Scroll to Scroll:

Todays Parsha #31: Emor (he said)

PART 1: THE LAST AND CURRENT TORAH PORTIONS
ANSWERS TO LAST WEEKS STUDY QUESTIONS (Kedoshim):
1) What is the other meaning of sukkah or tabernacle, as in that of Davids that has
fallen and will be restored?
There are actually two other meanings that I think suggest a deeper message. One is
thicket which is referenced here by another Hebrew word for the same concept
13

Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in
the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a
burnt offering in the place of his son. (Genesis 22:13 NAU)
Many of us see a connection between the lamb that Abba YHWH will provide and
Yshua ha Mashiyach, the lamb of Elohim that takes away the sin of the world. And
here it is caught in a thicket, which is referenced also as SUKKAH in Nehemiah
8:15.
(The second meaning answers question #2)
2) How does that extra meaning relate to both Yaakov the patriarch and Yshua?
The second meaning is that of FEEDING TROUGH, or manger, which we see
here
17

Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built for himself a house and made booths for his
livestock; therefore the place is named Succoth. (Genesis 33:17 NAU)
So Yshua is laid in a manger during Sukkotand this seems hinted at in Genesis
33!
3) When Abba YHWH says, You are Mine/you are My possession how does this
contrast with the first time someone was called a possession in the Tanakh by another
person?
Because when Abba YHWH makes you His possession you live but when man does
it, you die or face other hardship. Consider the words of Eve when she gave birth for
the first time
The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain.
'I have acquired a man with the help of Yahweh,' she said. (Genesis 4:1 NJB)
1|Page

Eve looked at Cain as her possession and named him accordingly. Clearly that
endeavor did not turn out well.
4) How does translating the word kadosh as Set-Apart differ from the more
expected English term holy?
To be KADOSH is to be set-apart for Abba YHWHs express purpose. It is a joyful
thing, for example, to have the Shabbat set apart from the other 6 days and is a joy to
be a people set-apart unto Him from the rest of humanity.
By contrast HOLY comes from the Greek word HIELE which relates to worshipping
the sun (HELIOS) as a god.
5) When Yshua overturned the moneychangers tables it was not simply a rebellious act
but that of zealous observance of what Torah principle?
Trick question in a wayhe was observing TWO Torah principles, one of which was
in the parsha
You will have just scales, just weights, a just ephah and a just hin. I am Yahweh your
God who brought you out of Egypt; hence you are to keep all my laws and all my
customs and put them into practice. I am Yahweh." '
(Leviticus 19:36-37 NJB)
(Mat 21:12) And Y'shua entered into the temple of Elohim and drove out all who209
were buying and selling in the temple. And he overturned the tables of the
moneychangers and the chairs of those who were selling doves. (Mat 21:13) And he
said to them, "It is written that my House will be called a house of prayer,210 but you
have made it a cave of bandits."211
By calling the Temple a cave of bandits Yshua was clearly indicating they were
NOT using honest weights and measures. This was not an attack on the practice of
exchanging foreign money for shekels itself, only that it was being done to the point
of ripping the common people off, as we would say with something being over-pried
today, Thats highway robbery!
The second Torah violation was here
'You must not lend on interest to your brother, whether the loan be of money, of food,
or of anything else that may earn interest. You may demand interest on a loan to a
foreigner, but you must not demand interest from your brother; so that Yahweh your
God may bless you in all your labors, in the country which you are about to enter and
make your own. (Deuteronomy 23:20-21 NJB)
A reasonable service fee on the exchange of foreign currency for shekels was okay
but the moneychangers were also tacking interest charges on top of that fee and this
2|Page

was greed and usury. We need to understand Yshuas act of rebellion in context. It
was not against the kosher practices of Temple sacrifice but against the abuse of
kosher practices.
AND NOW FOR THIS WEEKS PORTION
1) Meaning of this weeks Torah portion and summary of contents:
Emor means he said and it is heavily concerned with purity regulations, but it then
shifts into a bigger picture with restoring and re stating the sacred year. Abba YHWH does
this to show the Israelites to know they renew their covenant by following His instructions,
so He repeats these rules to reassure Israel their covenant continues.
Read Parsha (English-Leviticus 21:1-24:23). This week, we will read the entire portion
together.
1) Play by Play commentary where appropriate.

Vayomer Yahweh el-Moshe emor el-hakohanim beney Aharon ve'amarta

alehem lenefesh lo-yitama be'amav.
Ki im-lish'ero hakarov elav le'imo ule'aviv velivno ulevito ule'achiv.
Vela'achoto habetulah hakrovah elav asher lo-hayetah le'ish lah yitama.
Lo yitama ba'al be'amav lehechalo

3|Page

2) Point out key Hebrew words/terms. Color Commentary:

VAYOMER YAHWEH EL-MOSHE EMOR EL-HA-KOHENIM BENEY AHARON VEAMARTA ALEHEM LE-NEFESH LO-YITAMA BE-AMAV (21:1) = and Yahweh told
Moshe to say to the priests, the descendants of Aaron: Let none (from your family) be
defiled through contact with the dead. The next two lines will allow an exception for
immediate family, but in the main it was critical for all priests to remain un-defiled because
if too many of them were unclean they could not serve Israel. There were times that a lack of
clean priests made services by them impossible to render (2 Chronicles 29:34-36).
LO YIKRECHU KORCHAH BEROSHAM UFEAT ZEKANAM LO YEGALECHU
UVISARAM LO YISRETU SARATET (21:5) = they (the priests) shall not shave off
patches from their heads. Let them not shave the edges of their beards and not make gouges
in their skin. This command dovetails with the discussion last week that non-priest Israelites
did have the option to shave their beard (Genesis 41:14). This separate injunction here
though indicates the priests, and perhaps the Levites as well, had a stricter requirement
mandating beards for their men.
HALAL (21:6) = profane or pollute. This word is used by the rabbis to justify the ban on the
Name of YHWH. Their idea is that this word sort of suggests to make common for usage of
that which is sacred. But the other meaning of HALAL is that of to make desolate through
substitution, like SHAV in the third commandment. Also to use another Name for Him that
He did not sanction is to pollute/profane His purpose.
The line in Genesis 4:26 is a perfect case in point. Almost all translations render HALAL as
the verb began, viz: At that time men BEGAN to call upon the Name of Yahweh.
However the rabbis use the PROFANE meaning for HALAL here and Stone suggests
something close to, At that time, name of Yahweh profaned. The thing is, the context of
the Hebrew more demands BEGIN rather than profane and Stone for example uses both
meanings of HALAL at the same time to make the verse make sense in English as At that
time the name of Abba YHWH BEGAN (halal) to be PROFANED (also halal)which
makes no sense. If you must choose one meaning at a time here for that word in a sentence,
the BEGAN meaning allows for perfect syntactical flow whereas the PROFANE meaning
does not.
That is why, to the credit of JPS, the 1917, 1985 and 1999 and Bible.ort.org all use BEGAN
for HALAL. This is again because of the literal Hebrew:
ENOSH (men) AZ (at that time) HOCHAL (halalbegan) LQARA (to proclaim/call,
literally towards calling) BSHEM (in/by the Name) Yahweh.
Finally, the Aramaic Tanakh uses the word SHRI in place of HOCHAL and SHRI almost
always means to begin but sometimes also to loosen. Either way it supports the idea that
they were calling on Yahweh because if they loosened their inhibition, they then began
calling the Name. Or, to put it another way, if you let loose the flood waters you are also
saying let the flood begin. See Mathew 11:20 where Yshua SHRI (began) to revile the
4|Page

cities.
ET-ROSHO LO YIFRA (21:10) = his head he will not let be uncovered. The Rabbis
alternatively interpret this as meaning the priests hair must be cut once every 1 to 3 months,
depending on the source, but all agree it means the head hair should not be allowed to grow
wild to the extent that it cannot be pulled back in a neat and respectful manner. (We will be
discussing the issue of Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians in detail later.)
Note on 21:13-14: This command for a priest to only marry a virgin or a widow of another
priest (see Ezekiel 44:15) from his own people sets up the situation in Ezra and Nehemiah
where many of the returning priests were excluded from service because they had married
foreign wives in Babylon. Ironically, these priests got in trouble for following the advice of
Jeremiah who told them to settle down and intermarry in Babylon. That advice was fine for
most of Israel, but not for the line of Aaron.
'Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to
Babylon. Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; marry and
have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so
that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease.
(Jeremiah 29:4-6 NJB)
KI ANI YAHWEH MEKADESHO (21:15) = for I, Yahweh, make you Set-Apart. This is a
very important statement that is overlooked by Christianity when they insist that Jews
believed (or still believe) that rituals make them Set-Apart but now the new dispensation of
Christ has come to make them holy now. The fact is, we have always been under grace
and never have we been made holy by rituals in the Torah. Instead, as we see clearly here,
it is Yahweh Himself who makes us Set-Apart, and this He has always done and will always
do. He makes us Set-Apart when we do His will, His Torah, His commandments (Genesis
26:5).
LECHEM ELOHAV MIKODESHEY HA-KADOSHIM UMIN-HA KODASHIM YOCHEL
(21:22) = he may eat the food offerings of his Elohim, both the Set-Apart of Set-Aparts as
well as the (regular) Set-Apart (offerings). The blemish or other issue is treated as a sign of
uncleanness that cannot be remedied as long as he has the problem. However, it is important
to note here that said deformity does NOT cut the Levitical man off from eating the most SetApart offerings given to his family. What this teaches us is that PHYSICAL impurity does
not necessarily mean MORAL impurity since that person is not cut off or separated in any
way from the priests. Rather, it only bars such a person from doing the work of the priests,
usually because the intense physical labor is incompatible with their condition or because the
objects in the Tabernacle must maintain their purity. Similarly a woman or man who is
ritually unclean is not a bad person either but is only barred from being in the camp or in
proximity to the sanctuary.
BECHOL TAME NEFESH (22:4) = unclean to a soul (literal reading), but actually refers to
being defiled by the dead. However the literal reading does present interesting possibilities,
that the dead somehow have a shell of a soul remaining that causes defilement. If this is so
5|Page

however, I am not aware of any other reference confirming this idea, although Rashi seems
to support the idea.
VELO YOCHAL MIN HA-KODASHIM KI IM RACHATS BESARO BA-MAYIM (22:6)
= and he will not eat of the Set-Apart offerings until he has immersed his flesh in water. Here
the Torah makes a distinction between those who are in a position to remedy their
uncleanness voluntarily and those who cannot. Dovetailing with the previous discussion on
how a Levite with a permanent infirmity still eats of even the most Set-Apart food, it is
because that Levite has no remedy for his condition that such is allowed for him. But for a
regular Israelite, if they can remedy their uncleanness simply by waiting for sunset and
washing and choose not to do so, they are in rebellion and are therefore cut off.
VESHAMERU ET-MISHMARTI VE-LO YISU ALAV CHET UMETU YECHAELUHU
(22:9) = they will keep my charge and not lift up (the offering) in a sinful way that will cause
them to die. The priests who are ritually unclean and have remedy to become clean again are
culpable if they do not follow these instructions. Again, being unclean ritually is not a moral
issue unless you can remedy it and choose not to. If a blemish renders a Levite permanently
unclean they are not judged morally inferior but are merely denied the right to serve in the
Tabernacle.
VESHOR O-SEH (22:28) = and bull, or sheep (or) goat. Although only two Hebrew terms
are mentioned, the word SEH can refer to either sheep or goats. In this kind of grammatical
construction, it seems likely both sheep and goats are intended.
VE-LO TECHALELU ET-SHEM KODSHI VE-NIKADASHTI BETOCH BENEY
YISRAEL. ANI YAHWEH MEKADISHECHEM (22:32) = do not make common/profane
to My Name. I must be Set-Apart amongst the sons of Israel. I am Yahweh, Who makes you
Set-Apart. An even more specific version of the Third Commandment, proving that you will
not engage in alternate expressions or substitute His Name with something common or
neutral. HALAL is therefore a synonym for SHAV, the latter word being what is used in the
Ten Commandments. The text literally reads and not make common towards My Name,
which is similar to phraseology in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 where the pshat
translates as do not have other elohim before Me but it is technically, do not have other
elohim before My face which in turn leads to the hint that we should not put a pagan face
upon YHWHs Face because both the Name and the Face denote the essence of His presence.
MOEDIM (23:4) = meeting as well as appointed times. Abba YHWH will allow you to enter
into His presence if you do these correctly. You get to meet with Him.
MIKRA (23:4) = convocation. A time to call out to Abba YHWH in prayer but also, to
read. Rabbis call Torah MIKRA, the called out text. Read the Mikra twice and the Targums
once.
AVODAH and MELAKAH (23:7): Avodah means to work as a servant or to do menial
work. MELAKA addressed the payment you get because you did that work. MELAKAH
work will vary depending on what you do to make a living. MELAKAH means
6|Page

kingdom/domain so you do not expand YOUR kingdom on Shabbat but YHWHs

kingdom on Shabbat.
VELECHEM VEKALI VECHARMEL LO TOCHULU AD-ETSEM HA-YOM HAZEH
(23:14) = and bread and roasted grain and fresh grain you will not eat until that day. While
the general prohibition against leavened bread remains intact from the evening of the 14 th to
the evening of the 21st for Pesach, and while you also can ONLY have unleavened bread
during this time, this commandment is dealing with another matter. Roasted grain and fresh
grain or new grain, is also not allowed until the 16th, regardless as to how it is baked. This
also is absolutely critical for interpreting a majorly important chronology in Joshua 5:
10

The Israelites pitched their camp at Gilgal and kept the Passover there on the fourteenth
day of the month, at evening, in the plain of Jericho. 11 On the very next day after the
Passover, they ate what the land produced, unleavened bread and roasted ears of corn. 12 The
manna stopped the day after they had eaten the produce of the land. The Israelites from
that year onwards ate the produce of Canaan and had no more manna. (Joshua 5:10-12 NJB)
What this tells us is the manna stopped on the day AFTER the 16th, because prior to the 16th
they could NOT eat fresh grain or roasted grain. That means it must be on the 17th, and the
only day the manna ever stopped falling was on the Shabbat, so Saturday morning must be
the 17th of Abib, as it is in the year Tanakh points to for the Jericho campaign, 1405 BCE. It
also proves that the omer count had to begin on the 16th and not Sunday, because in 1405
BCE it had to be a Friday!
CHUKAT OLAM (23:21) = eternal statute, meaning it doesnt matter if you can do a
sacrifice or not, or if a Tabernacle or Temple is functioning or not. Regardless, we must still
count the omer.
SHABBATON ZICHRON (23:24) = Shabbat of Remembrance, but the text does not directly
say WHAT they are remembering per se. Just as the weekly Shabbat though was a
remembrance of the Creation, so too this 7th new moon from Abib is a remembrance of the
day Adam was created, and both are linked by ZAKAR, to remember the Shabbat (Exodus
20:8). This is the rationale for the rabbinic belief that Rosh Hashanna is Adams birthday.
No other Shabbat is called this other than the one in Genesis 2:2-3, so it is natural to link the
two in the mind of the rabbis.
ANAH (23:27) = humble/bow down, to fast on Yom Kippur to be in submission to
Abba YHWHs will. Fasting humbles the soul by making it aware of its own mortality.
SHEMINIETZERET (23:36) = 8th dayof retreat. While the two words do not
appear adjacent to one another, they are linked conceptually in the same sentence. The
8th day of Sukkot is a time of RETREAT, to hold back from work, and as such it is the
last day of the feast. This is also part of the reason why the number 8 itself always
points to renewal or retreat.
VAYETSE BEN-ISHAH ISRAELIT VEHU BEN-ISH MITSRI BETOCH BENEY
7|Page

YISRAEL VAYINATSU BA-MACHANEH BEN HA-ISRAELIT VE-ISH HAISREALI (24:10) = the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man went out among
the Israelites and the Israelite womans son had an argument with an Israelite man in the
camp. According to Rashi, this Egyptian man was the same one who killed an Israelite
and then took his wife. However, I have never understood this position from Rashi since
Exodus 2:12 says Moshe killed that Egyptian man right on the spot! However, what this
clearly demonstrates is a mixed multitude went up out of Egypt just as Exodus 12:40
says, including a fair number of Egyptians themselves.
VAYIKOV BEN HA-ISHAH HA-ISRE-ELIT ET-HASHEM VA-YAKALEL (24:11) =
and the son of the Israelite woman cursed the Name and blasphemed. This line doesnt
justify the rabbinic ban on SAYING the Name. There is no such prohibition on uttering
His Name but you cannot CURSE in the Name. This became a rabbinic fence
whereby if they dont speak the Name they cannot be accused of cursing in it, but that is
not what the text says and in any case it violates the 3rd commandment against not
substituting the Name, which using Hashem instead of YHWH clearly does. This is
confirmed in 24:15. There will be more on this topic in the Torah Thought for the
Week.
EZRACH (24:22) = native born. Related to seed (zera) means one who came up from our
soil.
Torah Question of the Week:
What does this Torah portion tells us about calendar secrets?
END PART 1

8|Page

PART 2: THE HAFTORAH

Torah Question of the Week:
What does this Torah portion tell us about calendar secrets?
In this portion we are told that Abba YHWH says to Moshe, These are the moedim that YOU
shall proclaim. As a Levite and with his brother Aaron as high priest, this tells us that Moshe
and Aaron are supposed to proclaim the feasts and therefore keep the calendar secrets. It is also
a fitting preview to the most important calendar-secret chapter in the entire TanakhJoshua
chapter 4. Five circles: Upon the deep/Universe (Proverbs 8:27), crown of stars/seal on stars
(Revelation 12:1, Job 9:9), circle of earth (Isaiah 40:22), circle of stones/Gilgal (Joshua 4),
circle covenant in flesh/circumcision (also Joshua 4).
Bonus Teaching:
What is Blasphemy? (And What it Isnt!)
In this Torah portion we saw a blasphemer put to death, but perhaps it is not clear what the
offense of blasphemy really is. We get a hint of it in the Hebrew, as I said earlier, where we
are told the person actually cursed the Name, and 24:15 clarifies this is Abba YHWH we are
talking about.
Going from the Greek, we get the word blasphemy from blasphemeo which literally means, to
speak lightly or profanely of sacred things. This word is very well used even on the Greek side
in Yaakov 2:7, Do they not BLASPHEME in the Fair Name by which they were called? This
proves that Yaakov is talking about YHWH as the fair name. Such usage is also very close to
the meaning of several Hebrew words we will be looking at that contain one definition of several
as to revile and these are also carried over intact into NT Aramaic, as we will soon see.
But lets return to the Torah and what it has to say. In Leviticus 24:11 the word QABAB is used
to indicate blasphemy, but it is actually defined as being the same as cursing itself (QALAL)
but it is the specific kind of cursing associated with Abba YHWHs Name. The word QALAL,
like blasphemeo in Greek, means to make light of sacred or important things, but of all the
sacred things one might make light of, the one with the stiffest penalty attached to it is with
respect to YHWHs Name. Or, to put it another way.
QABAB = QALAL + YHWHs Name
A synonym for QABAB is NAATZ, which appears in Isaiah 52:5, though there it technically
means something closer to spurn, devalue, condemn which is not quite curse per se but still
very, very bad and disrespectful. The difference though between NAATZ and QABAB is that
while YHWH complains about NAATZ, He does not always command the death penalty for it as
He does for QABAB, which speaks of course to His great mercy and patience.
On the other hand, there are exceptions. David and Bathshebas illicit offspring is condemned to
death as are the Israelites who worshipped the Golden Calf in NAATZ (2 Samuel 12:4;
Nehemiah 9:18, 26).
9|Page

But the most important word for blaspheme is GADAPH, because in each place that it appears
another definition of the real sin is given, and it doesnt have anything to do with merely saying
His Name:
6

Isaiah said to them, "Thus you shall say to your master, 'Thus says YHWH, "Do not be afraid
because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have
blasphemed (gadaph) Me. (2 Kings 19:6)
Assyria blasphemed because they declared in 2 Kings 18 that Abba YHWH was unable to
protect Israel, so this is definition #1, to revile Elohim and declare Him powerless. This is also
the case in 2 Kings 19:22 and Isaiah 37:6 and 23. Here is definition #2 for GADAPH:
'For this reason, son of man, speak to the House of Israel. Say to them, "The Lord
Yahweh says this: Here is another way by which your ancestors outraged (gadaph) me
by their infidelity (maal). (Ezekiel 20:27 NJB)
The word for treachery, unfaithfulness is MAAL, so this becomes another descriptor for
blasphemyagain having nothing to do with saying the Name. Rather, its being unfaithful to
YHWHs commands or acting treacherously or treating Him as profane. Now lets move on to
the same word in the Aramaic NT:
Truly I say to you, that all sins and blasphemies (gadaph) that the sons of man will
blaspheme will be forgiven them. But he who blasphemes (gadaph) against the Ruach
haKodesh has no forgiveness ever, rather he is guilty before the eternal judgment." (Mark
3:28-29 AENT)
The Aramaic reads a little differently than the Greek because it is SONS OF MEN in Aramaic as
opposed to the Son of Man or Yshua in the Greek, but either way the thought is the same.
Abba YHWH is most gracious to forgive blasphemies, except for that of Ruach ha Kodesh
because the Ruach ha Kodesh is simply another title for Abba YHWH Himself! Therefore to
blaspheme against the Ruach is to deny its powerYHWHs powerto set up the kingdom. As
Yshuas kingdom rolls out, the penalties become harder, and anything that could prevent his
sacrifice and resurrection meets with this higher punishment. As such, blaspheming against the
RHK cannot be repeated today. Still, reviling the power of YHWH in any form is never a good
idea, but even going from the Greek, at least he is gracious enough to forgive those who
blaspheme HIM as sent by his Father.
Heres another example:
And when Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was impeded in discourse,
because the Jews stood up against him, and reviled (gadaph), as he testified to them that
Y'shua is the Mashiyach. (Acts 18:5 AENT)
Here reviled can be thought of as blasphemy because the reviling is against YHWHs own
redemptive model of what He meant to do with His Son. The crowds may have thought they
were only insulting Paul but they were actually insulting Elohim out of their own ignorance.
10 | P a g e

And this brings us to a key point. Luke is saying there is blasphemy for that reason, going against
the will of Abba YHWH, but the rabbis also used this definition when Yshua went against their
Oral Law
But Y'shua was silent and the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living Elohim,
that you tell us if you are the Mashiyach, the Son of Elohim." Y'shua said to him, "You
have said it! But I say to you that from now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the
right hand of power and coming upon the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "Behold he blasphemes! Why therefore do
we need witnesses? Behold now you have heard this blasphemy. What do you want to
do?" They answered and said, "He is deserving of death." (Matthew 26:63-66 AENT)
By the written Torah Yshua is blameless. He has not only accurately answered a question but,
in addition to that, he has further kept Torah by not reviling (QALAL) a leader of his people!
Nor is it blasphemy to quote the book of Daniel when in fact Yshua was supposed to justify
his views from the Scripture! But in the minds of the Pharisees it became blasphemy because
Yshua in their mind could not be the Mashiyach.
In other words, Yshua had to answer the question honestly to keep the command of Exodus
22:28 and then he had to establish his answer, which was also required. This is why the Written
Torah is in tension with the Oralone says this is righteous and the other calls it a capital sin.
Of course, if what Yshua says is true, he cannot be guilty of blasphemy but his accusers must be
instead because
Then the scribes and the Pharisees who were from Urishlim drew near to Y'shua and said,
"Why do your disciples transgress against the traditions of the elders and do not wash
their hands when they eat bread?"
Then Y'shua answered and said to them, "Why also do you transgress against the
Commandments of Elohim because of your traditions? For Elohim said, 'Honor your
father and mother, and anyone who reviles his father and his mother let him be put to
death.'" But you say anyone who says to a father or to a mother, 'My offering is whatever
you have gained by me,' then he does not need to honor his father or mother. And you
nullify the Word of Elohim because of your tradition.
Hypocrites! Well did Yesha'yahu prophesy concerning you and said, 'This people honor
me with their lips, but their heart is very far from me.' And they revere me in vain, while
they teach the doctrines of the commandments of the sons of men." (Matthew 15:1-9
AENT)
Thats exactly what a good Jew should do. Defend the written Torah, confirm it with the
Prophets and be willing to take it on the chin, since Yshuas righteousness is what is
blasphemous to his enemies and it is his enemies who are guilty of the charge they have laid at
Mashiyachs feet.
11 | P a g e

1) Haftorah portion (English- Ezekiel 44:15-31) and discuss common themes with the
Torah portion.

Vehakohanim haLevi'im beney Tsadok asher shameru et-mishmeret

mikdashi bit'ot beney-Yisra'el me'alay hemah yikrevu elay lesharteni
ve'amedu lefanay lehakriv li chelev vadam ne'um Yahweh Elohim.
2) Our linguistic commentary
KOHENIM HA LVIYIM (44:15) = LEVITICAL PRIESTS, as if there were any other kind
serving in Tabernacle? A hint that there is another lineage of priests, like Melchizedek,
whom Yshua is compared to as serving in heavenly Temple/Tabernacle.
BENEY TZADOK = (44:15) = SONS OF ZADOK meaning son of a real priest, son of
Aaron. But name also means righteousness so when the priests are doing their jobs they are
the sons of righteousness! Tzedeka =charity = righteousness through giving.
TAAH (44:15) = to go astray, or to be drunk. Morality wavers like a drunken man staggering
in streets.
See Isaiah 19:14-16:
Yahweh has infused them with a giddy spirit; they have led Egypt astray in all she undertakes
like a drunkard straying about as he vomits. Nowadays no one does for Egypt what top and
tail, palm and reed used to do. That day Egypt will be like women, trembling and terrified at
the threatening hand of Yahweh Sabaoth, when he raises it against her. (Isaiah 19:14-16
NJB)
3) Renewed Covenant portion: (English) Colossians 2:11-23 (all the way through with
applicable footnotes.)
4) Highlight common themes in Aramaic (referred to in footnotes):
Colossians 2:14
10) The Aramaic word khab means both sin and debt and in this case both meanings
are meant simultaneously. Also the Aramaic word shtar means handwriting but
specifically the kind of handwriting that is on a bill, which makes sense if you have debts.
The end result of all this is that the certificate of debts/sins cannot be Torah. Instead it is
the written second witness of our sins which would normally require penalties, but is
nailed to the beam of the stake. YHWH requires that two witnesses come forward to
execute a criminal. He even holds Himself to this standard if He is one of the witnesses.
As a result, when Yshua takes the certificate of our sins, he is in effect taking that
required second witness out of the way. Without the written second witness, though we
sin, we cannot be destroyed for that sin, and can then approach our Heavenly Father
12 | P a g e

YHWH for the gift of eternal life. (Mat_6:12 some Greek texts read forgive our debts
and others forgive our offenses.)
Colossians 2:16
11) The Body of Mashiyach must not be concerned with the judgments of those who are
outside the Malchut Elohim, that is, those who don't know Torah or Mashiyach. It is
clear, given the location of this audience and the fact that Rav Shaul always references
Jews directly, that Shaul is addressing the local talk of the pagans whose religion
dominates this region.
Colossians 2:17
12) Compare this with Col_1:24. Paul is stating that the "Body of Mashiyach"
determines how to observe Torah, including Kashrut, Shabbats, Moedim and Rosh
Chodeshim; therefore, don't let lawless pagans judge you; they have their own religious
customs and way of doing things. For example, many choose to attend religious
meetings on Sun-Day, and they have sunrise services on Ishtar (Easter), then for
December 25th they put up a Tammuz (Christmas) tree that commemorates the rebirth of
the Babylonian deity Tammuz. And the gold and silver balls that Christians hang on their
Christmas trees originally represented Tammuz testicles, as he was renowned for
pleasing the ladies. Most Christians know full well that Y'shua was not born on
December 25th, but the pagan celebrations have become such entrenched traditional
rituals that truth has become an embarrassing inconvenience. See Christmas in
Appendix. In other words, don't let family, friends, pastors, or co-workers judge you for
observing truthful Torah festivals, because their motive is for you to return to the pagan
substitutes they themselves prefer. The Church today is following in the idolatrous
footsteps of ancient and modern Israel according to Eze_8:14 and Jer_10:1-25; Jer_17:127. The vast majority of Christians twist this verse to teach that Shabbat and the Feasts
of YHWH were fulfilled by Christ and are no longer necessary which completely
contradicts what Rav Shaul taught that YHWHs Feasts are a shadow of things to
come; not to mention, they are rehearsals for the Bride of Mashiyach! What Mashiyach
and Paul call "good," most Christians call evil; they even believe that their pagan based
rituals are sanctified through a "Christian" label (see Isa_5:14-23). Aramaic translator
George Lamsa also suggests an interesting non-literal sense of the body by translating
but the main objective is of Mashiyach. In other words, we are focused on the sacrifice
Yshua made for us and the commandments of Torah observance that he gave us. While
I cannot find any confirming evidence to render body in this manner, the sense of
Lamsas rendering nonetheless accords well with the main concepts in this chapter.
5) Apply these themes/issues to modern issues in the Netzari faith. (The dividing line
between proper understanding of who messenger-angels are and not lapsing
into paganism is a fine one. The Samaritans are a good example of how these scriptural
themes can be taken too far. It was true then and it is true nowdont do it!)
6) Relate to all or part of an Appendix portion of AENT or footnotes from a portion
13 | P a g e

(Head Coverings p. 841-844).

STUDY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED NEXT WEEK FOR THIS
PORTION:
1) Ezekiel 44:19 talks about transmitting sanctification to the people from the Set-apart
garments of the priests, but Haggai 2:11-14 seems to say the opposite, that the unclean
things defile the Set-apart objects. How do we resolve the apparent contradiction,
assuming there is one?
2) How is the command for a priest not to take a divorced woman for wife in Leviticus
21:4 different from the later ruling in Deuteronomy 24:1-3?
3)

We saw recently that the death of Aarons two sons while offering strange fire may have
led to an official prohibition against drunkenness for future priests. However, in this
portion we have another regulation that was inspired by an actual problematic event.
What was that event and what is the regulation?

4) The city of Colossae had a large Jewish population that was famous for a very special
item. What was that item?
5) Other than our discussion during the parsha, what is my rationale for when the omer
count begins, which is to say, on the 16th, rather than being fixed to the morrow after the
weekly Shabbat, or Sunday?

14 | P a g e

Torah Thought for the Week:

A Tale of Four Disciples of Yochanan
We begin with a simple question: Who do you think wrote the following words:
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the
divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the
Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times He has enjoined offerings [to be
presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or
irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours.
Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His
own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good
pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at
the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws
of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest,
and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations
devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.
Let every one of you, my brothers, give thanks to Elohim in his own order, living in all
good conscience, with a becoming degree of seriousness, and not going beyond the rule
of the ministry prescribed to him.
Not in every place, brothers, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings,
or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even
there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that
which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers
already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable
to His will, are punished with death. You see, my brothers, that the greater the
knowledge that has been confirmed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are
exposed.
Sounds pretty Hebrew Roots doesnt it? And, as I am sure those of you who have been with me a
while probably suspect by now, there is a bit of a twist to this statement. Actually, to tell the
truth, more than a bit. So here it is: The person writing this is a Christian, but not just any
Christian but a leader. And hes not just any Christian leader, hes the pope. And hes not just
any pope, but rather the fourth man to occupy the office, a man also who knew Paul and was
taught and discipled by Yochanan. This, my friends, is what one first century Pope looks like,
teaching from Rome.
Now heres another surprise: Hes even mentioned in the New Testament!
I also plead with you, my true burden bearers, that you assist those women who worked
hard with me in the Good News; together with Clement and with the rest of my
helpers whose names are written in the book of life. (Philippians 4:3 AENT)

15 | P a g e

This man is the fourth Pope/Bishop of Rome, known as Clement the First. There is only one
letter of this man which has survivedhis epistle to the Corinthiansand thank Father Yah
there are absolutely no doubts that he wrote those words, and my joy is only added to when I
search the rest of that one precious letter and find not a single reference to any of the antiHebrew rhetoric that would soon envelop many, though not all, of the Roman leadership.
Well get to that in a moment. For now I just wanted to point out that I am being really generous
to the Roman Catholic viewpoint probably because I dont mind this guy Clement as a Pope, and
the source from him that I quoted was the 40th and 41st chapters of his aforementioned letter to
the Corinthians.
The reality though is, the list that Rome has of its leaders is more a wish list than real history
during the first century. There is no doubt that Rome considered the five men she gives us (Peter,
Linus, Anicletus1, Clement and Evaristus) as important first century leaders the church wishes to
honor. But Peter was never really in Rome, as details in the book of Acts put him between 500
and 1100 miles away from that city at any given time, and really the only evidence we have
that he was in that city is that of Catholic tradition which, in effect and not surprisingly, agrees
with itself. And Linus, like Clement, was at least also known to Paul (2 Timothy 4:21).
Although, unlike Clement, no writings of Linus have survived, so Clements writings become the
earliest witness to the faith outside of the canon of the New Testament, and what he doesnt say
(Clement) is actually just as important as what he does say, because a lot of the traditions we
normally associate with being from the beginnings of the Roman assembly find absolutely no
voice in his writings, but thats a point for later on.
As for Linus and the next three men, they probably were bishops of Rome and spent the
remainder of their lives there, as did the rest who came after them. However, history tells us they
were simply overseers of their assembly and not FATHERS (Papa, Pope) of the whole of even
Gentile Christianity. As far as we can tell with regards to the first century at the very least, Rome
was no more powerful than any other important assembly like Syrian Antioch, Alexandria Egypt
and others, and in terms of the New Testament the only UNIVERSAL ASSEMBLY that had
sway over everyone was in Jerusalem itself.
Then, after Jerusalem the city was destroyed in 70 CE, the apostolic assembly that remained
relocated (with its early NT documents I might add) to Caesarea, which was the Roman hub of
domination for the country. For example, Pilates own palacewhere he preferred to stay unless
Feasts forced his hand to come to Jerusalemwas in Caesarea, and even both Peter and Paul
were imprisoned there for a time (Josephus [Antiquities, 18:55-59], Acts 12:1-18, 25:1-26:32).
Jerusalem herself became a minor assembly that reported to the leadership in Caesarea.
And during this same overall period, from 30 CE to 135 CE, fifteen Hebrew bishops ruled in
Jerusalem before the Bar Kochba Revolt ended its existence outright, and from then on the
Jerusalem assembly ceased to exist (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 5,
paragraphs 1-5). My point in all this history review is simple: There is no way Rome can be the
supreme assembly as long as Jerusalem, Caesarea, Syrian Antioch and others were so vigorously
1

He is also known by the short form of his name, Pope Cletus, and is not to be confused with a similar name given
to a mid-2nd century pope we are soon to discuss, Anicetus.

16 | P a g e

active and influential, as they all were during the first and almost half of the second centuries of
the Common Era.
But just because Rome wasnt all it cracked itself up to be and they tried to rewrite history,
doesnt mean Rome was not still important. It was to be sure very importantit just wasnt in
charge of everything happening in the faith, nor did their popes rule over even all Gentile
believers, let alone the so-called Hebrew heretics and the records of the time call them bishops
only.
And as for the rest of the papal legend, the term pope actually was not even used until the 3rd
century, and even then it wasnt used in Rome, but Antioch, as of all things a posthumous title to
a deceased bishop (Eusebius, Church History, Book 7, Chapter 7, paragraph 7)! So its important
to get our facts straight and separate the truth from the corporate-imperial branding and hype.
On the other hand, Clements example of piety could hardly have gone unnoticed in the rest of
the assemblies of the day, and what happened was simple: a split in understanding that nearly led
to civil war. For, on the other side of the debate was another disciple of Yochanan who had risen
to great power to become the Head Bishop of Syrian Antioch, and in those days Antioch was just
as important as Rome.
His name was Ignatius, but unlike powerhouses like Linus and Clement, Ignatius does not appear
in the NT at all, even though he was heading that assembly within the apostolic age, beginning in
67 CE when he succeeded Evodius, the first bishop of Antioch (Eusebius, Church History, Book
3, Chapter 22, paragraph 1).
However, also by the year 67, almost all of the original apostles and witnesses to Yshua were
dead. Ignatius however was determined to find the last one standing: Yochanan, and sometime in
the next four decades he is said to have been successful in that goal.
Heres the thing: If Ignatius did find Yochanan bar Zawdee, the last Apostle, then he seems to
have received a completely different teaching than Clement did. In fact, I suspect that Ignatius
found another Yochanan, perhaps the elusive presbyter, who is confused with the apostle and to
who some scholars falsely credit with writing 1-3 Yochanan and Revelation, whereas I have
always held that Yochanan the Apostle wrote all five books, including the Gospel that bears his
name.
In fact, let me go a step further. Either Ignatius fabricated his time with the real Yochanan, or at
best greatly confused and mangled his message or he reproduced accurately what he learned
from another Yochanan. I say this because, unlike Clement, Ignatius was an anti-Semite and the
real Yochanan was also ethnically Jewish, so I doubt that kind of race-hatred came from a
member of the Twelve. But there were plenty of Gentile Johns out there with large followings
within the movement Iggy was a part of. Lets hear what Iggy has to say on the same issue
Clement talked on, namely, keeping the appointed times of Father Yah:
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to
the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the
17 | P a g e

observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and
by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore
endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master--how shall
we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit
did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being
come, raised them from the dead.-Letter to the Magnesians (Short Version), Chapter 9,
from Phillip Schaaf, Early Church Fathers, p. 62.
There is also a Long Version of this chapter and honestly there is no scholarly consensus on
whether it is as good or worse than the shorter. Almost everyone seems to agree the shorter
version is authentically Ignatian, but they are quite deadlocked on the longer ones and the
Aramaic versions also that were discovered later.
Having said that, I wish to state for the record that I do believe both Short and Long versions of
Ignatius seven accepted letters are in fact all equally authentic, and so here is the sequel of sorts
which, from many of our viewpoints, is even worse, and in this case I will just give its greatest
hits, as it were:
Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in
days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For say the [holy] oracles,
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread."
But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in
meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of
God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and
walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have
no sense in them.
And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's
Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the
week].
So Clement says that Christians must keep all the appointed times of the Lord and Iggy says,
let us NO LONGER keep the Shabbat! So, as much as Iggy hates to admit it, his own Gentile
believers were in fact keeping the Shabbat at the end of the first century when he wrote! That
also means Clement could only be referring to the appointed times that Yshua and the apostles
kept from the Tanakh. In other words, Iggys worst enemy to his own thesis, is none other than
Iggy himself; a sin which is compounded further by other statements that prove he is no lover of
Yshuas biological descendants, namely the Jews:
Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new
leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, lest anyone among you should be
corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ
Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism
Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God. . -

18 | P a g e

Letter to the Magnesians (Short Version), Chapter 10, from Phillip Schaaf, Early Church
Fathers, p. 63
It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a
Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be
Judaism. -Letter to the Magnesians (Long Version), Chapter 10, from Phillip Schaaf,
Early Church Fathers, p. 63
And my personal favorite
Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable.
For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not
received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account
also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving
that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His
eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that
sent Him.- Letter to the Magnesians (Short Version), Chapter 8, from Phillip Schaaf,
Early Church Fathers, p. 62
And as an alternative to what Clement said, Ignatius even goes so far as to say (wait for it)
Have respect to a bishop as to Christ himself! (Heading for Chapter 6 of the letter to
the Ephesians, Phillip Schaaf, p. 51).
By the way: Care to guess how many times Clement mentions bishops, presbyters and the like
and the need to submit to their judgment? If you said ZERO, you are correct. And yet Clement is
writing around 90 CE and Ignatius probably just before his death in 108 CEclearly a lot
changed in those two decades.
Indeed, the closest Clement ever got to elevated claims about his papacy was to say he was
writing from the church of God that sojourns at Rome, but never does he proclaim sovereignty
over the rest, leading one scholar (Bart Ehrman who was cited on Wikipedia if I remember
correctly) to describe his style as one of Roman priority (were important, were up there) in
opposition to Roman primacy (were the first and were the best).
And, instead of telling the faithful to regard the bishops as if they were Messiah in the flesh,
Clement instead exhorted his fellow leaders to become more humble as the title of his 38th
chapter is, Let the Members of the Church Submit Themselves and Let No One Exalt Himself
Above Another. Good advice Clement! Too bad they didnt take it.
So here now we have two very early powerhouses representing the first few generations of what
becomes Christianity. The obvious questions are: Who is right? Is one lying and the other telling
the truth? In other words, to put in modern Watergate-speak: What did the Head Bishop know
and when did he know it?
The real answer is that both pro and anti-Jewish/Torah factions permeated much of the early
19 | P a g e

Church. The issue I have is not that these ideas were controversial but rather, to hear Rome tell
the story now, to act as if the pro-Torah folks were marginalized or unimportant. And so the
reality is, the Torah observant GENTILES (no, NOT Hebrew believers in Yshua but GOYIM)
gave the OTHER Gentiles a stubborn and determined run for their money for centuries. So when
Gentiles even today complain to me and say, Andrew, how can I as a Gentile even understand
Torah, let alone keep it? my answer back is, Just look at what some of your CATHOLIC
ancestors did!
Fundamentally however, what we really need is a tie-breaker, or a third disciple of Yochanan, to
really determine if the apostle was pro or anti Torah, and pro or anti-Jewish. Even the most
generous reading of the Catholic tradition yields only a maximum of two names: Papias and
Polycarp, and the two men knew each other and were close friends.
Of these two however, only Polycarp left behind enough writings to bear witness to the Torah
debate of his day, and many of these have been diligently copied by writers after him, with the
most important witness of them all being Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the first quarter of the
fourth century.
I find Eusebius account remarkable since, as Constantines biographer, he was part of the
propaganda machine dedicated to stamping out Judaism and Jewish Messianic believers
throughout the Roman Empire. And yet, even Eusebius had to admit the Torah observant branch
of Christianity was popular, powerful and, most important, extremely ancient.
And, even though all of the first generation apostles were dead, due to the extremely long life of
Yochanan, the early decades of the second century had a surprising number of witnesses who
were taught by the apostles still actively preaching. Papias, while not directly commenting on the
issue we are looking at, nevertheless did give a very interesting perspective on this unique place
in history:
But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever
instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in
my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude,
take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those
who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments
given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself.
If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their
sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by
James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things
Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what
was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living
and abiding voice.
And then finally, the very last person who laid living eyes on an apostle was Polycarp who, even
as he is about to meet a violent death boldly proclaims his faith which is directly responsible for
making the Roman Emperor want to kill him, as he said:
20 | P a g e

Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven,
saying, "Be strong and show yourself to be a man, O Polycarp!" No one saw who it was
that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he
was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken.
And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his
confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying,
"Have respect to your old age," and other similar things, according to their custom, [such
as], "Swear by the fortune of Caesar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists."
But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen
then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up
to heaven, said, "Away with the Atheists." Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying,
"Swear, and I will set you free, reproach Messiah;" Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six
years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my
King and my Savior?"-Martyrdom of Polycarp, Phillip Schaaf, Early Church Fathers, p.
41.
For me however, as moving as the account of his martyrdom is, Polycarp has an even mightier
purpose with something that happens earlier: A showdown on Torah observance, and in the other
corner, is the Bishop of Rome, according to this account from Irenaeus, from about 180 CE:2
Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way3] were peacefully
disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so]
observed although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as
presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the
Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee, and who
did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did
observe it4. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of
2

The way Schaaf reads in this regard it seems they believe the 14 th of Abib, the start of Pesach, was considered
identical to Resurrection Day, whether that day was a Sunday or not. My reading of these facts however leads me to
the conclusion that Easter was simply the Sunday after the 14 th of Abib. The first day of the week is cited as
Resurrection Day in all four Gospels, and such a concordance simply cannot be dismissed.
3
It is interesting to note that Irenaeus also discusses some kind of a 1 or 2 day fast in connection with this feast but
that precise connection is unclear. It may be that some early believers had a fast during the part of Passover where
Yshua was in the grave. Either that, or perhaps it was an allusion to Yom Kippur, which comes just before the other
major feast, Tabernacles, half a year later, which takes place in Roman reckoning over two days.
4
The Eucharist, or thanksgiving/communion bread and wine, was directly derived from the Last Supper which was
a Passover Seder meal that Yshua used to give his final message to his disciples before dying the next day. For the
first generation of apostles there simply was no other communion other than the Passover meal, as Yshua had
said Do thisthe this being the sederin remembrance of me. However, about thirty years later, it seemed the
Apostle Paul wanted to transform the annual remembrance of the Passover which was linked to Messiahs death and
resurrection also into a weekly ceremony on the Sabbath day which the church later transferred to Sunday. One
reason why they tried to do this might have been the Havdalah ceremony Paul did in Acts 20:7. Havdalah was a
meal on Saturday night that Jews did to separate the end of the Shabbat from the start of the work week. Sometime
during that evening, up to midnight in this case, it was a custom among the apostles to get together for Havdalah
which was also a communal meal that sometimes also involved giving contributions to the apostles that could not be
done the previous day, because business was prohibited on the Shabbat (also Acts 20:7). The church then
transformed this meal as well, into a Sunday morning worship model that is still with us. In any case, the main

21 | P a g e

Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points,
they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand],
not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head.
Neither could Anicetus [Bishop of Rome] persuade Polycarp not to observe what he
had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with
whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he
said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.Irenaeus, Fragment #3, from Phillip Schaaf, Early Church Fathers, p. 569.
(And here is something I did not read, the excerpts from the follow up report from Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 29.)
WE have now described the various usages that prevailed in the celebration of the
Passover. It appears to me that Victor, bishop of Rome, and Polycarp, bishop of
Smyrna, came to a very wise decision on the controversy that had arisen between
them. For as the bishops of the West did not deem it necessary to dishonor the
tradition handed down to them by Peter and by Paul, and as, on the other hand, the
Asiatic bishops persisted in following the rules laid down by John the evangelist,
they unanimously agreed to continue in the observance of the festival according to
their respective customs, without separation from communion with each other.
They faithfully and justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship
ought not to separate from one another on account of customs. For exactly similar
traditions on every point are to be found in all the churches, even though they hold
the same opinions
At Rome hallelujah is sung once annually, namely, on the first day of the festival of
the Passover; so that it is a common thing among the Romans to swear by the fact of
hearing or singing this hymn
The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the
Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at
Rome or at Alexandria.
There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage
established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although
they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries
What I have said upon this subject must now suffice. Many other customs are still to
be observed in cities and villages; and those who have been brought up in their
observation is that because Polycarps observance is contrasted directly with others who did the Eucharist this
means Polycarp was doing Passover, which he got from the Apostle John.

22 | P a g e

observance would, from respect to the great men who instituted and perpetuated
these customs, consider it wrong to abolish them. Similar motives must be attributed to
those who observe different practices in the celebration of the feast which has led us into
this long digression.
Getting back though to the original quote, the very next line has Irenaeus, again as quoted by
Eusebius, saying that Polycarps status was too great for the Bishop of Rome to oppress him.
Polycarp left in peace but the issue of the timing of Resurrection Day was far from settled.
However, for me the most important point is that Polycarp is confirming Clements teaching that
both men got from Yochanan the Apostle: Both Gentiles and Jewish followers in Yshua were
keeping Torah feasts and Shabbat from Friday evening to Saturday evening. They were not in
agreement that the Lords Day replaced the seventh day of the week and they stood up to the
most powerful anti-nomian authorities of their day, not once, but time and time again. They
fought bitterly, sometimes to a draw, but they would not be silenced even when the Roman
Emperor himself intervened.
Therefore, once again I say to my non-Jewish brothers and sisters who were raised in the church:
While Torah observance may seem strange to you when compared to what you were originally
taught, what you were taught was not the truth either. The earliest Gentile Christians, many of
them at least, honored Shabbat, honored the feasts, and honored Messiahs intimate connection
to these as well. The proof of that, after all, is in the NT itself:
For there remains a Shabbat for the people of Elohim. (Hebrews 4:9 AENT)
Here is the patience of the Set Apart believers who keep the commandments of Elohim,
and the faith of Y'shua. (Revelation 14:12 AENT)
Im Andrew Gabriel Roth and thats your Torah Thought for the Week!
Next week we will be exploring the double portion BaHar-BeChukkotai, or Leviticus 25:127:34, followed by our Haftorah portion will be Jeremiah 32:6-27 and 16:19-17:14, along with
and our Renewed Covenant portions Luke 4:16-21,Galatians 5:1-13 and Ephesians 2:11-19!

23 | P a g e