMMENTS: Note the phrase "a greater burden" this is not an exhaustive list but
the furthest paramaters. The questionable areas made clear. There was no doubt as to
whether gentiles could murder or steal so these are not listed. Thus the furthest limits of
idolatry would extend to include eating meat offerred to idols etc. With this in mind
these closely parallel the seven laws of Noach. Also thse would set purity rules which
would allow these gentiles to interact with the Torah observant community while learning
the Torah.

83
 …since they are still fettered by the Law
--circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest—
they are not in accord with Christians....
they are nothing but Jews....
-Epiphanius; Panarion 29

Chapter 7
The Torah

Torah Observance or Torah Optional?

Although most Messianic Jews today maintain that the Torah was not abolished by
Messiah this teaching is not universal. Moreover many Messianic Jewish leaders who
claim to advocate Torah observance do not wear tzitzit and some will even go out to eat
with congregational members on the Sabbath.

(NOTE: In the material below it is important to know that the words JUST and
RIGHTEOUS (JUSIFY AND MAKE RIGHTEOUS) are the same in Hebrew).

A Messianic Jewish leader (whose name I will not give) recently criticized SANJ in a
public statement saying:

... some of the fundamental differences I see

between SANJ and between <his Messianic ministry>.
If its ok I'd like to address those at this time.
I'd like to show you the philosophy we have developed
over the years in teaching Torah...

There is a fundamental principle upon which this--

all of this stands upon. The fundamental principle
all of this stands upon is number one: our identity.

How do we see ourselves before Messiash?

Do we see ourselves as righteous individuals?
Righteous before him through the blood of Messiah?
Do we?That’s a question.

Yes-- No-- Do I have any answers?

We do?
Then is there anything we can do to be more righteous in his sight?

84
 Is there any amount of Torah Observance that we can aply to our life
that can make us be more righteous in the eyes of Abba? Is there?

No. So we are fundamentally, constitutionally righteous before

God. Amen?

So that means one thing. That there is nothing that we can do

to change our presence, our stand before him.
(A Messianic Jewish Leader)

RESPONSE:

The above logic looks real good on the surface. However it contains a fundamental logic
error which makes all of the difference in the world. This is the error of
EQUIVICATION.

The error of EQUIVICATION occurs when an ambiguous word is used to mean one
thing in the premis, but something else in the conclusion. Two examples:

A record is an album of music.

The criminal had a record.
Therefore the criminal had an album of music.

All stars are energized by fusion.

Tom Cruise is a big star.
Therefore Tom Cruise is energized by fusion.

Now the concept behind the word "righteous" in the Scriptures is the Hebrew word
TZADIK.

There is a common misunderstanding that pits James 2:18 against Rom. 4:1-5; Gal. 3:6-9

The problem here is misunderstanding the Semitic text. The Hebrew and Aramaic word
TZADAKA (Just/Righteous) is an ambiguous word with many meanings. This word can
mean "to display righteousness" and it can mean be a synonym for "salvation."

For example Jn. 7:29 "the people... and the publicans justified God, being immersed with
the immersion of Yochanan.” Here it is clear that TZADAKA refers to a "display of
righteousness" and NOT salvation, since the people clearly were not bring salvation to
God. Another example of this usage is in Isaiah 32:17 "work of righteousness

When Paul says Abraham was justified by faith (Rom. 4:1-5; Gal. 3:6-9) he speaks in the
context of "salvation" and refers to Gen. 15:6. This is the same usage as in Psalm 71:15
where TZADAKA is used in poetic parallelism as a synonym for "Salvation"
(YESHUA).

85
When Ya'akov (James) says that Abraham was justified by works he speaks in context of
a display of righteousness (James 2:18) and refers to an event in Gen. 22 which took
place many years AFTER Abraham had ALREADY been justified by faith (in Gen.
15:6).

In the Hebrew/Aramaic there is absolutely NO conflict between Paul and Ya'akov here.

Ok now that we understand the two ambiguous words here and properly understand what
Ya'akov and Paul are saying we can also see the clear error in the statement we quoted
above.

In the premiss the speaker uses "Righteous" as a synonym for Salvation:

Do we see ourselves as righteous individuals?

Righteous before him through the blood of Messiah?

But in the conclusion the speaker uses the word Righteousness to refer to a display of
righteousness or righteous deeds:

Then is there anything we can do to be more righteous in his sight?

Is there any amount of Torah Observance that we can aply to our life
that can make us be more righteous in the eyes of Abba? Is there?

No. So we are fundamnentally, constitutionally righteous before

God. Amen?

So that means one thing. That there is nothing that we can do

to change our presence, our stand before him.

Now the truth is this. We do see ourselves as righteous (saved) individuals. However we
can also be more righteous (display of good deeds) than we are right now if we become
more Torah Observant. This is CLEARLY taught in the Scriptures:

And it will be righteousness for us if we are

careful to observe all this commandment
before YHHW our Elohim, just as he commanded us.
(Deut. 6:25)

...if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances

so as to deal faithfully-- he is righteous...
(Ezek. 18:9)

...it is those who obey the Torah

who will be declared righteous.
(Rom. 2:13-- WOW! You mean Paul said THAT?!?!)

86
Now I ask you again:

...is there anything we can do to be more righteous in his sight?

Is there any amount of Torah Observance that we can aply to our life
that can make us be more righteous in the eyes of Abba? Is there?

YES! The "fundamental principle" of the "philosophy" of many in the Messianic Jewish
movement is based on a totally false idea.

...sin is the transgression of the Torah...

...let no man deceive you.
he that does righteousness is righteous,
even as he is righteous.
He that commits sin [transgression of the Torah]
is of the devil...
(1Yochanan 3:4, 7-8)

Let no man deceive you.

What is the Torah?

There is a lot of talk these days about getting back to the "New Testament
Church." But the real truth is, there are two things the "New Testament Church" did not
have: A "New Testament" and a "Church". The believers of the "New Testament
Church" met in synagogues (Acts 15:21; James 1:1; 2:2) and had no book known as the
"New Testament" because it had not been written and compiled yet. Thus when a
believer from the "New Testament Church" referred to "The Scriptures" he was speaking
of the Tanak ("Old Testament") for they were the only Scriptures he had. Thus when
Paul wrote to Timothy:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,

and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished to all good works.
(2Tim. 3:16-17)

Paul was refering to the Tanak, the only Scriptures they had. Moreover when Paul spoke
to the Bereans in Acts 17:11 we are told of them:

These were more noble than those at Thessalonica,

in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the Scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.

87
Paul was saying that the Bereans were noble because they did not believe what Paul said
simply on the authority of Paul. They were looking to see if what Paul was teaching
could be found in the Scriptures. Remeber, they were looking in the Tanak, the only
Scriptures they had at the time. Paul said that it was noble of them to only accept his
teaching if it lined up with the Tanak. That means that whenever we study the New
Testament we should ask ourselves this question: "Can you get here from there?" (There
being the Tanak). If you think you understand something in the New Testament in such a
way that it contradicts the Tanak, then you need to realize that you are misunderstanding
it.

Now as you read this book I am going to ask you to be a noble Berean. I am going to ask
you to look in the Tanak to see if what Paul and the other New Testament writers teach is
found there. I am going to ask you to understand what the New Testament says in light
of what the Tanak says.

The word "TORAH" is commonly translated in our Bibles as "Torah", but is that
really a good translation of the word Torah? The Hebrew word "TORAH" (Strong's Heb.
#8451) means guidance or instruction. TORAH comes from the Hebrew root verb
YARAH (Strong's 3384) meaning "to instruct". YARAH was also an archery term
refering to shooting an arrow and as a term meaning "to lay a foundation." Torah
therefore is guidance, like the straight path of an arrow to its target. Torah is our
foundation. It is important to understand the real meaning of the Hebrew word Torah.
Because while some might say "God's Torah is not for today" no one would say that
"God's instruction and guidance are not for today."

This book is about Torah, it is about God's guidance for us. This book is about
laying foundation and about setting ourselves on target like an arrow. This book will
give you aim, direction, foundation and a target.

The Greek word for TORAH used in the Septuagent (Greek "Old Testament") and
the Greek New Testament is NOMOS. This parallels the Aramaic Bible (the Peshitta)
which has NAMOSA from the Semitic root NIMMES meaning "to civilize" and from
which we also get the modern Hebrew word NIMOS or NIMUS meaning "politeness."
At the core of TORAH are the precepts of civilisation. From God's perspective, without
Torah we are uncivilized.

The mitzvot (commandments) of the Torah are catagorized under three

catagogories:

MISHPATIM (judgements) Strong's 4941

EDYOT (testimonies) Strong's 5715

KHOKIM (statutes; decrees) Strong's 2706

88
The MISHPATIM are the moral and ethical commandments. These deal with what is
fundamentally right and wrong.

The EDYOT are commandments that give testimony to YHWH. These include the
Shabbat, the festivals the teffilin, the Mezuzah etc.

The KHOKIM are commandments with no apparant rational. For example the
commandment not to mix wool and linen.

For All your Generations Forever

Now we have already shown that in studying the New Testament we must ask
ourselves "can you get here from there?" ("there" being the Tanak (Old Testament)). If
we understand something in the New Testament in such a way that it contradicts the
Tanak, then we must be misunderstanding it. Now there are many who understand many
New Testament passages in such a way as to believe and teach that the Torah has been
abolished. Let us be like noble Bereans and let us look in the Tanak to see if this is so
(Acts 17:11). After all Paul tells us that the Tanak is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, [and] for instruction" (2Tim. 3:16). So what does the Tanak say?
Was the Torah to be for all generations, forever? or would it one day be abolished? If
the Torah would one day be abolished, then we should be able to find this taught in the
Tanak. As Noble Bereans we should be checking to see if the things we have been taught
can be found in the Tanak. By contrast, if the Torah would not be abolished, but would
be for all generations forever, then we should be able to find that information in the
Torah as well. Since the Tanak is profitable for doctrine and corection, perhaps we can
seek the truth on this issue from the Tanak:

...it shall be a statute forever

to their generations.... (Ex. 27:21)

...it shall be a statute forever to him

and his seed after him. (Ex. 28:43)

...a statute forever... (Ex. 29:28)

...it shall be a statute forever to them,

to him and to his seed
throughout their generations. (Ex. 30:21)

It is a sign between me
and the children of Israel forever. (Ex. 31:17)

There is no shortage of passages in the Torah which specify that the Torah will not be
abolished but will be for all generations forever. (For more see: Lev. 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36;

89
10:9, 15; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10 and Deut.
5:29)

Moreover the Psalmist writes:

Your word is truth from the beginning:

and every one of your righteous judgements
endures forever.
(Psalm 119:160)

Furthermore the Tanak tells us that the Torah is not to be changed or taken away from:

You shall not add to the word

which I command you,
neither shall you diminish a thing from it,
that you may keep the commandments
of YHWH your God which I command you.
(Deut 4:2)

Whatever thing I command you,

observe to do it: you shall not add thereto,
nor diminish from it.
(Deut. 12:32)

So if we are "Noble Bereans" we will find that the Tanak teaches that the Torah will not
be abolished but will endure for all generations forever. This teaching from the Tanak is
profitable to us for doctrine, for reproval and for correction.

The Messiah echos this teaching:

Do not think that I have come

to destroy the Torah or the Prophets.
I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For assuredly, I say to you,
till heaven and earth pass away,
one yud or one mark will by no means
pass from the Torah till all is fulfilled.
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least
of these commandments, and teaches men so,
he will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven;
but whoever does and teaches them
will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Matt. 5:17-19 see also Lk. 16:17).

90
As does Paul:

Do we then abolish the Torah throught trust?

Absolutely not! We uphold the Torah!
(Rom. 3:31)

Despite the fact that David was saved by faith alone (Rom. 4:5-8) he loved the Torah and
delighted in it (Ps. 119: 97, 113, 163). Paul (Paul) also delighted in the Torah (Rom.
7:22) and called it "holy, just and good." (Rom. 7:12). There is nothing wrong with the
Torah that God should want to abolish or destroy it, in fact both the Tenach and the New
Scriptures call the Torah "perfect" (Ps. 19:7; James 1:25).

The Torah is even called in the New Testament "the Torah of Messiah" (Gal. 6:2). To
say that the Torah was not forever and is not for all generations, is to call God a liar.

Another popular teaching in the church is a teaching that God only gave the Torah to
Israel to prove that they could not keep it. For example one book states:

...Israel, in blindness and pride and self-

righteousness, presumed to ask for the law;
and God granted their request, to show them
that they could not keep his law...
(God's Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 66)

Now lets think this through for a moment. God gives Israel the Torah. He says he will
place curses upon Israel if they fail to keep the Torah (Lev. 26 & Deut 28-29). He sends
prophets to warn Israel of pending destruction because of their continual failure to keep
Torah. Eventually God allows Babylon to invade Jerusalem and the Jews to be taken into
captivity, because of their failure to keep Torah. Then he comes along and says "Nah, I
was only fooling. I just gave you the Torah to prove you could not do it." What kind of
God would that be? Of course as noble Bereans we can simply look in the Tanak to see
if this poular teaching is true. Let us see what the Tanak says on this issue:

For this commandment which I command you this day

it is not to hard for you, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that you should say:
" Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us,
and make us to hear it, that we may do it?"
Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say:
"Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us,
and make us hear it, that we may do it?"
But the Word is very near to you, in your mouth,
and in your heart, that you may do it.
(Deut. 30:11-14)

91
The fact that the Torah can be kept is confirmed as well in the New Testament which tells
us that Yeshua was tempted in all things just as we are and he did keep the Torah (Heb.
4:15).
.

Paul Misunderstood

Paul is greatly misunderstood as having taught that the Torah is not for today. I have met
a great many who feel uncomfortable with his writings. Some of these have even, like the
Ebionites of anciant times, removed Paul's from their canon (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist.
3:27:4). This belief that Yeshua may not have abolished the Torah, but that Paul did, has
been propigated since ancient times. The "Toldot Yeshu" for example, an ancient hostile
Rabbinic parady on the Gospels and
Acts, accuses Paul of contradicting Yeshua on this very issue (Toldot Yeshu 6:16-41;
7:3-5). At least one modern Dispensationalist, Maurice Johnson, taught that the Messiah
did not abolish the
Torah, but that Paul did several years after the fact. He writes:

Apparently G-d allowed this system of Jewish

ordinances to be practiced about thirty years
after Christ fulfilled it because in His patience,
G-d only gradually showed the Jews how it was
that His program was changing.... Thus it was
that after G-d had slowly led the Christians
out of Jewish religion He had Paul finally
write these glorious, liberating truths.
(Saved by "Dry" Baptism!; a pamphlet by
Maurice Johnson; pp. 9-10)

Kefa warns us in the Scriptures that Paul's writings are difficult to understand. He warns
us saying:

...in which are some things hard to understand,

which those who are untaught and unstable
twist to their own destruction,
as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
(2Pt. 3:15-16)

Paul knew that his teachings were being twisted, he mentions this in Romans, saying:

And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"?
-- as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm
that we say." (Rom. 3:8)

Paul elaborates on this slanderous twist of his teachings, saying:

92
 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin
that grace may abound? Certainly not!..."
(Rom. 6:1-2)

and

What then? Shall we sin because we are not

under the Torah but under grace? Certainly not!"
(Rom. 6:15).

So then, Paul was misunderstood as teaching that because we

are under grace, we need not observe the Torah.

Upon his visit to Jerusalem in Acts 21 Paul was confronted with this slanerous
twist of his teachings. He was told

You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews

there are who believe, and they are all zealous
for the Torah; but they have been informed about
you that you teach all the Jews who are among
the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they
ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk
according to the customs.
(Acts 21:20-21)

In order to prove that this was nothing more than slander, Paul takes
the nazarite vow and goes to make offerings (sacrifices) at the Temple (Acts 21:22-26 &
Num. 6:13-21) demonstrating that he himself kept the Torah (Acts 21:24). Paul did and
said many things
to prove that he both kept and taught the Torah. He:

• circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3)

• took the nazarite vow (Acts 18:18; 21:17-26)

• taught and observed the Jewish holy days such as:

• Passover (Acts 20:6; 1Cor. 5:6-8; 11:17-34)

• Shavuot (Pentecost) (Acts 20:16; 1Cor. 16:8)

• fasting on Yom Kippur (Acts 27:9)

• and even performed animal sacrafices

in the Temple (Acts 21:17-26/Num. 6:13-21;
Acts 24:17-18)

93
Among his more noteable statements on the subject are:

• "Neither against the Jewish Torah,

nor against the Temple, nor against Caesar
have I offended in anything at all." (Acts 25:8)

• "I have done nothing against our people

or the customs of our fathers." (Acts 28:17)

• "...the Torah is holy and the commandment

is holy and just and good." (Rom. 7:12)

• "Do we then nullify the Torah through faith?

May it never be! On the contrary, we maintain
the Torah." (Rom. 3:31).

Was Paul a Hypoctite?

Being confronted with the various acts and statements of Paul which support the Torah,
many of the "Torah is not for today" teachers accuse Paul of being hypocritical. Charles
Ryrie, for example, footnotes Acts 21:24 in his Ryrie Study Bible calling Paul a "middle
of the road
Christian" for performing such acts. Another writer, M.A. DeHaan wrote an entire book
entitled "Five Blunders of Paul" which characterizes these acts as "blunders." "These
teachers of lawlessness" credit Paul as the champion of their doctrine, and then condemn
him for not teaching their doctrine. If Paul was really a hypocrite, could he honestly have
condemned hypocricy so fervently (see Gal. 2:11-15). Consider some of his own words:

For do I now persuade men, or G-d?

Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men,
I would not be a servent of the Messiah.
(Gal. 1:10)

For you yourselves know, brothers,

that our coming to you was not in vain.
But even after we had suffered before
and were spitefully treated in Philippi,
as you know, we were bold in our G-d
to speak to you the Good News of G-d in
much conflict. For our exhortation did not
come from deceit or uncleanness,
nor was it in guile. But as we have been
approved by G-d to be entrusted with

94
 the Good News, even so we speak, not
as pleasing men, but G-d who tests our
hearts. For neither at any time did we
use flattering words, as you know, nor a
cloak for covetousness-- G-d is witness.
(1Thes. 2:1-5)

If Paul was a hypocrite, he must have been one of the slickest con-men in history!

"Works of the Torah" and "Under the Torah"

Much of the confussion about Paul's teachings on the Torah involves two scripture
phrases which appear in the New Testament only in Paul's writings (in Rom. Gal. &
1Cor.). These two phrases are "works of the Torah" and "under the Torah", each of which
appears 10 times in the Scriptures.

The first of these phrases, "works of the Torah", is best understood through its usage in
Gal. 2:16. Here Paul writes:

knowing that a man is not justified by

WORKS OF THE TORAH but by faith in
Yeshua the Messiah, even we have believed
in Messiah Yeshua, that we might be justified
by faith in Messiah and not by the
WORKS OF THE TORAH; for by the WORKS OF
THE TORAH no flesh shall be justified.

Paul uses this phrase to describe a false method of justification which is diametricly
opposed to "faith in the Messiah". To Paul "works of the Torah" is not an obsolete Old
Testament system, but a hearasy that has never been true.

The term "works of the Torah" has shown up as a technical theological term used in a
document in the Dead Sea Scrolls called MMT which says:

Now we have written to you some of the

WORKS OF THE TORAH, those which we
determined would be beneficial for you...
And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness,
in that you have done what is right and good
before Him...
(4QMMT (4Q394-399) Section C lines 26b-31)

The second of these phrases is "under the Torah". This phrase may best be understood
from its usage in Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not

95
UNDER THE TORAH but under grace." Paul, therefore, sees "under grace" and "under
the Torah" as diametrically opposed, one cannot be both. The truth is that since we have
always been under grace (see Gen. 6:8; Ex. 33:12, 17; Judges 6:17f; Jer. 31:2) we have
never been "under the Torah". This is because the Torah was created for man, man was
not created for the Torah (see Mk. 2:27). "Under the Torah" then, is not an obsolete Old
Testament system, but a false teaching which was never true.

There can be no doubt that Paul sees "works of the Torah" and "under the Torah" as
catagoricly bad, yet Paul calls the Torah itself "holy, just and good" (Rom. 7:12),
certainly Paul does not use these phrases to refer to the Torah itself.

The Belt of Truth

There is a spiritual battle taking place. A battle between light and darkness. A
battle between truth and desception. Paul writes:

Put on the whole armour of God, that you may

be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God,
that you may be able to withstand in the evil day,
and having done all, to stand.
(Eph. 6:11-13)

Paul goes on to describe the parts of this armour as:

• The Belt of Truth

• The Breastplate of Righteousness

• The Shoes of the Goodnews of Peace (Shalom)

• The Shield of Faith

• The Helmet of Salvation

• The Sword of the Word

Now Paul is making a play on words here. The Aramaic word for "Armour" is ZAYNA
while the Aramaic word for for "whiles" is TZEN'TA. Paul is contrasting the ZAYNA
with the TZEN'TA. The four fixxed (non mobile) pieces of armour corespond to the four
whiles of HaSatan which are depicted in the Tanak:

96
 • Deception/Lies (Gen. 3)
(Belt of Truth)

• Temptation/Pride (1Chron. 21:1)

(Breatsplate of Righteousness)

• Oppresion (Job)
(Shoes of Peace)

• Accusation (Zech. 3:1-5)

(Helmet of Salvation)

Now we will not cover each of the items here, instead we will concentrate only on the
belt of truth.

Now it should be understood that the armour Paul is speaking of is not Roman armour, it
was not inspired by Roman Soldiers. The armour was originally inspired by the book of
Isaiah (Isaiah 11:5; 52:7 and 59:17) as well as the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon (5:17-
20). Therefore the subject of this passage is ancient Hebew armour and not Roman
armour at all. Now ancient Hebrews wore a skirtlike garment. Before going into battle a
Hebrew warior would gird himself with the a belt, he would gather his skirt-like garment
up and tuck it up under his belt to allow free movement. This prevented him from getting
tripped up in his own garment while trying to fight.

Now when he was on trial before Pilate Yeshua said:

For this I have been born,

and for this I have come into the world,
to bear witness of the truth.
Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.
(John 18:37-38)

To this Pilate asked the all important question:

What is truth?
(John. 18:38)

Let us look back to the Tanak to find the answer to Pilate's question:

Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,

and your Torah is truth.
(Psalm 119:142)

You are near, O YHWH,

and all your commandments are truth.

97
 (Psalm 119:151)

This definition explains many phrases in the New Testament:

"Obey the truth" (Gal. 3:1)

"But he that does truth..." (Jn. 3:20)

And I rejoice that I found your children

walking in the truth, as we have received
a commandment from the Father.
(2Jn. 1:4)

The Tanak definition of truth gives whole new meaning to Yeshua's words:

For this I have been born,

and for this I have come into the world,
to bear witness of the truth.
Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.
(John 18:37-38)

Yeshua came to bear witness of the Torah, those who hear the Torah hear his voice. This
leads us to another important saying from Yeshua:

Then Yeshua said to those Jews who believed

on him, if you continue in my word,
then are you my disciples indeed.
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8:31-32)

Paul, however, speaks of those "who changed the truth of God into a lie" (Rom. 1:25)
Now if Messiah came to bear witness of the truth then what has HaSatan to bear witness
to? The scriptures tell us:

He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning,

and abode not the truth in him.
When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own:
for he is a liar, and ther father of it.
(John 8:44)

...HaSatan, who deceives the whole world...

(Rev. 12:9)

When HaSatan speaks a lie, he is merely speaking his native language.

98
Now if the Torah is truth, then what is HaSatan's lie? His lie is that there is not a Torah,
that the Torah has been done away with. There is a Greek term for this teaching. This
term is ANOMOS (Strong's Greek #459). ANOMOS is made up of the Greek prefix A-
(there is not/without) with the Greek word NOMOS (Torah). ANOMOS means "without
Torah" or "Torah-lessness." While Messiah came to bear witness to the Torah, HaSatan
comes to bear witness of ANOMOS (Torah-lessness). Two entire books of the New
Testament (2Kefa and Jude) are dedicated to combating this false ANOMOS teaching.
Yeshua tells us that these teachers will be called "least" in the Kingdom (Mt. 5:19).

Now lets take a look at how the Bible uses this term ANOMOS:

...I [Yeshua] will profess to them, I never knew you,

depart from me, you that work ANOMOS.
(Mt. 7:23)

...and they [angels] shall gather out of his Kingdom

all things that offend, and them which do ANOMOS.
(Mt. 13:41)

And many false prophets shall rise,

and shall deceive many.
And because ANOMOS shall abound,
the love of many shall grow cold.
(Mt. 24:11-12)

For the mystery of ANOMOS does already work...

And then shall the ANOMOS one be revealed,
whom the Lord shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth,...
whose coming is after the working of HaSatan
with all power and lying wonders,
and with all deceivableness...
because they received not the love of truth...
That they might be damned
who believed not the truth...
(2Thes. 2:7-12)

Many people have been taken in by the ANOMOS teaching. In fact two of Christendom's
largest theological sub-sets, Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology, submit
detailed theories to explain why they teach that the Torah is not for today.

Dispensationalism is a form of Pre-Millenialism which replaces the eternal "covenants"

with finite "ages". Two of these finite ages are "The Age of Torah" which basically
encompases "Old Testament times", and "The Age of Grace" which basically
encompasses "New Testament times". According to these Dispensationalists, during "Old
Testament times" men were under Torah, but during "New Testament times" men are

99
under grace. Some Dispensationalists, called "Ultra-Dispensationalists", even teach that
men were saved by Torah in "Old Testament times," but are saved by grace in "New
Testament times." As a result, Dispensationalists teach that "the Torah is not for today" or
"we have no Torah."

Replacement Theologians teach that G-d has replaced Israel with the Church; Judaism
with Christendom; The Old Testament with The New Testament; and Torah with grace.
As a result, they too teach that "the Torah is not for today" or "we have no Torah."

Now you may be saying to yourself: "Ok, so they teach Torah-lessness, but don't the
Torah-less teachers of 2Peter & Jude go so far as to teach sexual immorality? Surely the
Torah-less teachers of within the church would never use their "the Torah is not for
today" teaching to promote sexual immorality." Wrong! Some of Christendom's
teachers have already carried the "the Torah is not for today" reasoning to its fullest and
logical conclusion. A sect of Christendom known as "The Universal Fellowship of
Metropolitan Community Churches" has published a tract which does just that. The
nameless author of the tract writes:

Another Scripture verse that is used to show

that the Bible condemns the gay lifestyle is found
in the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, 18:22,
"Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou would with
a woman." Anyone who is concerned about this
prohibition should read the whole chapter or the
whole Book of Leviticus: No pork, no lobster,
no shrimp, no oysters, no intercourse during
the menstrual period, no rare meats, no eating blood,
no inter-breeding of cattle, and a whole host of other
laws, including the law to kill all divorced people who
remarry.

As Christians, our law is from Christ. St. Paul clearly

taught that Christians are no longer under the Old Law
(for example in Galatians 3:23-24); that the Old Law is
brought to an end in Christ (Romans 10:4); and its
fulfillment is in love (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14).
The New Law of Christ is the Law of Love. Neither
Jesus, nor Paul, nor any of the New Testament Scriptures
implies that Christians are held to the cultic or ethical
laws of the Mosaic Law.
(Homosexuality; What the Bible Does and Does not Say;
Universal Fellowship press, 1984, p. 3)

Thus Christendom's teaching that "the Torah is not for today" is already being used to
"turn the grace of our God into perversion." (Jude 1:4; see also 2Pt. 2:18-21)

100
There is indeed a spiritual battle taking place. It is a battle between the truth and a lie. It
is a battle between light and darkness. It is a battle led by the one who came to bear
witness to the Torah, and the one who comes to bear witness to Torah-lessness. The
Torah is truth. The belt of truth is the belt of Torah. Gird yourselves with the belt of
Torah that you may withstand the Torah-less one.

Freedom from Bondage

In the last chapter we learned that the Torah is Truth (Ps. 119:142) and that Yeshua said:

... if you continue in my word,

then are you my disciples indeed.
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8:31-32)

Therefore the Torah brings freedom. This is completely contrary to what most people
have been taught. The common wisdom is that the Torah is bondage and that "freedom
in Christ" means freedom from Torah. For example one author writes:

Many Christians today would return to Sinai.

They would put upon the church the yoke of
bondage, the Law of Moses.
(God's Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 66)

However as we shall see the scriptures teach that exactly the opposite is true.

The central story of Judaism is that of the Exodus from Egypt. The children of
Israel were in bondage in Egypt. God promised to gring them out of bondage and give
them freedom. Upon leading the children of Israel out of Egypt, YHWH led them to Mt.
Sinai where he delvered the Torah to them. Note that the theme of this central story is
that God promised freedom from bondage and gave the children of Israel Torah. Now
why would YHWH lead the people out of bondage in Egypt, lead them to Mt. Sinai, and
deliver them right back into bondage again? And why would he at the same time promise
them freedom. God is no liar. He promised the people freedom and he gave them Torah
because the Torah is freedom from bondage. The Torah is truth (Ps. 119:142) and the
truth will make you free (John 8:31-32).

This truth is proclaimed by the Psalmist:

So shall I keep your Torah continually forever and ever,

And I will walk in freedom: for I seek your precepts.
(Psalm 119:44-45)

101
As well as by Ya'akov HaTzadik (James the Just) who called the Torah "the Torah of
freedom" (James 1:25; 2:12).

However the ANOMOS teachers today teach that the Torah is bondage and that
Torah-lessness is freedom. They have exchanged the truth (Torah) of God for a lie
(Torah-lessness) (Rom. 1:25). Of these 2Peter 2:19 states:

While they promise them freedom,

they themselves are servants of corruption:
for of whom a man is overcome,
of the same is he brought into bondage.

according to Kefa these men "turn from the holy commandment delivered to them"
(2Peter 2:21) they promise freedom but deliver bondage.

By contrast Yeshua said:

Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden,

and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you,
and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart; and you shall find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my load is light.
(Mat. 11:28-30)

Now many of the teachers of Torah-lessness use this this passage as a proof text. To
them this passage refers to freedom from the bondage of Torah. However notice the
boldfaced portion. This bolfaced portion of Yeshua's statement is a quotation from the
Tanak. A quotation which gives a great deal of context to Yeshua's statement. Lets look
at this Tanak passage:

Thus said YHWH, stand you in the ways, and see,

and ask for the old paths, where is the good way,
and walk therein, and you shall find rest for
your souls. But they said, we will not walk therein.
(Jer. 6:16)

Notice that this "way" which gives "rest" is "the old path". Now lets read a little
further down in Jer. 6 to obtain more context:

But they said, we will not walk therein (Jer. 6:16)...

...they have not hearkened unto my words,
nor to my Torah, but rejected it.
(Jer. 6:19)

102
Notice that the "old path" that brings "rest for your souls" to which they said "we will not
walk therein" (Jer. 6:16) is identified by YHWH as "my Torah". This takes us up a bit
further in the text of Jeremiah:

...they are foolish, for they do not know

the way of YHWH, the requirements of
their God. So I will go to the leaders and
speak to them; surely they know the way
of YHWH, the requirements of their God."
But with one accord they too had broken
off the yoke and torn off the bonds.
(Jer. 5:4-5 see also Jer. 2:20)

Here we find that the "yoke" which brings rest is the yoke which was being rejected. The
yoke of Torah. Now lets look again at Yeshua's saying:

Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden,

and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you,
and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart; and you shall find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my load is light.
(Mat. 11:28-30)

The yoke that Messiah asks us to take on ourselves, the yoke that will give us rest for our
souls is the Torah. The Torah is freedom from the bondage of Torah-lessness. The
freedom of Torah is freedom from the bondage to sin that results without Torah. Without
Torah there is no true freedom, only bondage. True
liberty does not include a license to sin (Rom. 3:8; 6:1-2, 15)

A Light in a Dark Place

As we said earlier there is a spiritual battle taking place between light and darkness. Paul
writes:

...what communion has light with darkness?

And what concord has Messiah with Belial...
(2Cor. 6:14b-15a)

Throughout the New Testament there are extended metaphores revolving around light
and darkness. Believers are called "sons of light" (Lk. 16:8; Jn. 12:36; Eph. 5:8; 1Thes.
5:5). The full armour of God is also called the "armour of light" (Rom. 13:12). The New
Testament speaks of those "who walk in darkness" (Jn. 8:12; 12:35).

But what does this idiomatic use of the terms light and darkness mean? For the answer
let us turn to the Tanak:

103
 For the commandment is a lamp;
and the Torah is light...
(Prov. 6:23)

Your word is a lamp to my feet,

and a light to my path.
(Psalm 119:105)

To the Torah and to the testimony;

if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them.
(Isaiah 8:20)

...for a Torah shall proceed from me,

and I will make my judgement to rest
for a light of the people.
(Isaiah 51:4)

So according to the Tanak the Torah is a light for our paths. Those that walk in the Torah
walk in the light. This is why the New Testament speaks of those who walk in darkness
(Jn. 8:12; 12:35; 1Jn. 1:6; 2:11). These are those who do not walk by the light of Torah.
Of these John writes:

And if we say that we have fellowship with him,

and walk in darkness,
we are liars and we do not walk in truth.
(1Jn. 1:6)

Notice that John equates "walking in truth" with walking in the light.
As we noted previously "the Torah is truth" (Ps. 119:142) thus if "walking in the light"
means "walking in truth" then both phrases refer to walking in the Torah. This takes us
back to our passages from the Tanak given above. John also confirms this by writing the
parallel statements:

...walking in truth.
...walk according to his commandments.
(2Jn. 1:4, 6)

Now lets look back at a moment to the full armour of God. As we have noted Paul also
calls this armour the "armour of light" (Rom. 13:12). According to Paul we are involved
in a spiritual battle with "the rulers of the darkness of this world." (Eph. 6:12) and thus he
instructs us to put on this "armour of light" (Eph. 6:13 & Rom. 13:12)

Now several of the items of the "armour of light" also tie in with the Torah:

104
 • The Belt of Truth

Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,

and your Torah is truth.
(Psalm 119:142)

You are near, O YHWH,

and all your commandments are truth.
(Psalm 119:151)

• The Breatplate of Righteousness

What great nation is there that has

statutes and judgements as righteous
as this whole Torah which I am setting
before you today?...
(Deut. 4:6)

• The Shield of Faith

Remove the false way from me,

and graciously grant me your Torah.
I have chosen the way of faith;
I have placed your ordinances before me.
(Psalm 119:29-30)

• The Sword of the Word

...For the Torah will go out from Zion;

and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem.
(Isaiah 2:3)

Thus the Armour of Light is the armour of the Torah which lights our path. There are
two paths before us, one of darkness and one of light. On the one hand one may "walk in
darkness" on the other hand one may "walk in the light" of Torah. The "son's of light"
put on the "armour of light" and walk in the light of Torah, while the "sons of darkness"
walk in the Torah-lessness which is the darkness of this dark world.

Torah and Grace

Another misunderstanding common in the church today is the concept that Torah
and Grace are mutually exclucive ideas. For exmple one author writes:

A believer can not be under law and

under grace at the same time.

105
 (God's Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 83)

Now let us be noble Bereans to see if this is true. Let us ask ourselves: "How were
people saved in 'Old Testament' times? Were they saved by works or by grace?

The fact is that often when Paul speaks of how we are saved by grace through
faith he often cites the Tanak to prove his point. Two of his favorite proof texts for this
concept are from the Tanak:

And he believed in YHWH;

and he counted it to him as righteousness.
(Gen. 15:6 = Rom. 4:3, 22; Gal. 3:6)

...the just shall live by his faith.

(Hab. 2:4 = Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11)

So Paul is arguing from the Tanak that one is saved by faith alone appart from works. In
fact the real truth is that men of the "Old Testament" times were just as under grace as we
are today:

But Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH.

(Gen. 6:8)

...you have also found grace in my sight....

...for you have found grace in my sight...
(Ex. 33:12, 17)

...and now I have found grace in your sight...

(Judges 6:17)

The people... found grace in the wilderness...

(Jer. 31:2)

Thus as noble Bereans we learn from the Tanak that people in "Old Testament" times
were saved by grace through faith. They could not have earned their salvation any more
than we could today, as Paul writes:

Knowing that a man is not justified by works

of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua the Nessiah,
even we have believed in Yeshua the Messiah,
that we might be justified by the faith of Messiah,
and not by works of the law; and by the works
of the law shall no flesh be saved.
(Gal. 2:16)

106
In fact the "New Testament" contains more commandments than the "Old Testament".
The New Testament contains1050 commandments [as deliniated in Dake's Annotated
Reference Bible; By Finnis Jennings Dake; N.T. pp.313-316] while the "Old Testament"
Mosaic Law contains only 613 (b.Makkot 23b; see Appendix). Thus faith and grace are
in the "Old Testament" and law and works can be found in the New Testament. People
in Old Testament times were saved by grace through faith just like people in New
Testament times. Now many anomians will agree to this fact on the surface, but lets
follow this thought through to its fullest conclusion. Lets go beyond the surface and
really think this through. If what we have shown to be true is true, then the people in the
wilderness in the days of Moses were saved by grace through faith. Now lets look at the
full impact of that statement. That means that people were under grace, and saved by
faith alone and not by works, when Moses was stoning people to death for violating the
Torah! Obviously then being saved by grace through faith in no way affects Torah
observance.

So if grace and faith do not negate the observance of Torah, then what is the true nature
of faith and grace? What is faith? What is grace? Let us once again turn to the
scriptures for answers.

Now part of the reason that many people have come to think that there is more "grace" in
the New Testament than in the Old Testament is a translation bias in the KJV and many
other english versions.

There are two words for "grace" in the Hebrew Tanak. The first word is CHEN (Strong's
2580/2581) which means "grace or charm". The other word is CHESED (Strong's
2616/2617 ) which carries the meaning of "grace, mercy or undue favor."

These two words closely parallel the meanings of the two Greek words used for grace in
the Greek Bible. These are CHARIS (Strong's 5485/5463) which means "grace or
charm" and ELEOS (Strong's 1651/1653) meaning "grace, mercy or undue favor."

Obviously Hebrew CHEN = Greek CHARIS and Hebrew CHESED = Greek ELEOS.
Now the KJV tends to translate CHEN/CHARIS as "grace" but tends to translate
CHESED/ELEOS as "mercy". Now when we think of "grace" in biblical terms we are
ussually thinking of the concept of CHESED/ELEOS "undue favor".

Now if we follow with the KJV translation scheme then it appears that there is much
more grace in the New Testament than the Tanak, since CHEN only appears 70 times in
the Tanak while CHARIS appears 233 times in the New Testament. But remember, the
concept of "undue favor" is actually CHESED/ELEOS. CHESED appears 251 times in
the Tanak, while ELEOS appears only 50 times in the New Testament. If anything there
is far more "grace" in the Tanak than in the New Testament.

Now let us turn to the Tanak to get a better understanding of what grace really is.
According to the Scriptures there is a close connection between "grace" and the "fear of
YHWH":

107
 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his grace (CHESED)
toward those who fear him.
(Psalm 103:11)

Oh let those who fear YHWH say,

"His grace (CHESED) is everlasting.
(Psalm 118:4)

By grace (CHESED) and truth

iniquity is atoned for,
and by the fear of YHWH
one keeps away from evil.
(Proverbs 16:6)

And the fear of YHWH, according to the Tanak, includes Torah observance:

...that he may learn the fear of YHWH his God,

to keep all the words of this Torah
and these statutes, to do them:
(Deut. 17:19)

...that they may hear, and that they may learn,

and fear YHWH your God,
and observe to do all the words of this Torah.
(Deut. 31:12)

Therefore there is clealy no conflict between grace and Torah. In fact the Torah is
closely connected to grace.

The next word we need to examine is "faith". The Hebrew word is EMUNAH.
EMUNAH can mean "belief, faith or trust" and is best translated "trusting faithfulness".
When we speak of "faith" in YHWH we are not merely speaking about "belief" but
"trusting faithfulness".
If someone were to ask you if you are faithful to your spouce, you would not reply by
saying "Yes, I believe my spouse exists." That is because it is clealy not an issue of what
you believe but in whether you are faithful. Ingagine a man who stays out late at night
everynight comitting adultry with various women. Each night he comes home to his wife
and tells her how much he loves her, and insists that since he believs in her existance that
he therefore is faithful to her. Is this man faithful to his wife? Absolutely not!
This understanding is confirmed to us in the Scriptures as follows:

Remove the false way from me,

and graciously grant me your Torah.
I have chosen the way of faith;

108
 I have placed your ordinances before me.
(Psalm 119:29-30)

Now I want to make it clear that we are not saying that one earns ones salvation by
keeping Torah. At times I have been asked "Do I have to keep Torah to be saved?". I
reply by saying "Of course not.... do you have to get cleaned up to take a bath?"

You may ask, "Well if we don't keep the Torah for salvation, then why do we keep the
Torah?" First of all, keeping the Torah SHOWS our faith (Titus 3:5-8; 1Jn. 2:3-7; James
2:14-26). Secondly there are rewards for keeping the Torah (Titus 3:8). The Psalms tell
us that it "restores the soul" (Ps. 19:7). Yeshua promises that those who keep the Torah
and teach others to do so will be called first in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:19).
Additionally, Jews who keep the
Mosaic Torah are given a long list of other promises (Deut. 28).

Now if the Torah is good and everlasting then it stands to reason that it should be
observed. Paul tells us that we should not use grace as an excuse to sin (Rom. 6:1-2, 15)
and that the only way to know sin is through the Torah (Rom. 7:7). Yeshua tells us that if
we love him we will keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-25; 15:10). The fact that
we are saved by faith is all the more reason that we should keep the Torah, as the
Scriptures tell us:

..not by works of righteousness which we have done,

but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing
of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom
he poured out on us abundantly through Yeshua the Messiah
our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should
become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
This is a faithful saying, and I want you to affirm constantly, that those
who have believed in God should be careful to maintain
good works. These things are good and profitable to men.
(Titus 3:5-8)

And by this we know that we know him, if we keep his

commandments. He who says, "I know him," and does not
keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in
him. But whoever keeps his word, truly the love of God is
perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He
who says he abides in him ought himself to walk just as he walked.
Brothers, I write no new commandment to you,
but an old commandment which you have had from the
beginning. The old commandment is the word which you
heard from the beginning.
(1Jn. 2:3-7)

109
 …they are simply complete Jews....
They have no different ideas,
but confess everything
exactly as the Torah proclaims it
and in the Jewish fashion—
except for their belief in Messiah,..
-Epiphanius; Panarion 29

Chapter 8
Israel

Replacement Theology

One of the greatest misunderstandings of the Church/Israel relationship is called

"Replacement Theology". This theology teaches that the Church has been given the
promises made to Israel, because of Israel's unbelief, and rejection of the Messiah. Thus
these theologians teach that the Church has replaced Israel and the Jews have no future in
G-d's plan. This theology guises itself under a number of names: "Dominion Theology";
"Kingdom Now Theology"; "Covenant Theology"; and "Reconstructionalist Theology".
This theology is held to by all Postmillenialists, all amillinialists and some
Premillinialists.

One of the major problems with replacement theology is that it falsely leaves G-d guilty
of not keeping his promises to literal Israel to whom they pertain (Rom. 9:3-4). These
promises include:

* PROMISE OF LAND (Gen. 12:7; 13:15-16; 17:7-8).

* PROMISE TO REGATHER ISRAEL AND RESTORE THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

WITH MESSIAH AS KING. (Deut. 30:1-5; Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-16; Jer. 23:5-6; see also: Deut
28:1-14; 2Sam. 7:4-14; 1Chron. 17; Ps. 89; Is. 2:1-4; 14:1; 25:1-27:13; 56:1-18; 60:1-22;
62:1-12; 65:17-25; 66:7-9; Jer. 16:14-15; 30:1-33:26; Ezkl. 33:1-39:29; 40:1-48:35;
Hosea 11:1-14:9; Joel 2:18-3:21; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:1-8ff; 7:11-20; Zeph. 3:9-20;
Hag. 2:20-23; Zech. 14; Dan. 2:44.)

One of the key points of Replacement theology is its false claim that G-d has rejected
Israel. The Scriptures, however, are very plain. G-d promised in the Tanak not to reject
Israel, saying:

Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day,
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,

110
 Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The LORD of hosts is His name:
"If this fixed order departs from before Me," declares the LORD,
"Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease
From being a nation before Me forever."
Thus says the LORD,
If the heavens above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out below,
Then I will also cast off all the ofspring of Israel
For all they have done." declares the LORD.
(Jer. 31:35-37)

G-d has also stated in the New Scriptures that he has not rejected Israel, as we read in
Romans:

I say then, has G-d cast away His people? Certainly not!...
G-d has not cast away His people...
have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not!...
do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, remember
that you do not support the root, but the root supports you."
(Rom. 11: 1-2, 11, 18)

This "boasting" is Replacement theology which is twice condemned in the New

Scriptures saying:

I know of the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not,
but are a congregation of Satan."
(Rev. 2:9; 3:9.)

For those who would promote replacement theology, remember "...do not boast against
The branches ... you do not support the root, but the root supports you." (Rom. 11:18) for
G-d says "I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a
congregation of Satan." (Rev. 2:9; 3:9)

Church/Israel Dichotomy

Another misunderstanding of the Church/Israel relationship is known as "Church/Israel

Dichotomy. Church/Israel dichotomy is the position held by Dispensational
Premillinialists (called Dispensationalists). This teaching was first put forward by John
Darby during the 19th Century.

Church/Israel Dichotomy teaches that the Church and Israel are two totally differant
groups with no members in common. According to this teaching, when a member of
Israel (a Jew) becomes a member of the Church (a Christian) he is no longer a member of
Israel (a Jew).

111
Church/Israel Dichotomy came about as a result of false Dispensationalist teachings.
Dispenstationalism teaches that the history of man can broken down into various
compartmentalized "ages" or "dispensations." One of these is called "The Age of Law",
this "Age of Law" is said to have ended with the founding of the Church and the
beginning of a "Church Age" in Acts chapter 2. During this "Church Age"

Dispensationalists teach that the Old Testament Law does not apply. This "Church Age"
of no Law will, they say, end with the start of the seven year Tribulation (Dan. 9:27). The
Dispensationalists admit that the Law is in effect during the Tribulation, since the
sacrifices and offerings are continued during this time (Dan. 9:27). As a result
Dispensationalists invented a Pre-Trib Rapture to seperate the Church Age from the
Tribulation so that the Church is raptured away and Israel remains for the Tribulation. To
Make this theory work, Dispensationalists had to make the Church and Israel two totally
seperate groups, so that everyone was either raptured away as part of the Church, or
remained behind as Israel to enter the Tribulation. Thus Church/Israel Dichotomy was
invented.

One of the verses used by Church/Israel Dichotomists is 1Cor. 10:32,

"Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the Church of God." The
Dichotomy Theologians argue that these must be three distinct groups, with no common
members. The truth is that there is no indication of this, for example "signs, wonders and
miricals" (2Cor. 12:12) are not three distinct things with no common sets.

Another text used by Dichotomists is Eph. 2:14-16. However in this text we see only the
destruction of enmity, not the birth of dichotomy.

Another verse used by Dicotomists is Col. 3:11 "...there is neither Greek nor Jew..."
however, if we look at a parallel passage in Gal. 3:28 we also read "There is niether Jew
nor Greek... neither male nor female..." Yet males and females continue to exist as a
distinct group with differing obligations (see 1Tim. 2:12-14; Titus 2:3-5.) The true
meaning of this text is that Jews and Gentiles are both saved in the same way (Acts.
15:11; Rom. 3:22; 10:12) and are therefore both part of the same Body of Messiah (1Cor.
12:13).

“One Faith Two Expression” Theology

This theory which is popular in many “Messianic Jewish” circles teaches that Messianic
Judaism and Gentile Christianity are two authentic expressions of the one true faith.
Messianic Judaism is the authentic Jewish expression of that faith and Gentile
Christendom is the authentic Gentile expression of that faith. Thus it is widely taught in
Messianic Judaism that Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians are united together in a
single “Church”.

112
For example let us again examine the Messianic Jewish Manifesto. A circle graph on
page 45 shows Messianic Jews as well as Gentiles and "Jews who are saved and freely
choose to express their faith in a non-Jewish context." as being in the "Church" together.
Stern then writes:

...the small circle represents the Jews and the

large circle the Church, but now they overlap.
The intersection of the two circles represents
Messianic Jews. ... the remainder of the Church
circle represents Gentile Christians.
(Messianic Manifesto page 46)

And a few pages later he writes:

The Messianic Jew has two non-neurotic roles to play

in the Church. ... the issues raised in this book need
to be brought to the attention of all in the Church,
Gentile Christians as well as Messianic Jews. ...
The second role he has to play is being instrumental
in fostering Jewish evangelism, helping the Church...
(Messianic Manifesto p. 71)

The same view is repeated by Messianic Jewish Leader Daniel Juster on page 35 of his
1995 book Jewish Roots.

This ultimately implies that when Gentile Christianity violates Torah, observes Pagan
festivals like Christmas, Easter etc; observe Sunday worship, place a steeple (phallic
symbol) on their building etc. that these things are valid for their cultural expression of
the one true faith and are on a par with Torah Observance, the Biblical festivals, the
Seventh Day Sabbath etc.. Thus Pagan customs are placed as equal to the
commandments of Elohim.

For example the Messianic Jewish book Take Hold has:

Question: How do I politely and without offense answer the

question why one observes Saturday as the Shabbat instead
of Sunday?

We offer this suggestion: There is nothing wrong with

worshipping on Sunday. There is nothing biblically wrong
with going to a place of worship on a Sunday and becoming as
much involved as one desires.

It is, however, biblically incorrect to call Sunday, or any other

day than the seventh day, “Shabbat”. …

113
 Thus we suggest that you merely inform your friends (nicely,
of course!) that you do not have a problem with worshipping
on a Sunday just as long as they do not insist that it be called
“the Sabbath.”
(Take Hold; Ariel and D’vorah Berkowitz; pp. 239-240)

Nazarene Judaism has a totally different stance on these issues. Nazarene Judaism
maintains that Torah Observance, the Jewish festivals Seventh Day Sabbath etc. are NOT
JUST a Jewish expression of the one true faith. They are the ONLY expression of the
one true faith while Christmas, Easter, Sunday Worship are pagan, apostate customs and
NOT a Gentile expression of the one true faith.

Unlike much of Messianic Judaism, Nazarene Judaism does NOT accept Gentile
Christianity as an alternate Gentile expression of the one true faith.

“Two House” Theology

Before discussing this section I want to say that there are various teachers teaching
various things which they are calling “Two House” theology. There may be those who
teach theologies which they call “Two House” theology but who do not agree with the
“Two House” theology I am discussing in this section. However there is a theology
being taught under the name of “Two House” theology which teaches that the Church and
Israel are the two Houses of Israel. This theology maintains that the “Church” is
Christianity and is Ephraim (“The House of Israel”) while “Israel” is Rabbinic Judaism
and the “House of Judah”. One popular book which promotes “Two House” theology is
Restoring the Two Houses of Israel by Eddie Chumney (1999). The back cover of this
book reads in part:

Who are the two houses of Israel? …

Today, they are known by the names of
Christianity (House of Israel) and Judaism (house of Judah).

After the death of Solomon the Kingdom of Israel was divided into a Northern Kingdom
and a Southern Kingdom. The Northern Kingdom became known as the House of Israel;
Joseph or Ephraim. The Southern Kingdom became known as the House of Judah. The
Northern Kingdom rebelled against the rightful king, High Priest and Temple. They
established their own non-Davidic King, their own High Priest and their own Temple at a
new location in the Northern Kingdom. They were unwilling to submit to the rulership of
the House of Judah. They, in effect, started their own new religion. An Ephaimite
religion, under Ephraimite authority.

In Jeremiah Chapter 3 the two houses of Israel are discussed. Notice that Israel and Judah
are allegorical sisters in this prophecy (Jer. 3:6-7) In Jer. 3:8 YHWH says:

And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra'el

114
had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her
a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Yehudah did not fear,
but went and committed whoring too.
(Jer. 3:8 - The Scriptures Version)

However YHWH did not divorce Judah as well, as that would have left no remnant.
Instead the Prophet Hosea compares the two Houses of Israel this way:

"Ephrayim has surrounded Me with lying,

and the house of Yisra'el with deceit.
But Yehudah is still wandering with El,
and is true to the Set-apart One."
(Hosea 11:12 - The Scriptures Version)

Now at this point I want to establish that their is only one true faith (Eph. 4:5) which was
once and for all delivered to the set apart ones (Jude 1:3) and that one true faith is the
Nazarene sect of Judaism.

This brings us to the encounter between Yeshua and an Ephraimite woman (a Samaritan).
There is no doubt that this Samaritan woman is to be counted as an Ephraimite because
she refers to "our father Jacob" (Jn. 4:12) and Yeshua makes no attempt to correct her on
this point. (Note she mentions the two different places of worship on different mountains
in 4:20). Then Yeshua tells her her religion is false and that the Jewish religion is the
one true faith saying:

"You worship what you do not know.

We worship what we know,
because the deliverance is of the Yehudim.
"But the hour is coming, and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth,
for the Father also does seek such to worship Him.
(Jn. 4:22-23 - The Scriptures Version)

Yeshua makes it clear that the "true worshipers" are the Jews who practice Judaism "in
spirit and truth" as opposed to an Ephraimite religion.("in spirit and truth" - a reference to
the Torah - see Ps. 119:142, 151; Ezek. 36:27).

Now the question is: What is the prophetic hope of the House of Israel? Is there to be a
last days restoration of a distinct and separate House of Israel (as opposed to the House of
Judah) or is the hope of divorced Ephraim to be joined to the House of Judah?

One of the most beautiful prophecies of the reunion of the two houses of Israel is the
"two sticks" prophecy in Ezekiel 37:15-20. In this prophecy each of the two houses of
Israel are symbolized by two "sticks" which are brought together and made as one (Ezek.
37:15-18) the text goes on to specify that YHWH will:

115
...take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim,
and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him,
even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick,...
(Ezek. 37:19)

Now lets look at another prophecy in Zech. 8:23:

Thus said YHWH of hosts, 'In those days ten men

from all languages of the nations take hold,
yea, they shall take hold of the edge of the garment of a man,
a Yehudite, saying, "Let us go with you,
for we have heard that Elohim is with you ."

Now lest anyone think that the "Jew" (Yehudite) in this passage is a certain Jew, such as
the Messiah, I must point out that in the Hebrew the word "you" in "let us go with "you"
and "Elohim is with you" is PLURAL and therefore refers not to an individual Jew, but to
the House of Judah. No doubt the number "ten" here implies the lost ten tribes of
Ephraim. Not that Ephraim says to Judah:

"let us [Ephraim] go with you [Judah]

for we [Ephraim] have heard that YHWH is with you [Judah]."

Finally let us look at the olive tree prophecy of Romans 11. This prophecy parallels the
two "sticks" prophecy of Ezekiel 37 (note that the word STICK in Ezek. 37 is ETZ which
also means "tree").

Rom. 9 begins the contrast of the "Jews" and "Gentiles" by quoting Hosea 2:25(23); 2:1
(1:10) in Rom. 9:25-26. But if we look up the context of the people "which were not my
people" which he calls "my people" in Hosea we find that they are the "children of Israel"
(Hosea 2:1 (1:10)) as opposed to "the children of Judah" (Hosea 2:2 (1:11)) So if Paul is
quoting Hosea in context and contrasting Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 9:24) using Hosea
2:1-2 (1:10-11) then the "Jews" of Rom. 9:24 are the "Childern of Judah" of Hosea 2:2
(1:11) and the "Gentiles" of Rom. 9:24 are the "children of Israel" of Hosea 2:1 (1:10). If
this is true then as this contrasting pair advances into Rom. Chapter 11 the two trees are
the two Houses.

Now the uncultivated olive tree in Romans 11 is clearly therefore Ephraim and the
cultivated olive tree is clearly that of Judah. This prophecy tells us that branches from the
tree/stick of Ephraim will be broken off and grafted into the tree/stick of Judah, are to be
fed by the root of the tree/stick of Judah and are not to boast against the natural branches
(Jews)."

As a Nazarene Jew I certainly encourage Ephraimites to "take hold" of the House of

Judah, and be joined to the stick of Judah and grafted into the House of Judah. We know
that many Ephraimites are doing just this. We also encourage Ephraim NOT to fall into

116
Ephraim's ancient error of attempting to establish a separate Ephraimite movement apart
from Judaism.

The original followers of Yeshua were the ancient Nazarene sect of Judaism, the true
House of Judah, and we invite Ephraimites to take hold, be joined to us and grafted into
Judah rather than establish Ephraimite movements apart from Judah.

The Truth: The Assembly of Israel

Now having examined some of the various misunderstandings concerning the “Church”
and Israel, let us examine the truth.

Now you might think, from examining most English translations of the New Testament
that the English word “Church” must be a unique theological technical term which one
would think would correspond to a unique theological technical term in the Greek NT (I
refer to the Greek because that is the source text for most English NT editions). This is
simply not the case. The English word “Church” which is a unique theological technical
term, corresponds to the Greek word Ekklesia which is not a unique theological technical
term at all, but simply a Greek word which means “assembly”. This same Greek word is
used for “assembly” throughout the LXX (Greek version of the Tanak). This Greek word
is even used to describe an unruly mob in Acts 19:32-41.

According to Webster’s English dictionary “Church” refers to “all Christians considered

as a single body” or “a particular sect or denomination of Christians” (none of the other
definitions are applicable here). So the English word “Church” refers to “all Christians”
while EKKLESIA just means “assembly”. The English word “Church” actually comes
from the Old English KIRK which was used to refer to pagan temples.

I want to emphasize that Christians have borrowed the word “Church” from paganism,
used it as a technical term to refer to “Christians” and then inserted it as a technical term
in the NT where no such technical term existed in the source text from which they were
translating. Ekklesia does not mean “Church”. “Church” refers to a body of Christians
while EKKLESIA just means “an assembly”.

So what “assembly” is generally referred to in the NT passages which are generally

translated “Church”? Lets look at some clues:

1. The “Church” is not (as many claim) a body which was born in Acts chapter 2. Note
that the new believers in Acts chapter 2 were “added to the church” (Acts 2:47 KJV) so
the “Church” (actually “assembly”) already existed before Acts 2:47.

2. In Acts 7:38 the KJV refers to the Assembly of Israel in the wilderness as the “Church
in the wilderness”.

117
3. In Colosians 1:18 and Eph. 1:22-23 the “church” (EKKLESIA) is identified as an
allegorical “body of Messiah”.

4. In Matthew 2:15 Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 “out of Egypt I have called my Son” in
which “my Son” refers to Israel (Hosea 11:1) and which Matthew allegorically identifies
as the Messiah.

5. Hosea 11:1 “out of Egypt I called my Son” (see item 5 above) refers back to Ex. 4:22-
23 in which Israel is identified as YHWH’s “firstborn son”.

6. Col. 1:18 identifies the “church” with the “body [of Messiah]” and identifies the
Messiah as the “firstborn”.

7. Hebrews 12:23 refers to the “church” as the “church of the firstborn” and ties this to
Israel at Mount Sinai.

8. Wherever the Tanak refers to “The Assembly of Israel” the LXX (ancient Greek
version of the Tanak) translates the word “assembly” as EKKLESIA.

From these points taken together we may conclude that in general, when the NT refers to
the so-called “Church” it is not referring to a group of Christians, but to the “Assembly of
Israel” who are the allegorical body of Messiah (the allegorical Son) the Assembly of the
firstborn.

It is important to note that this concept differs from replacement theology in a very
important way. Replacement theology identifies the “Church” as an entity born in Acts 2
which is made up of Christians, a body which replaces Israel. By contrast Nazarene
theology maintains that the Church is not identifiable with Christians, was not born in
Acts chapter 2 and does not replace Israel. Instead the word “church” is a mistranslation
of “assembly” and refers to the Assembly of Israel which continues to be Israel and is not
replaced by a new Christian body. (One must however bear in mind that by this thinking
the Nazarene sect of Judaism is the true representative of Judaism and not Rabbinic
Judaism).

118
 They disagree with Jews
because they have come to faith in Messiah…
-Epiphanius 29

Chapter 9
Yeshua the Messiah
Yeshua MUST be Messiah (regardless of whether or not any other "Messianic
Prophecies" are validly speaking of Yeshua)

Isaiah 29 ties the apostasy of Judah to a sealed book (29:10-12) but with the revealing
of that sealed book comes an enlightenment and restoration (29:18).

Now it is very important to realize that according to Isaiah 29 our people (Judah) are in
a state of general blindness/slumber until the sealed book is revealed (29:10-14, 18).

Now Isaiah does not tell us what the book is or when it is revealed. However that
information is given elswhere in the Tanak. Daniel writes of his own book:

But you, O Daniel, shut up the words,

and seal the book to the time of the end...
...Go your way Daniel: for the words are closed up
and sealed till the time of the end.
(Dan. 12:4, 10)

So this "sealed book" would seem to be at least in part, the Book of Daniel and it
seems to be come unsealed in the last days. Remember Daniel wrote after the days of
Isaiah so Daniel knew about the sealed book of Is. 29:10-12, 18 when he wrote Dan.
12:4, 10.

So lets bring together Is. 29:10-14, 18 with Daniel 12:4, 10. What do we learn from
these two sections of the Tanak taken together? We learn that our people Judah are in an
apostasy until some information hidden in the
Book of Daniel (and perhaps some other books) is revealed in the last days and the
revealing of that information opens their eyes.

This means that mainline Judaism is in apostasy but in the last days there is a
restoration of Judah when certain hidden (sealed) information in Daniel is revealed.

So what information is sealed in Daniel? The restoration of our people is usually tied
to Messiah... could this hidden information in Daniel relate to the identity of Messiah?

119
 Interesting the Talmud states:

The Targum of the Prophets was composed by Jonathon

ben Uzziel under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi... and a Bat Kol (voice from heaven) came forth
and exclaimed, "Who is this that has revealed My secrets
to mankind?"... He further sought to reveal by a Targum
the inner meaning of the Ketuvim, but a bat kol went forth
and said, "Enough!". What was the reason?-- Because the
date of the Messiah is foretold in it.
(Babylonian Talmud; b.Megillah 3a)
Now the only prophetic book of the Ketuvim is Daniel and this is also a book of the
Ketuvim for which no Targum was evr made. The following quote from Josephus also
supports the theory that Daniel is the book in question:
We believe that Daniel conversed with God; for he did not
only prophecy of future events, as did the other prophets,
but also determined the time of their accomplishment.
(Josephus; Antiquities 10:11:7)
Now the Qumran community found just this information (the time of the Messiah) in
the Book of Daniel:
The visitation is the Day of Salvation that He has decreed
through Isaiah the prophet concerning all the captives,
inasmuch as Scripture says, "How beautiful upon the mountains
are the feet of the messenger who announces peace,
who brings good news, who announces salvation,
who says to Zion "Your ELOHIM reigns"." (Isa. 52;7)
This scriptures interpretation : "the mountains" are the prophets,
they who were sent to proclaim God`s truth and to prophesy
to all Israel. "The messengers" is the Anointed of the spirit,
of whom Daniel spoke; "After the sixty-two weeks,
a Messiah shall be cut off" (Dan. 9;26)
(From 11Q13)
So now we have learned that there is good reason to believe that the sealed information
in the Book of Daniel which opens the eyes of Judah when it is revealed in the last days
is the time of Messiah sealed up in Daniel 9:24-27.
Now lets recap:

Anyone can see from Is. 29 that the apostasy of Judah ends with the revealing of a sealed
book.
Anyone can see from Daniel 12 that this sealed book is (at least in part) the Book of
Daniel.

Anyone can see that the information sealed up in Daniel is (at least in part) the time of
Messiah.

120
Anyone can see that this information is to be found in Daniel 9.

Now here is Daniel 9 unsealed:

DAN 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes,
which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
DAN 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the
years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would
accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Daniel has been doing some Tanak study. He has been reading Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10.
He has read about the 70 year exile.
The reason for a 70 year captivity had been that YHWH was punishing us for having
forsaken the Torah. He punished us with the curses of Deut 28-29 and Lev. 26 as the
Torah had warned us. The key issue here was that of the violation of the Sabbath of the
Land (Ex. 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 25:2, 20; 26:2, 34; Deut. 15:1)

According to the Torah, if we as a people did not keep the sabbath of the land every
seven years we would be cursed (Lev. 26 esp. verse 34)

DAN 9:3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with
fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:
DAN 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O
Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him,
and to them that keep his commandments;

DAN 9:5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and
have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments:

DAN 9:6 Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy
name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

DAN 9:7 O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as
at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel,
that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them,
because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.

DAN 9:8 O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to
our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.

DAN 9:9 To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have
rebelled against him;

DAN 9:10 Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws,
which he set before us by his servants the prophets.

121
DAN 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might
not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in
the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

DAN 9:12 And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our
judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath
not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.

DAN 9:13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we
not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and
understand thy truth.

DAN 9:14 Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for
the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his
voice.

DAN 9:15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land
of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned,
we have done wickedly.

DAN 9:16 O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and
thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins,
and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to
all that are about us.

DAN 9:17 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his
supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the
Lord's sake.

DAN 9:18 O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our
desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our
supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.

DAN 9:19 O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine
own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.

Daniel is very concerned. It has been 70 years and he wants to go home! He is a very
old man by now. But he has worried because he knows his Torah. He knows that the
Torah warns that if Israel still does not repent after the curse is inacted that Israel will
have the punishment multiplied by seven (Lev. 26:18) Daniel is hoping that YHWH will
not be enacting the next level punishment. For that would mean 70 * 7 or another 490
years!

DAN 9:20 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of
my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy
mountain of my God;

122
DAN 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen
in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of
the evening oblation.

DAN 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come
forth to give thee skill and understanding.

DAN 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am
come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and
consider the vision.

DAN 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to
finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for
iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
and to anoint the most Holy.

Daniel learns that there will indeed be at least another 490 years of curses for Israel.
The "weeks" here are not seven DAYS but seven YEARS. In fact the Hebrew word here
actually just means "seven [somethings]"
DAN 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be
seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall,
even in troublous times.
7 "weeks" here would be 49 years (a Jubilee cycle) plus theeescore and two weeks
(3*20+2=62) is 69 "weeks" or 483 years.
But remember we are not counting years here but actual sabbath year cycles which are
specific seven year blocks. In other words this is actually a count of how many sabbath
year cycle blocks fall between these two points.

Our starting point is "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem" which is Ezra 7:11-16 and gives us a start date of 457 BCE. Between that
date and the Messiah 69 sabbath year cycle blocks would fall.

DAN 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war
desolations are determined.
Messiah is cut off after ther 62 "weeks" which follow the 7 weeks. This elaboration
allows us to see that the division of these two blocks (the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks) was
to show that after the 7 weeks "the street shall be built again, and the wall" but the
Messiah would not come until after the 62 week block following that.
The Messiah would be "cut off" at that time. This is an idiom meaning that he would
be executed. He would not be executed for himself, but for others. Then the people of a
prince destroy Jerusalem after that time.

123
DAN 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst
of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the
overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation,
and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Remember there were 490 years or 70 "weeks" but we have so far covered only 483
(or 69 "weeks").
This is because the big test of our trust in YHWH is the Sabbath of the land. This is
where Israel SHOWS our trust in YHWH by trusting him to provide. The curse would
not end until we reinstitute the sabbath of the land (2Chr. 36:21).

So YHWH in his infinite mercy would send the Messiah seven years BEFORE the 490
years would end to call us to repent and return to Torah in time to reinstitute the sabbath
of the land BEFORE the 490 years are over. (See my paper THE KINGDOM OFFER)

The curse will not end until we as a people repent and show that by reinstituting the
sabbath of the land. When we do that we will finally kick off the last seven years of the
curse we have lived with all of this time.

There is so much to learn from this chapter. Including the nature of the Kingdom offer
and the layout of the last seven years. But most importantly is the time that the Messiah
would come and be "cut off".

Now if our start point is 457 BCE and 69 "weeks" must fall between this point and the
death of Messiah, then Messiah would have to be executed sometime in a window from
26 C.E. to 40 C.E. (depending on how the sabbath year cycles fall.

So if Yeshua was NOT the Messiah that would be "cut off, but not for himself" during
that window... then who was?

Messaih would be executed in a window of time somewhere between 26 and 44 C.E..

And he would arive in accordance to the completion of a series of sabbath-year-cycles
and jubilee cycles. Now these cycles indicate "the year of release". So lets look for more
clues about this Messiah who is cut off at such a time.

Lets look at Isaiah 60:22-61:2

60:22 A little one shall become a thousand,

and a small one a strong nation:
I YHWH will hasten it in its time.
"A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation:" is the Kingdom
represented by a stone in Dan. 2:34-35, 45 which "became a great mountain and filled the
whole earth" (Dan. 3:35).
"I YHWH will hasten it in its time." refers to the "Kingdom offer"

61:1 The Spirit of Adonai YHWH is upon me;

because YHWH has anointed me to proclaim

124
good tidings to the meek; he has sent me to
bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty
to the captives, and the opening of the prison
to them that are bound.
61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of YHWH,
and the day of vengeance of our ELOHIM,
to comfrort all who mourn;

Here we have an anointed one, a "Messiah" who comes in accordance with the jubilee
and seven year cycles to proclaim liberty to captives. It is also significant as we will soon
find that he makes this proclomation to "Zion" (Is. 61:3). This Messiah comes to
REDEEM.
Lets see if Isaiah speaks any more about this figure who makes a proclomation of
redemption to Zion. In Is. 52:7 we also read about a figure who also proclaims good
tidings to Zion. This proclomation appears in Is. 53 and also involves one who comes to
redeem (Is. 53:4-5, 11-12) and is cut off, but not for himself (53:8; 53:4-5, 11-12) just
like the figure in Daniel. The figure must be the Messiah of Daniel 9 and Is. 61.

I wonder how this Messiah dies? Perhaps the prophets give me some clue.
Zechariah writes:

12:10 ...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced...

According to both the Talmud (b.Sukkot 52a) and the Targum, this "pierced one" is the
Messiah. Now Zechariah 12:10 takes place at the coming of Messiah as king, but they
notice that he was the same one whom they had "pierced" or "thrust through". Lets read
on and see if Zechariah gives us any clues as to who this is and just how he was pierced.
As we read further Zech 12:10-14 speaks of the people mourning over having pierced this
guy. Zech 13: 1-4 takes place at the intiation of the Messianic age. The Messiah is
judging idolaters and false prophets. No wonder they are now mourning over this pierced
one! Then in verses 5-6 we get a detailed scene of one of these judgements:
5 And he shall say, "I am no prophet, I am a husbandman;
for a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth."
6 And he [the defendant] shall say to him [Messiah],
"What are these wounds in your hands?"
Then he [the Messiah] shall answer: "Those with which
I was wounded in the house of my friends."

Zech 13:6 points us back to 12:10 regarding how they mourn when they see he is the
pierced one.
So now we have a Messiah who would be "cut off" sometime between 26 and 44 C.E.
not for himself but to redeem others. This execution would involve having his hands
pierced.

Now lets look at Zech. 13:2. Notice that this guy will "cut off the names of the idols
out of the land" (13:2). Sounds like the same guy about whom Micah 5:13 says "Your

125
graven images also will I cut off". This guy is born in Beit-Lechem (Bethlehem)
according to Micah 5:2 (and the Targum to Micah 5:2 says this is Messiah).

OK lets summarize:

According to Isaiah 29 our people (Judah) are in a state of general blindness/slumber

until the sealed book is revealed (29:10-14, 18).
Daniel tells us that his book is sealed until the last days (Dan. 12)
The sealed information in Daniel's book would appear to be the time of Messiah in Dan.
9.
Daniel 9 unsealed reveals to us that Messiah would be "cut off" for others sometime
between 26 and 44 CE.
This passage points us to various other prophecies about this figure which also tell us that
he is born in Beit-Lechem, and executed by having his hands pierced.
Who could this be?

126
 Conclusion
So where do we go from here in the restoration of Nazarene Judaism? There is a need for
more more Nazarene books, websites an institutions. Consider starting a Nazarene Torah
study in your home. We need to train up Nazarene leaders and establish Nazarene
congregations. Currently there are Nazarene Torah studies and congregations meeting
throughout the USA, South Africa, Indonesia, Canada and even Israel. Beit Netzarim
Yeshiva is training up a generation of Nazarene Rabbis. Books need to be written on
various related subjects. More research needs to be done in areas such as the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Second Temple Era Judaism, Rabbinic Literature, Jewish Hermeneutics, Hebrew
and Aramaic NT origins as well as Nazarene History imbedded in the writings of the
Rabbis and so-called “Church Fathers.”

This book is not the end of this research it is the beginning.

127
 The Jews insist upon a literal interpretation
of the Scripture based on thirteen rules,
but we know that the spiritual interpretation
is far superior.
-Jerome; Fourth Century

Appendix 1
Hermeneutics
"Hermeneutics" comes from the Greek words "hermes" (message) and "pneuma" (spirit)
meaning literally "[to obtain] the message of the Spirit. Hermeneutics is "the study of
the methodological principles of interpretation." Now many object to the concept of
"iterpreting" the Bible. However the word "interpret" means "to explain or tell the
meaning of: present in understandable terms." It is therefore very important that we
"interpret" the Bible. To interpret the Bible means to "understand" the Bible. Now while
there are some who would say that the Bible does not need to be interpreted, who would
argue that the Bible should not be understood?

Jewish Hermeneutics vs. Christian Hermeneutics

Now one of the major differences between Christianity and

Judaism lies in the area of hermeneutics. Judaism has a very systematic refined rules
understanding the Scriptures.
Christianity differs not in having an alternate set of agreed upon rules, but in having no
agreed upon rules whatsoever! This distinction was well illustrated by the fourth century
Christian "Church Father" Jerome when he wrote:

The Jews insist upon a literal interpretation

of the Scripture based on thirteen rules,
but we know that the spiritual interpretation
is far superior.

The New Testament itself actually advocates the use of hermeneutic rules. Paul writes:

Study to show yourself approved to Elohim,

a workman that needs not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the Word of Truth.
(2Tim. 2:15)

128
Notice that Paul here indicates that there is a right way to interpret the scriptures. This
would also therefore imply that there is a "wrong" way to interpret the scriptures (see 2Pt.
3:15-17). Now if there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the scriptures, then
that would also imply that there are rules.

Now before we begin to learn those rules we must first learn some basic terms and
concepts.

Being Objective

To begin with it is important to understand the difference between "objective" and

"subjective." "Objective" means "existing independent of mind" while "subjective"
indicates that which comes from a person's point of view." That wich is objective is
factual without being dependent on any person's perspective. While that wich is
subjective is depentant on a point of view. Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective.
The New Testament tells us that we should understand the scriptures objectively rather
than subjectively:

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture

is of any private interpretation;
for prophecy never came by the will of man,
but set-apart men of Eloah spoke
as they were moved by the Ruach HaKodesh.
(1Peter 1:20-21)

Many in Christendom however have developed do-it-yourself do-your-own-thing

interpretation. They will often have Bible studies in which they ask "what does this verse
mean to you?" Many will often say "to me this verse means..." The Jewish response is to
ask "Ok, so if you were not here what would this verse mean?"

Two other terms which we should cover are eisegesis and exegesis:

Eisegesis: Reading ones own ideas into a text.

Exegesis: Drawing ideas out of the text.

Making Arguments

In interpreting the text you will generally find yourself formulating "arguments." In this
case the term "argument" does not indicate a heated discusion. In hermeneutics an
"argument" is a collection of propositions, one of which (the conclusion) is claimed to
follow from the others (the premisses). In biblical hermeneutics an argument is also
called an exegesis.

129
An argument is generally formulated in two parts. The first is called the "premiss" and
the second is the "conclusion". The proposition which is claimed to follow from the
other proposition is the conclusion. An argument can ussually be laid out in an "if/then"
format as follows:

If the premises is true

then the conclusion must be true.

(however the words "if" and "then" may not actually appear)

In Rabbinic literature an argument is called a "din" (judgement); a premiss is called

"nadon melammed," (that which teaches) "tehillat din," (starting point of the judgement)
or "Ikra din" (basic point of the judgement) and a conclusion is called "ba min hadin,"
(that which comes from judgement) "sof din" (the end of the judgement) or "lamed" (a
learned thing).

PaRDeS: Four Levels for Understanding the Scriptures

The Hebrew/Aramaic word PARDES is spelled in Hebrew and Aramaic without vowels
as PRDS. PaRDeS refers to a park or garden, esp. the Garden of Eden. The word appears
three times in the Aramaic New Testament (Lk. 23:43; 2Cor. 12:4 & Rev. 2:7).

The word PRDS is used in Jewish hermeneutics as an acronym (called in Judaism

"notarikon"122) for:

[P]ashat (Heb. "simple")

[R]emez (Heb. "hint")

[D]rash (Heb. "search")

[S]od (Heb. "hidden")

In Jewish hermeneutics these four terms indicate the four levels of understanding of the
scriptures. Each layer becomes deeper and more intense than the last. Digging deeper and
deeper into these four levels of understanding is like digging through the layers of an
onion. Each layer is more intense than the last.

THE PASHAT

122
See the 30th Rule of Eliezer in Chapter 6

130
The first level of understanding is PASHAT (simple). The Pashat is the simple, basic,
literal meaning of the text. It is similar to what Protestant hermeneutics calls "Gramatical
Historical Exogesis" and also similar to what Protestant Heremeneutics calls "The Literal
Principle." Generally speaking the Pashat of a passage is either an axium itself or the
conclusion of a sound deductive argement.

The PASHAT is the plain, simple meaning of the text; understanding scripture in its
natural, normal sence using the customary meanings of the words being used, in
accordance with the primary exegetical rule in the Talmud that no passage loses its
PASHAT (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a). While there is figuratrive language (like Ps. 36:7)
symbolism (like Rom. 5:14); allegory (like Gal. 4:19-31) and hidden meanings (like Rev.
13:18; see also 1Cor. 2:7) in the Scriptures, the first thing to look for is the literal
meaning or PASHAT.

The following rules of thumb can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and
therefore figurative even in its PASHAT:

1.When an inanimate object is used to describe

a living being, the statement is figurative.

For Example: "The name of YHWH is a strong

tower..." (Prov. 18:10)

2.When life and action are atributed to

an inanimate object the statement is figurative.

For Example: "...the trees of the field shall

clap their hands." (Isaiah 55:12)

3.When an expresion is out of character

with the thing described, the statement is figurative.

For Example: "Keep me as the apple of the eye,

hide me under the shadow of your wings,"
(Ps. 17:8)

The PASHAT is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the PASHAT we

lose any real chance of an accurate understanding. We are left with a no-holds-barred
game of pure imagination in which we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from
the Scriptures (exogesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis)
(see 2Pt. 1:20-21; 1Tim. 4:3-4). Thus the Talmud twice warns us:

"No passage loses its PASHAT"

(b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a).

131
THE REMEZ

The next level of understanding is called in Hebrew REMEZ (hint). This is the implied
meaning of the text.
A conclusion reached through inductive reasoning would be a REMEZ understanding.
On the REMEZ level details in the text are often regarded as implying a deeper truth than
that conveyed by its PASHAT. In many cases a "corollary" would be a REMEZ
understanding. A corollary is a sound conclusion that is drawn from a premis which was
itself the conclusion of another sound argument. An example of implied "REMEZ"
meaning may be found in Ex. 21:26-26-27 where we are told of our liability regarding
eyes and teeth. By the "REMEZ" understanding we know that this liability also aplies to
other parts of the body as well.

THE DRASH

The next level of understanding the Scriptures is called in Hebrew "drash" meaning
"search", this is the allagorical, typological or homiletical application of the text. On the
DRASH level creativity is used to search the text in relation to the rest of the Scriptures,
other literature, or life itself in such a way as to develop an allagorical, typological or
homiletical application of the text. This process often involves eisogesis (reading ideas
into the text) of the text but should be constrained by having some foundation in sound
exegesis as well. The term "midrash" generally refers to a commentary which is built
upon drash understandings.

Three important rules of thumb in utilizing the drash level of understanding a scripture
are:

[1] A drash understanding can not be used

to strip a passage of its PASHAT meaning,
nor may any such understanding contradict
any PASHAT meaning of any other scripture
passage. As the Talmud states "No passage
loses its PASHAT." (b. Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a)

[2] Let scripture interpret scripture.

Look for the scriptures themselves to define
the componets of an allegory.

For example Mt. 13:3-9 gives the parable of the

seed. One need not speculate about what the
elements of this parable mean becaus the text
goes on in 13:18-23 to define the meanings of

132
 the primary elements of this parable.

Another Example: Rev. 1:12-16 mentions seven

candlesticks and seven stars. Rev. 1:20 tells us
what they represent.

Another example: Rev. 17:2-8 mentions seven

heads, seven mountains, a beast with ten horns,
a woman and waters. Rev. 17:9-18 explains
what all of these elements refer to.

[3] The primary compotents of an allegory

respresent specific realities. We should limit
ourselves to these primary components when
understanding the text.

SOME EXAMPLES OF DRASH UNDERSTANDINGS:

Mt. 2:14-15 gives a drash understanding of Hosea 11:1:

When he arose, he took the young child and

his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken of YHWH
by the prophet, saying: "Out of Egypt I have
called my son."

Now if we go look at Hosea 11:1 we will see that in the PASHAT the "son" of Hosea
11:1 is Israel:

When Israel was a child, then I loved him,

and out of Egypt I called my son.

This is a drash use of the text which allegorically likens Messiah to Israel.

Rom. 5:14 (14-21) gives a drash understanding of Gen. 3:1-24 comparing Adam with
Messiah.

"Puffed up" in I Cor. 4:6 implies a drash understanding of unleavened bread (see Exodus
12).

Gal. 4:24(21-31) gives a drash understanding of Gen. 17-22 comparing Sarah and Isaac
with the Torah and comparing Hagar and Ishamael with the "under the law" herasy.

Col 2:17 indicates a drash level meaning to the Jewish festivals.

133
Heb. 8:5 gives a drash understanding which compares the Levitical priesthood with the
priesthood of Messiah.

Heb. 9:9, 24 gives a drash on the Tabernacle which compares the Tabernacle with the
heavenly holy of holies.

Heb. 10:1 gives a drash understanding which compares elements of the Torah with the
death of Messiah.

Heb. 11:19 gives a drash understanding of Gen. 22:1f

1Pt. 3:21 gives a drash understanding of the events in Gen. 6-9

SOD

The final level of understanding the Scriptures is called in Hebrew "SOD" meaning
"hidden". This understanding is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text. (See I
Cor. 2:7-16 esp. 2:7). This process often involves returning the letters of a word to their
prime-material state and giving them new form in order to reveal a hidden meaning. An
example may be found in Rev. 13:18 where the identity of the Beast is expressed by its
numeric value 666. As on the drash level this process often involves eisogesis (reading
ideas into the text) of the text but should be constrained by having some foundation in
sound exegesis as well. See the 29th rule of Eliezer in Chapter 6.

THE SEVEN RULES OF HILLEL

The Seven Rules of Hillel existed long before Hillel, but Hillel was the first to write them
down. Hillel and Shamai were competitive leading figures in Judaism during the days of
Y'shua's youth. Hillel was known for teaching the Spirit of the Law and Shamai was
known for teaching the letter of the Law. Whole books have been written about the
similarities between the teachings of Y'shua and those of Hillel. Y'shua's teaching largely
followed that of the School of Hillel rather than that of the School of Shamai.

For example, Y'shua's famous "golden rule":

Whatever you would that men should do to you,

do you even to them,
for this is the Torah and the Prophets.
(Mt. 7:12)

This reads very closely with Hillel's famous statement:

134
 What is hateful to you,
do not do to your neighbour
that is the whole Torah...
(b.Shabbat 31a)

Upon Hillel's death the mantle of the School of Hillel was passed to his son Simeon.
Upon Simon's death the mantle of the school of Hillel passed to Gamliel. This Gamilel
spoke in defense of the early Nazarenes (Acts 5:34-39) he was the teacher of Shaul/Paul
(Acts 22:3). In 2Tim. 2:15 Paul speaks of "rightly dividing the word of truth." What did
Paul mean by this? Was he saying that there were right and wrong ways to interpret the
scriptures? Did Paul believe there were actual rules to be followed when interpreting
(understanding) the Scriptures? Was Paul speaking of the Seven Rules of Hillel? Paul
was certainly taught these rules in the School of Hillel by Hillel's own grandson Gamliel.
When we examine Paul's writings we will see that they are filled with usages of Hillel's
Seven Rules (several examples appear below). It would appear then that the Seven Rules
of Hillel are at least part of what Paul was speaking of when he spoke of "rightly dividing
the Word of Truth." (2Tim. 2:15). As with any rules it is important when using the rules,
that your exegesis is sound.

The Seven Rules of Hillel:

The First Rule of Hillel

Kal V'Khomer (light and heavy)

Kal v'khomer is the first of the seven rules for understanding the scriptures written by
Hillel. Hillel did not invent the rules, in fact they are so old we see them used in the
Tenach.

The kol v'komer thoughtform is used to make an argument from lesser weight based on
one of greater weight. It may be expressed as:

If X is true of Y
then how much more X must be true of Z
(Where Z is of greater weight than Y)

The conclusion of a kol v'khomer argument is often, but not always, signalled by a phrase
like "how much more..."

The Rabbinical writers recognize two forms of kol v'khomer:

kal v'khomer meforash - In this form the kal

v'chomer argument appears explicily.

kal v'khomer satum - In which the kal v'khomer

argument is only implied.

135
There are several examples of kal v'khomer in the Tenach:

Behold the righteous shall be recompensed

in the earth:
much more the wicked and the sinner.
(Prov. 11:31)

And:

If you have run with footmen

and they have wearied you,
then how can you contend with horses?
(Jer. 12:5a)

Other Tenach examples to look at:

Dt. 31:27; 1Sam. 23:3; Jer. 12:5b;

Ezkl. 15:5; Esther 9:12

There are also many examples of this usage in Rabbinic literature:

...His body shall not remain all night on the tree,

but you will surely bury him on the same day,
for he who is hanged is a curse against God.
(Dt. 21:23)... If thus is the Omnipresent distressed
on account of the blood of the wicked when it is
shed, how much more so on account of the blood
of the righteous!...
(m.Sanhedrin 6:4-5)

Other examples:

Num. 12:14 & b. BK 25a

Lev. 21:16-21 & Num. 8:24-25 & b.Hul. 24a

There is also an important limitation to the kal v'khomer

thoughtform. This is the dayo (enough) principle. This is that the conclusion of an
argument is satisfied when it is like the major premis. In other words the conclusion is
equalized to the premise and neither a stricter nor a more lenient view is to be taken. As
the Mishna states:

It is sufficient for the inferred law

to be as strict as that from which it is inferred

136
 (m.BK 2:5)

In the Gemara to this portion of the Mishna Rabbi Tarfon rejected the dayo principle in
certain cases (b.BK 25a).

There are several examples of kal v'khomer in the New Testament.

Y'shua often uses the kal v'khomer form of argument. For example:

If a man recieves circumcision on the Sabbath,

so that the Law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with
me because
I made a man completely well on the sabbath?
(Jn. 7:23)

And:

What man is there among you

who has one sheep,
and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath,
will not lay hold of it and lift it out?
Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful
to do good on the Sabbath.
(Mt. 12:11-12)

Other examples of Y'shua's usage of kal v'khomer are:

Mt. 6:26, 30 = Lk. 12:24, 28

Mt. 7:11 = Lk. 11:13
Mt. 10:25 & Jn. 15:18-20
Mt. 12:12 & Jn. 7:23

Paul uses kal v'khomer in:

Rom. 5:8-9, 10, 15, 17; 11:12, 24

1Cor. 9:11-12; 12:22
2Cor. 3:7-9, 11
Philip. 2:12
Phil. 1:16
Heb. 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 10:28-29; 12:9, 25

The Second Rule of Hillel

G'zerah Shavah
(Equivalence of expresions)

137
An analogy is made between two seperate texts on the basis of a similar phrase, word or
root.

Tenakh example:

By comparing 1Sam. 1:10 to Judges 13:5 using the phrase "no razor shall touch his
head" we may conclude that Samuel, like Samson, was a nazarite.

"New Testament" example:

In Hebrews 3:6-4:13 Paul compares Ps. 95:7-11 = Heb. 3:7-11 to Gen. 2:2 = Heb. 4:4
based on the words "works" and "day"/"today" ("today" in Hebrew is literally "the day").
Paul uses this exogesis to conclude that there will be 6,000 years of this world followed
by a 1,000 year shabbat.

This involves using information from one such passage to assist in interpreting the other.
This is not quite the same thing as inferring a rule based on the two passages together.
That is the fourth Rule of Hillel.

In modern Rabbinic Judaism the Second Rule of Hillel is somewhat restrained. Due to
the fact that the rule can be easily abused it has been determined in modern Rabbinic
Judaism that this argument can only be used if you received it from your teacher.
However this is a very useful rule and there is no reason to restrict this rule so long as the
exegesis derived from it is sound.

The Third Rule of Hillel

Binyan ab mikathub echad
(Building of the father from one text)

One explicit passage serves as a premis or starting point so as to constitute a rule (father)
for all similar passages or cases.

Example:

In the Book of Hebrews (9:11-22) Paul creates a rule from Ex. 24:8 (=Heb. 9:20) that
"blood" is required in the making of a covenant. Since blood was required in making the
Mosaic Covenant, Paul argues that blood is required in the renewing of the Covenant or
the "New Covenant" (Jer. 31:31-34)

The Fouth Rule of Hillel

Binyab ab mishene kethubim
(Building of the father from two or more texts)

Two texts or provisions in a text serve as a premis for a general conclusion.

138
A Tenach example:

Ex. 21:26-27 speaks of only eyes and teeth, however by use of the fourth rule of Hillel
we can recognize that the provision aplies to other body parts as well.

A "New Testament" example:

In Heb. 1:5-14 Paul sites:

Ps. 2:7 = Heb. 1:5

2Sam. 7:14 = Heb. 1:5
Deut. 32:43/Ps. 97:7/(Neh. 9:6) = Heb. 1:6
Ps. 104:4 = Heb. 1:7
Ps. 45:6-7 = Heb. 1:8-9
Ps. 102:25-27 = Heb. 1:10-12
Ps. 110:1 = Heb. 1:13

in order to build a rule that the Messiah is of a higher order than angels.

The Fifth Rule of Hillel

Kelal uferat
(the general and the partcular)

A general statement is first made and is followed by a single remark which particularizes
the general principle.

When a general principle preceedes a specific example it is said that there is nothing in
the general which is not in the specific. The general principle adds nothing, it simply
provides the framework of logic. One example from the Tanak is in the Torah command
regarding losses:

In like manner shall you do with his ass

and so shall you do with his raiment
and with any lost thing of your brother's.

The appearance of the general principle implies that the details given are just examples,
and that the precept actualy applies to all types of losses,without exception.

A New Testament Example:

Woe to you, scribes and P'rushim, hypocrites!

which tithe mint, and rue, and cummin,
and have neglected those things which are
weightiest in the Torah:

139
 Judgement, loving-kindness and trust.
Those things ougth you to have done,
neither to have rejected these.
(Mt. 23:23)

We can determine by using this rule that judgement, loving-kindness and trust are just
examples and that the precept presented here applies to all of the "things which are
weightiest in the Torah."

The Sixth Rule of Hillel

Kayotze bo mimekom akhar
(analogy made from another passage)

Two passages may seem to conflict until a third resolves the apparant conflict.

Tenach examples:

Lev 1:1 "out of the tent of meeting" and

Ex. 25:22 "from above the ark of the covenant between the chrubim" seem to disagree
until we examine Num. 7:89 where we learn that Moses entered the tent of meeting to
hear YHWH speaking from between the cherubim.

1Chron. 27:1 explains the numerical disagreement between

2Sam. 24:9 and 1Chron. 21:5.

Ex. 19:20 "YHWH came down upon Mount Sinai"

seems to disagree with:

Dt. 4:36 "Out of Heaven He let you hear His voice"

An expanation is given in Sifra 1:7 which points out that

Ex. 20:19 (20:22 in some editions) reconciles the two by telling us that G-d brought the
heavens down to the mount and spoke.

"New Testament" example:

Paul shows that the following Tenach passages SEEM to conflict:

The just shall live by faith

Rom. 1:17 = Hab. 2:4)

with

140
 There is none righteous, no, not one...
(Rom. 3:10 = Ps. 14:1-3= Ps. 53:1-3; Eccl. 7:20)

and:

[G-d] will render to each one according to his deeds.

(Rom. 2:6 = Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12)

with

Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,

and whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man whom YHWH
shall not impute sin.
(Rom. 4:7-8 = Ps. 32:1-2)

Paul resolves the apparant conflict

by citing Gen. 15:6
(in Rom. 4:3, 22):

Abraham believed G-d,

and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Thus Paul resloves the apparant conflict by showing that under certain circumstances,
belief/faith/trust (same word in Hebrew) can act as a substitute for righteousness/being
just (same word in Hebrew).

The Seventh Rule of Hillel

Davar hilmad me'anino
(Explanation obtained from context)

Some pointers:

1. Who is speaking?

2. Who is being spoken to?

3. Obtaining context from poetic forms

4. Use the overall context to understand the passage.

Example:

Gal 5:2 says "... if you be circumcised, Messiah shall profit you nothing."

141
Christians often take this out of context.

Question: Who is speaking?

Answer: Paul

Question: Who is being spoken to? Who does "you" refer to?

Answer is in Gal. 4:21 "you who desire to be under the law"

("under the law" is a term Paul uses to describe a false teaching that was never true; it
does not refer to the "Old Testament" system).

Thus the "you" in Gal. 5:2 refers to a group of people who were wanting to enter a false
theology, it does not refer to me and you.

THE THIRTEEN RULES OF ISHMAEL

Now the Seven Rules of Hillel are of great importance to us because:

1. They were first penned by Hillel

BEFORE Messiah's coming

2. They are used by Messiah and other

NT writers.

3. Paul speaks of "rightly dividing the word"

and since he was a student of Gamliel
(grandson of Hillel) and since he used
the seven rules of Hillel, it appears that
"rightly dividing" refered at least in part,
to the seven rules of Hillel.

Now the 13 rules of Ishmael were first penned by Ishmael AFTER the first century
(though they likely existed long before they were penned). However, they are important
to us none the less for two reasons:

1. They seem to have some intrinsic value.

2. We must be able follow the reasoning of the

Rabbis of the Mishna and the Talmud
who often rely on these rules.

(All of the examples I will give on the 13 rules of Ishmael are from Rabbinic halakhah
and may or may not be sound arguments.)

142
As with the use of any such rules the thirteen rules of Ishamael should be used to
formulate sound arguments.

THE THIRTEEN RULES OF ISHMAEL

The First Rule of Ishmael

(same as 1st rule of Hillel)

The Second Rule of Ishmael

(same as 2nd rule of Hillel)

The Third Rule of Ishmael

(same as 3rd & 4th rules of Hillel)

The Fourth Rule of Ishmael

(same as 5th rule of Hillel)

The Fifth Rule of Ishmael

perat ukhelal
(particular and general)

If the specific instances are stated first and are followed by the general catagory,
instances other than the particular ones mentioned are included.

EXAMPLE: Ex. 22:9 "...an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, OR ANY BEAST" beasts other than
those specified are included.

The Sixth Rule of Ishmael

kelal uferat ukhelal i attah dan ella ke-ein ha-perat
(general, particular, general)

If a general catagory are stated first and is followed by specific instances and then a
generl catagory then you may derive only things similar to those specified.

EXAMPLE: Dt. 14:26 Other things than those specified in Dt. 14:26 may be purchased,
but only if they are food or drink like those specified.

143
The Seventh Rule of Ishmael
kelal she-hu tzarikh liferat uferat she-hu tzarikh li-khelal
(The general requires the particular and the particular the general)

Specification is provided by taking the general and the particular together, each requiring
the other.

EXAMPLE: "Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn (masc.)" (Dt. 15:19) with "whatsoever
opens the womb" (Ex. 13:2) A firstborn male would have been understood as included in
the term "all the firstborn" even if a female had previously been born to that mother. Thus
the particular limiting expresion "whatever opens the womb" is stated. But this term
would not have excluded one born after a previous c-section birth, hence the general term
"all the
firstborn" (b.Bek. 19a)

The Eighth Rule of Ishmael

davar she-hayah bi-khelal ve-yatza min ha-kelal lelammed lo lelammed al atzmo yatza
ella lelammed al hakelal kullo yatzo
(if a particular instance of a general rule is singled out for special treatment, whatever is
postulated of this instance is
to be applied to all the instances embraced by the general rule.)

EXAMPLE: "A man, also, or a woman that devines that by a ghost or a familiar spirit,
shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones" (Lev. 20:27) Divination by
a ghost or a familiar spirit is included in the general rule against witchcraft (Dt. 18:10f).
Since the penalty in Lev. 20:27 is stoneing it may be inferred that the same penalty
applies to other instasnces within the same general
rule. (b.San. 67b)

The Nineth Rule of Ishmael

davar she-hayah bi khelal ve-yatza liton to'an echad she-hu khe-inyano yatza lehakel ve-
lo lehachmir
(when particular instances of a general rule are treated specifically, in details similar to
those included in the general rule, then only the relaxations of the general rule and not its
restrictions are to be applied in those instances.)

EXAMPLE: The law of the boil (Lev. 13:18-21) and the burn (Lev. 13:24-28) are treated
specifically even though these are specific instances of the general rule regarding plague
spots (Lev. 13:1-17) Therefore the general restrictions regarding the Law of the second
week (Lev. 13:5) and the quick raw flesh (Lev. 13:10 are not applied to them (Sifra 1:2)

The Tenth Rule of Ishmael

144
davar she-hayah bi-khelal ve-yatza liton to'an acher she-lo khe-inyano yatza lehakel-
lehachmir.
(When particular instances of a general rule are treated specifically in details dissimilar
from those included in the general rule, then both relaxations and restrictions are to be
applied in those instances)

EXAMPLE: The details on laws of plagues in the hair or beard (Lev. 13:29-37) are
dissimilar from those in the general rule of plague spots. Therefore both the relaxation
regarding the white hair mentioned in the general rule (Lev. 13:4) and the restriction of
the yellow hair mentioned in the particular instance (Lev. 13:30) are applied (Sifra 1:3)

The Eleventh Rule of Ishmael

davar she-hayah bi-khelal ve-yatza lidon ba-davar he-chadash i attah yakhol lehachatziro
li khelalo ad she-yachazirennu ha-katav li-khelalo be-ferush.
(when a particular instance of a general rule is singled out for completely fresh treatment,
the details of the general rule must not be applied to this inststance unless Scripture does
so specifically.)

EXAMPLE: the guilt offering of the leper requires the placing of the blood on the ear,
thumb, and toe (Lev. 14:14) Consequently, the laws of the general guilt offering, such as
the sprinkling of the blood on the alter (Lev. 7:2) would not have applied, were it not for
the Torah passage "For as the sin offering is the priest's so is the guilt offereing"
(Lev.14:13), i.e. that this is like other guilt offerings (b.Yev. 7a-b)

The Twefth Rule of Ishmael

davar ha-lamed me-inyano ve-davar ha-lamed mi-sofo.
(The meaning of a passage may be deduced from (a) its
context, or (b) from a later reference in the same passage)

The first part of this rule is Hillel's seventh rule.

EXAMPLE: "thou shall not steal" in Ex. 20:13 must refer to the capitol case of
kidnapping, since the other two offenses mentioned with it: "You shall not murder" and
"you shall not commit adultry" are both capitol offenses (Mekh., BaChodesh, 8, 5)

EXAMPLE: "I put the plague of leporasy in a house of the land of your possesion" (Lev.
14:34), refers only to a house built with stones, timber, and mortar, since these materials
are mentioned later in verse 45.

The Thirteenth Rule of Ishmael

shenei khetuvim hamakhchishim zeh et teh ad she-yavo ha-katuv ha-shelishi ve-yakhria
beineihem.
(two verses contradict one another until a third verse reconciles them.)

145
 This is VERY similar to the sixth rule of Hillel.

THE THIRTY-TWO RULES OF ELIEZER

The 32 rules of Eliezer were first written by Eliezer ben Jose HaGallil (but existed before
they were written). Since they post date 30 C.E. they are not automatically authoritative
to us as Nazarenes. I am teching them for two reasons:

1. In certain cases certain of them may be

valid methods of reasoning and can be carefully
used in our own expositions especially on the drash
or sod level.

2. We must be able to understand and follow

the reasoning of the Rabbinic sages so that we
can properly analyze what they have written
so that we can weigh the value of their conclusions.

As with the rules of Ishmael, here I use examples often drawn from Rabbinic halacha. I
do not mean to imply by this that the examples are sound arguments.

Before covering the 32 rules of Eliezer we must cover in brief the great debate on
hermeneutics between Ishmael and Akiva.

Akiva taught that since G-d is all knowing athat when he speaks, evry word and even
every letter is divinely inspired and has some implication. There is, according to Akiva,
some real reason why G-d has chosen to say what he has to say with exactly the words
and letters he divinely chose to use.

Ishmael taught that when G-d speaks to man he speaks as a man does with another man,
on a simple level so that man may understand his words.

Now Ishmael's 13 rules had been well grounded, but Akiva's methods opened the door to
less grounded rules. Many of these less grounded rules are found in the 32 rules of
Eliezer. Moreover certain of the 32 rules of Hillel operate best on a drash or sod level.
As always these rules should be used only in the making of sound arguments. Even when
they are used on a drash or sod level they should be well grounded.

The First Rule of Eliezer

ribbui
(inclusion)

146
The Hebrew particles AF, GAM and ET indicate an inclusion or amplification.

This rule comes from the school of Akiva which taught that every word in Torah has
significance.

EXAMPLE:

"You shall fear YHWH your ELOHIM" (Dt. 10:20)

Since the Hebrew here opens with ET
it is ruled that this mitzvot is extended
to include reverence for scholars.
(b.Pes. 22b)

EXAMPLE:

"God created the heavens..." (Gen. 1:1)

Since the Hebrew ET appears it is said in
Midrash Rabbah that the "Heavens" include
here the sun, moon and stars.

EXAMPLE:

"You shall wear away (gam atah) and this people

that are with you." (Ex. 18:18) "gam" and "atah"
include "Moses" and "Aaron." (Mek. 59b).

EXAMPLE:

"and they (the adulterers) shall both of them die"

(Dt. 22:22) gam in this passage is an inclusion
so that the execusion is not postponed until after
childbirth but the embryo is included in the
execution.
(m.Arakhin 1:4 & b.Arakhin 7a)

MORE EXAMPLES:

GAM in Dt. 26:13 (m.Ma'aser Sheni 5:10)

GAM in Num. 18:28 (m.Terum. 1:1)

The Second Rule of Eliezer

mi'ut

147
(exclusion)

The Hebrew particles AK, RAK and MIN point to a limitation, exclusion or diminuation.

This rule also comes from the school of Akiva which taught that every word in Torah has
significance.

EXAMPLE:

"And Noah only (AK) was left..."

in Gen. Rabbah is taken to mean that Noah
did not escape unharmed but was injured.

EXAMPLE:

"And you shall be only (AK) joyful" (Dt. 16:15)

b.Sukka 48b says "That includes the eve of the
last festival day. Perhaps also the first festival day?
This one is excluded by AK."

The Third Rule of Eliezer

ribbui achar ribbui

When two "inclusion" particles (see rule 1) are joined.

EXAMPLE:

1Sam 17:36 ""... smote both (gam at) the lion

also (gam) the bear." is said to mean that three
other beast were killed not just the lion and bear.

In Halacha however it is said that two inclusion terms indicate instead an exclusion
(b.Men. 89a)

The Fourth Rule of Eliezer

mi'ut achar mi'ut

When two "exclusion" particals (see rule 2) are joined.

Halachicly two "exclusion" particals indicate an implication of inclusion as in rule 1.

148
The Fifth Rule of Eliezer

kol v'chomer meforash

First rule of Hillel occurs in a text.

The Sixth Rule of Eliezer

kol v'chomer satun

First rule of Hillel applied to a text.

The Seventh Rule of Eliezer

same as Hillel's secod rule.

The Eighth Rule of Eliezer

binyan av - same as 3rd & 4th rules of Hillel

The Nineth Rule of Eliezer

derek khetzarah
(abbreviated or elliptical phraseology)

EXAMPLE:

1Chr. 17:5 where "to another" is implied.

The Tenth Rule of Eliezer

davar shehu shanui

(Repitition is used to bring out a point)

EXAMPLE:

b.Hul. 115b The commandment "You shall

not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" is repeated
three times (Ex. 23:19; 34:26 & Dt. 14:26)
to forbid three things: eating; benifitting and
seething. Also Akiba taught (m.Hul. 8:4)

149
 that the three reptitions refer to the idea that
foul, game and unclean animals do not come
under this prohibition.

The Eleventh Rule of Eliezer

siddur shennechelakh

A context disrupted by sof pasukh (or any other injunctive accent) is joined.

EXAMPLE:

Ex. 13:3b has:

"...there shall no unleavened bread be eaten."

Ex. 13:4a has:

"This day..."

In the Midrash Mek. to this passage Rabbi Yose HaGallil joins the end of verse 3 to the
beginning of verse 4 to form the phrase:

"There shall no unleavened bread be eaten this day."

To argue that Israel in Egypt abastained from leavened bread for only that one day.

The Twelfth Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR SHEVA LELAMMED WENIMSA LAMED

Something is adduced for comparison, but in this process fresh light is shed upon it.

Compare this with Hillel's 7th rule.

In b.San. 74a it is stated that when faced with death one may commit any sin to save ones
life except idolatry, incest and murder. Regarding the last two of these Rabbi [Y'hudah]
makes the oservation that if rape may be compared to murder (Dt. 22:25-26) and we
should be killed rather than murder, then we should allow ourselves to be killed rather
than commit rape.

EXAMPLE:

In the Sifra on Lev. 19:10 by connecting,

against the context, LO T'LAKKAT with the

150
 following LAANI it is deduced that the owner
must not be partial to one poor man over others by
helping him glean.
(also see b.Git. 12a)

The Thirteenth Rule of Eliezer

KELAL SHE'ACHARAW MA'ASEH WE'ENO'ELLO PERATO SHEL RI'SHON

When a general is followed by an action, then that is the particular of the former.

This is very similar to the fifth rule of Hillel.

"These are the words which you shall speak" (Ex. 19:6) [general]
"You shall be to me a Kingdom of Priests" (Ex. 19:6) [particular]

"This is the statute of the Torah" (Num. 19:2) [general]

"that they bring you a red heifer" (ibid)[particular]

"This is the ordinance of the Passover"(Ex.12:43) [general]

"no alien..." (ibid) [particular]

The Fourteenth Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR GADOL SHANITLAH BEKATON MIMMENNU LEHASHMI'A HA'OZEN

BEDEREK SHEHI' SHOMA'AT.

Something important is compared with something trivial, that a clearer understanding

may be had.

For example in Deut. 32:2 the Torah is compared to rain.

The Fifteenth Rule of Eliezer

The 15th Rule of Eliezer is the same as the 13th Rule of Ishmael.

The Sixteenth Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR HAMEYUCHAD BIMKOMO

"Significant use of an expresion."

151
EXAMPLE:

Num. 15:18 "In your coming into the Land" Ishmael taught that this term
is unique from the
other phrases in scripture like "and when you
come" or "when the Lord will bring you."
The divergent expression here, Ishmael
said, is to teach you that Israel was obligated
to set apart challa (Num. 15:20) immediately
after enterring the land.

The Seventeenth Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR SHE'ENO MITPARESH BIMKOMO UMITPARESH BEMAKOM ACHER

A circumstance not clearly enunciated in the principal passage is referred to in another

passage.

This rule especially aplies to supplementing a Torah passage from a non-Torah passage.

EXAMPLES:

The Description of Gan Eden in Gen. 2:8

may be suplemented from Ezek. 28:13.

Num. 3 may be supplemented from

1Chron. 24:19 where the courses of the
Priests are given.

The Eighteenth Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR SHENNE'EMAR BEMIKSHATO WEHU NOHEG BAKOL

A specific case of a type of occurences is mentioned, although the whole type is meant.

EXAMPLE:

Dt. 23:11 "that which chances by night"

because the accident had in mind is likely
to occur most frequently by night.
(Sifre on Deut. 20:5f. ) but an accident
at any time is intended to be covered.

The Torah states that a man who builds

152
 a new house and not dedicted it is exempt
from military service. (Deut. 20:5)
The Torah only speaks of "building"
but the commandment is seen as aplying
to inheriting, buying or receiving as a gift.
This also aplies to the military exemption
of him who plants a vinyard (Deut. 20:6).

The Nineteenth Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR SHENNEíEMAR BA-ZEH WEHUí HA-DIN LACHABERO

A statement is made with regard to one subject, but it is also true in regards to another
subject.

EXAMPLES:

Hosea 6:6 What is true of mercy here

is also true of the knowledge of Elohim.

According to Midrash Mek. On Ex. 21:18

If one smites the other with a stone or with a fist
R. Nathan says: He compares the stone to the fist
and the fist to a stone. As the stone must
Be ponderous enough to kill, so also the fist;
and as the fist becomes known, so must also the
Stone become known. When therefore the stone is mingled among other stones
and when
Even one stone is too small to cause death,
the slayer goes free.

The Twentieth Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR SHENNEEMAR BA-ZEH WEENO INYAN LO ABAL HUí INYAN

LACHABERO

A statement does not go well with the passage in which it occurs, but is in keeping with
another passage and may then be applied to that passage.

Some Jewish interpreters thus teach that Deut. 33:7 does not refer to Judah, but to
Simeon.

The 21st Rule of Eliezer

153
DAVAR SHEHUKKASH BISHTE MIDDOT WEíATAH NOTHEN LO KOAH
HAYAFEH SHEBBISHTEHEN

Something is compared with two things and so only the good properties of both are
attributed to it.

In Ps. 92:13 the righteous are compared to palm-trees because they bear fruit, but since
they have no shade a further comparison is made to a cedar which bears no fruit but
produces shade.

The 22nd Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR SHECHAVERO MOKIACH ALAW

A proposition which requires to be supplemented from a parallel proposition.

EXAMPLE:

According to some interpreters AL (alef-lamed)

should be supplied in front of T'YAS'RANI
in Psalm 38:2.

The 23rd Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR SHEHU MOKIACH AL CHABERO

A proposition serves to supplement a parallel proposition.

EXAMPLE:

Sifre on Deut. 11:12 says:

A land which YHWH your God cares for.
Rabbi said: Does he care for this land only,
and not for all lands? We certainly read
Job 38:26: to cause it to rain on a land
where no man is, on the wilderness,
wherein there is no man. What then does
this word signify, ìa land which YHWH
your God cares for? Because of this His caring
He cares for other lands besides theirs.

The 24th Rule of Eliezer

154
DAVAR SHEHAYAH BIKELAL WEYASHA MIN HAKELAL LELAMMED ‘AL
‘ASHMO YASHA

A proposition is in force with haggadic interpretation.

For example the specific stressing of

“Jericho” in Joshua 2:1 because this
passage is aggadic the stressing of Jericho
is purely idiomatic.

The 25th Rule of Eliezer

DAVAR SHEHAYAH BIKELAL WEYASHA MIN HAKELAL LELAMMED ‘AL

CHABERO

This rule is a modification of the eighth rule of Ishmael.

EXAMPLE:

According to b.Shab. 70a:

The prohibition Ex. 35:3 to kindle fire

on the Sabbath is implied already in Ex. 35:2
(which prohibits work.) Why is it stressed?
In order to compare therewith and to say to you,
“Just as one becomes guilty by kindling fire,
which is a main item of labor, so also one
becomes guilty by performing any other
single main item of labor.

The 26th Rule of Eliezer

MASHAL
(Parable)

EXAMPLES:

Yeshua’s parables.

The Olive Tree parable (Rom. 11).

The parable of the two women (Gal. 4:21-31)

155
The 27th Rule of Eliezer

NEGED

Corresponding significant number.

EXAMPLE:

The Children of Israel suffered a year for a day.

Forty years (Num.14:34) for each of the forty days
(Num. 13:25) of their apostasy.

Yeshua fasted forty days in the wilderness.

Yeshua had twelve talmidim

corresponding to the twelve patriarchs.

The 28th Rule of Eliezer

MA’AL

Paronomasia. A pun, a wordplay.

EXAMPLES:

In Amos 8:1 there is a wordplay between KETZ (Summer Fruit) and KATZ
(end) The same
wordplay appears in Mt. 24:14, 32 .

The 29th Rule of Eliezer

GEMATRIA

Numerology, “theomatics.”

The Sefirot of the Tree of Life are connected by 22 paths. Each of these 22 paths
corresponds to one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alef-bet (alphabet). Each of these 22
paths represents a relationship between two of the Sefirot and a combination of two of the
Sefirot. As a result each Hebrew letter is more than just a letter, it is a relationship
between two Sefirot as well as a combination between two of the Sefirot.

156
In fact Kabbalistic tradition has it that the 22 letters were involved in the creation of the
universe. This is the Kabbalistic understanding of Gen. 1:1:

Bershit bara Elohim [ALEF-TAV] hashamayim v'[ALEF-TAV] haeretz

In the beginning G-d created ALEF-TAV the heavens and

ALEF-TAV the earth.

ALEF and TAV are the first and last letters of Hebrew and are understood in Kabbalistic
understanding here to be an abreviation for the whole Hebrew ALEF-BET through which
the universe was created.

This is what was meant by Yochanan's statement in Rev. 1:8; 21:66 and 22:13. Although
the Greek has ALPHA and OMEGA in these passages, the Aramaic text of these
passages has ALEF and TAV.

Since the 22 letters of Hebrew each represent a relationship between two of the Sefirot as
well as a combination of two Sefirot. And since the 22 letters were themselves involved
in the creation, every Hebrew word is more than a word, it is a matrix of relationships
and combinations among the Sefirot. Therefore on a Kabbalistic level Hebrew words are
looked at as a series of such paths. This leads to several important methods of seeking
out hidden messages in the text of the Scriptures.

These are among others GEMATRIA and NOTARIKON

GEMATRIA - In Hebrew each letter has a numerical value. Gematria examines Hebrew
words and letters in the text in light of their numerical value. Some Christians have taken
to calling this "Theomatics."

EXAMPLES:

"Shiloh comes" in Gen.49:10 = 358 which is also the gematria (numerical value) of
"Messiah" as a result the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases) paraphrase SHILOH in this
passage as "Messiah" and the Talmud tells us that "Shiloh"is one of the names of the
Messiah.

In Gen. 17:5, 15 YHWH changes AVRAM’S name to AVRAHAM and SARAI to

SARAH.

AVRAM = “High Father” and SARAI = “dominant one”

YHWH took the YUD out of SARAI. (YUD=10) and He divided it in two making to
HEYS (HEY = 5).

Thus AVRAM became AVRAHAM (Father of a multitude) and SARAI became SARAH
(lady, princess)

157
In order for AVRAM to become AVRAHAM, SARAI had to go from being dominant to
being a lady.

In Mt. 1:1, 17 Messiah is the son of David. Messiah is the son of 14 generations because
David = 14. Three sets of 14 generations are given because 14*3 = 42 and 42= ELOAH
(God) since Messiah is also the Son of God.

The number of the beast is 666 (Rev.13:18)

The 30th Rule of Eliezer

NOTARIKON

An acronym; anagram or acrostic. Taking the first or last letters of the words of a phrase
and joining them to make a new word or, conversely, expanding a word into a phrase.

For example the word GREVOUS (NiMReTZeT) in 1Kn. 2:8 is understood in the
Talmud (b.Shab. 105a) to mean:

N-OEF (adulterer)
M-O'AVI (Moabite)
R-OZEAH (murderer)
TZ-OER (enemy)
T-O'EVAH (abomination)

The first three letters of Torah are BEIT-RESH-ALEF which stand for BEN, RUACH
and ABBA
(Son, Spirit and Father).

The 31st Rule of Eliezer

MUKDAM SHEHU’ MECHAR BA’INYAN

Something which precedes that is placed second.

EXAMPLE:

In 1Sam. 3:3 the words "In the Temple of YHWH"

go with the words "was not yet gone out" despite
the fact that the phrase "and Samuel was laid down
to sleep" intervenes.

158
The 32nd Rule of Eliezer

MUKDAM U-ME'UCHAR SHEHU' BEPARASHIOT

Many biblical sections refer to a later time than that which precedes, also vice versa.

By this rule it is argued that Numbers 7

precedes Numbers 1 in chronology of time.

This rule explains the chronological "problems" in comparing the Synoptic Gospels.

FORMS OF MIDRASHIC EXEGESIS

In addition to knowing and understanding the rules and principles of hemeneutics it

is also important to recognize the forms of Midrashic exegesis. Two prominant types of
Homiletic Mirashic Exogesis are Proem and Yalammedenu.

"Proem" is a Greek word meaning prelude. In Proem Homiletic Exogesis an

introdutory text is geven, a sermon is built on this introductory texts often using
additional texts. The sermon closes with a final text wich usually repeats or alludes to the
initial text. This process usually involves Hillel's second rule, G'ZARA SHEVA
(equivelnt expresions) thru which catchwords or keywords link the sermon together,
being found in the initial text, the final text, often in the additional texts, and in the
exposition itself.

An example of Proem Homiletic Exogesis can be found in the New Testament in

Romans 9:6-26:

Keywords: seed, children/son & called.

Initial Text: Gen. 21:12 = Rom. 9:6-8
Second Text: Gen. 18:10 = Rom. 9:9
Exposition: Rom. 9:10-28
Final Text: Is. 1:9 = Rom. 9:29

Another form of Midrashic Exogesis is called Yelammedenu Homiletic Midrash.

This form of midrash is very similar to the Proem Midrash, but it begins with a question
or problem. A New Testament Example is:

Keywords: tradition, commandment & honor

Question/Problem: Mt. 15:1-3
Initial Texts: Ex. 20:12; 21:17 = Mt. 15:4
Exposition: Mt. 15:5-6
Final Text: Is. 29:13-14 = Mt. 15:7-9

Now it is very helpful to look at the exposition in terms of the initial, additional and final
texts, and especially pay heed to the keywords as they reveal the main topic. One should

159
look at each of the texts and seek to find out what they have in common and how their
keywords relate in meaning to each other, and as to how this helps us understand the
exposition. We must realize that the purpose of the exposition is to interpret these sets of
texts in light of one another.

160