Doctrines

“But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”.

“Now the Ruakh distinctly says that in the last days some will remove from the faith, and will go after deceiving spirits, and after doctrines of demons”.

Bat-Tzion welcomes all people, but we do not welcome all doctrines, or teachings. Doctrines produce certain religious behaviors, so those accompanying behaviors are by default, therefore, not welcomed either. This, sadly, means that some people will depart from us. It is a difficult thing to separate people from doctrines that do not belong to Elohim.

We certainly do not despise the person who might bring in error, but, many times the case is that the person refuses to separate from the doctrine, and, because we do not support the doctrine, the person is offended. This is sad, but a necessary displeasure, in order to preserve the sanctity of the Congregation according to the Torah.

Bat-Tzion was established by Yah under the teachings of Messianic Judaism, under certain authority, and the congregation submits to that authority, because it is submitted only to the Word of Elohim. How we divide the Word according to our understanding is a consensus among the members, including the under-shepherd [“rabbi” or “teacher”], the Beit-Din, and the congregation at large. It would be great if everyone who came through the doors of Bat-Tzion agreed with us, but, the sad truth is, many will not. This web-page is an effort to save heartache and preserve the peace in the Body of Messiah at large by warding off any future conflict. There are certain doctrines that make a person not truly of the faith, and we have no sorrow exposing those. But, there are some doctrines that we believe real believers follow which are simply in error, and, sadly, we cannot fellowship. In that case, we would prefer that no one try to bring in and impose upon us those doctrines, and create the uncomfortable situation of our having to separate after opening our hearts to them, and them to us.

The world is FULL of errant doctrines, and having an exhaustive list of those doctrines would be next to impossible. However, there are a few key doctrines which are more common among those seeking the Judaic nature of faith in Messiah which have already surfaced at Bat-Tzion several times. These are the ones we will present here in summary.

Two Houses of Israel

Two Houses of Israel – that western-European Christians and their descendents are genetically the ten northern tribes and therefore G-d saved them because they are the physical seed of Avraham, and are "The House of Israel," and will inherit the land of Israel with Judah.

"Command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer, nor to devote themselves to myths, and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations, rather than advancing the work of Elohim, which is by trust." [1st Tim. 1:3-4] "3When I went to Macedonia, I besought you to remain at Efesos, so that you might charge certain ones not to teach diverse doctrines, 4and not to give heed to fables and stories of endless genealogies, which cause dispute, rather than build up the faith of Elohim."
--Timoteus Alef (1st Timothy) 1:3-4 [Perek Version]

Bat-Tzion does not take issue with the fact that the kingdom of Yisra'el was divided in two some 3,000 years ago. Clearly, the Jews are Judah, Benjamin, and part of Levi, and there were ten other tribes who made up the KINGDOM of Israel in the north, the scattered, FORGOTTEN part of the Northern Kingdom. However, Israel TODAY is the NATION so called by that name, and NOT the ten "lost tribes". Israel in the time of Messiah was the Kingdom of Judah, AND those of the northern kingdom who rejoined Israel proper under Judah's king of Israel. Today's Jews are Judah AND the returned portion of the other ten who came back in the time of Hezekiah. [2 Chron 30]. It is our contention that those who now believe in Messiah Yeshua who are NOT Jewish, yet see the covenants in their entirety and desire to follow Elohim and His Messiah, are in fact GRAFTED INTO JUDAH, the known 'natural' seed of Israel in the Holy Land in the time of Messiah. They are, therefore, under JUDAH’S tutelage [Eph. 2:19-22 "19Thus from henceforth you are neither strangers nor foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the k’doshim, and children of the household of Elohim; 20And you are built upon the foundation of the Shlikhim and the Nevi’im, Yeshua HaMashiakh Himself being the cornerstone of the building: 21and through Him the whole building is fashioned and grows into a Heikhal Kadosh, through the help of , 22you also are built up by Him for a habitation of Elohim through The Ruakh."
--Efisim (Ephesians) 2:19-22
Rom. 10:12, "And in this it does not discriminate between the Y’hudim and the Arameans; for the same over all is rich to all who call upon Him."
--Romim (Romans) 10:12
11:17-21], "17And if some of the branches were cut off, and you, who are a branch of a wild olive tree, have been grafted in their place, and you have become a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18do not boast over the branches. For if you boast, it is not you who sustains the root, but the root sustains you. 19Perhaps you may say 'the branches were cut off that I might be grafted in their place.' 20Well, they were cut off because of their lack of faith, but you exist by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear! 21For if Elohim did not spare the natural branches, beware, or He will not spare you!"
--Romim (Romans) 11:17-21
since Messiah and all the apostles were from the Kingdom of Judah. The scriptures are clear on this. Calling the northern "Kingdom" by the name "Yisra'el" was a temporary moniker for a KINGDOM which NO LONGER EXISTS. It is our contention that today "Israel" represents both 'natural' Israel in regard to the Jewish people and the land, and spiritual "Israel" in regard to the kahal, since there are Jews in the Kahal [Assembly] who believe in Messiah. There are not "Two Israels", which is what "Two-House" theology implies. Spiritual Israel never supplanted natural Israel [Romans 11]. "I say, then, has Elohim rejected His people? May it never be! For I also am an Yisra’elite, a descendant of Avraham, of the tribe of Benyamin. Elohim has not rejected His people whom He foreknew."
--Romim (Romans) 11:1-2
spec. the whole chapter
A Remnant of Natural Yisra'el BECAME Spiritual Yisra'el when the first 500 Jews believed in Messiah's Resurrection. The first 3,500 believers were Jewish, and they were the Yisra'el of Elohim, the True Israel. NO ONE is the Israel of G-d until they believe in Messiah! But, today, the only people who are genetically recognized as "Israel" are the Jews who are today called "Israel", living in the land, and the Jews who live in Jewish communities around the world. That is 'earthly' Israel. The Shlikhim preached first to Yisra'el, the Jews. [Read the book of Acts] The Yisra'el of Elohim [Gal. 6:16] "And upon those who follow this path be shalom and mercy; and upon the Yisra’el of Elohim be shalom and mercy."
--Galatim (Galatians) 6:16
is made up of JEWS AND gentiles who TRUST in Messiah.

Ephraim and Dan, the two 'leaders' in the Kingdom of Yisrael that was destroyed, have been FORGOTTEN. Why? Because in their cities, "Two Houses" of Israel were built, Temples that hvhy did NOT command, and they both mixed the worship of Yah with that of idols; they set GOLDEN CALFS in these two temples, one in the territory of Dan, and one in the territory of Ephraim, and they each called this calf hvhy ! They will never be brought back in! The tribes listed in Revelation 7, "4And I heard the number of those who were sealed; and it was a hundred and forty and four thousand, of all the tribes of the children of Yisra’el. 5Of the tribe of Y'hudah were sealed twelve thousand; of the tribe of Re’uven, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Gad, twelve thousand; 6of the tribe of Asher, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Naftali, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Menasheh, twelve thousand; 7Of the tribe of Shimon, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Issakhar, twelve thousand; 8of the tribe of Zevulun, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Yosef, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Benyamin, twelve thousand."
--Hitgalut (Revelation) 7:4-8
ALREADY in the Land during the tribulation, DO NOT include Ephraim and Dan! Why would ANYONE want to claim to be part of these tribes, and hinge their station in Yah's kingdom on it? Interestingly, these are the two tribes "two-housers" claim genetic attachment to the most!

Several leaders in this congregation are genetically from the tribe of Yehuda/Jewish, as are many congregants. Nothing Anti-Semitic will be accepted, and Ephraimite/Two House theory, at its root and by many of its progenitors, can tend toward anti-Semitism and 'replacement theology'. Any notion that presumes arbitrary, modern "Ephraimites" should wrest the promises and/or the land from Israel is strongly opposed by the congregation. Any divisive spirit that derides the place of Judah in the land or as the leader in the Kingdom will be opposed. The sin of Ephraim was his opposition to Judah as the royal line and owner of the land of the House of Elohim.

One scripture that is used to support the "Two House/Two Stick, Ephraimite Israel" idea is this: "But He [Yeshua] answered and said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Yisra'el"." [Matt. 15:24] "And He answered and said to them, 'I am not sent except to the sheep which went astray from the House of Yisra’el.' "
--Matti (Matthew) 15:24
[Matt 15:24] The assertion is that these lost sheep are the scattered Northern Tribes, the "Ten Lost Tribes", that since they were the "House of Israel", that is who Yeshua came to save. The idea is extended to mean that those who have become believers, who are predominantly European, western Europeans like the British, the Danes, the Scots, the Irish, et cetera, are the lost sheep of Yisra'el, the scattered northern tribes now "found", and it is proven by their salvation, earning their salvation partly because of their supposed but ficiticious genetic inheritance. This is simply not true. Proponents of this interpretation forget that just a few chapters before, Yeshua told His Talmidim this: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, nor into any city of the Samaritans do not enter, but rather go to the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF YISRA'EL". [Matt. 10:6] "But above all, go to the sheep which are lost from the house of Yisra’el."
--Matti (Matthew) 10:6
Analysis of the gospels and the book of Acts shows us that they ministered only in Judea [JEW-DEA], to the Jews of His time, and NOT to the Samaritans, who were KNOWN descendants of the northern scattered tribes. Further, they were forbidden to go to the "Gentiles", or the "goyim" at this point. Yeshua brought Salvation to the JEW first! And He called THEM the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisra'el.

Once again, Bat-Tzion does not take issue with the fact that the northern tribes were scattered. What we take issue with is the assertion that one is a genetic descendant of Yisra'el, and that hvhy saved them because they are sons of Avraham. No. "Know therefore that they who are of the faith, they are the Children of Avraham." [Gal. 3:6-7] "Just as Avraham trusted Elohim, and it was accounted to him for tzedaka, you must know therefore that those who trust, in faith, are the children of Avraham."
--Galatim (Galatians) 3:6-7
THAT is the Yisra'el of Elohim. [Gal. 6:16] "And upon those who follow this path be shalom and mercy; and upon the Yisra’el of Elohim be shalom and mercy."
--Galatim (Galatians) 6:16
We are all sons of Avraham BECAUSE HE SAVED US. Regardless of genetic makeup! "For the real Jew is not a Jew outwardly [by genetics or behavior] ...on the contrary, the REAL JEW is one inwardly." [Rom. 2:29] "But a real Y’hudi is one who is inwardly so, and circumcision is of the heart, spiritually and not literally; whose praise is not from men but from Elohim."
--Romim (Romans) 2:29

Those who promote this doctrine insist that Ephraim is to be "the fullness of the gentiles." First, this was fulfilled in the time of Joshua, when Ephraim outgrew the land of their tribal inheritance. [Read the book of Joshua] Second, "goyim" does not mean "gentiles", it simply means "nations". To imply that this means they would be the numerous sons of Great Britain or other European nations is called "eisegesis", ...the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.
Wikipedia: Eisegesis
writing into the text something that is not there. This simply means that they would be "fruitful", which is what Ephraim means. They were very fruitful. But, then, all of Israel was told that if they disobeyed and were cast out of the land, they would be FEW IN NUMBER when they return! hvhy says this twice in the Torah. [see document linked below for details].

It is further asserted that the parable of the prodigal son is the "Two House" story. This cannot be. First, in the parable, the son who leaves his Father's house does so in good standing, with his Father's blessing. Proponents of Two House theology insist that this son represents Ephraim/Israel, the northern kingdom. This was not so of the northern tribes. They were driven out by their Father at the hand of the Assyrians for their extreme disobedience. They did not ask to leave with His blessing, and they did not take their wealth with them! They left as slaves, in abject poverty, subservient instantly to their overlords. The Father told them He would forget them! Second, the parable shows that the son who stayed never left home, but perpetually enjoyed his Father's blessings up to the day the prodigal returned! Two-House proponents insist this is "Judah". This is not true of Judah/Jews: they, too, were driven out of the Land by their Father, and have been in great distress throughout the ages, until now. And they still have not returned to their Father en masse. So, this is a serious infraction against the meaning of this story, a twist on it, in fact, and a deceitful one.

Another example of poor academic analysis offered by promoters of this doctrine is the assertion that the origin of the word "Saxon" derives from a conjoining of "Isaac's Sons". For those who do not understand linguistics and etymology, this is an easy seguay into error. They do this with many words that have coincidental similarity, because they are not linguistic experts, and it is convenient to support their assertions this way. Those who do not study linguistics fall prey to this trickery. Below is the actual etymology [origin] of the word "Saxon":

Saxon c.1300, from L.L. Saxonem (nom. Saxo), usually found in pl. Saxones, from P.Gmc. *sakhsan (cf. O.E. Seaxe, O.H.G. Sahsun, Ger. Sachse "Saxon"), with a possible literal sense of "swordsmen" (cf. O.E. seax, O.Fris., O.N. sax "knife, short sword, dagger," perhaps ult. from PIE root of saw (1)). The word figures in the well-known story, related by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who got it from Nennius, of the treacherous slaughter by the Anglo-Saxons of their British hosts: "Accordingly they all met at the time and place appointed, and began to treat of peace; and when a fit opportunity offered for executing his villany, Hengist cried out, "Nemet oure Saxas," and the same instant seized Vortigern, and held him by his cloak. The Saxons, upon the signal given, drew their daggers, and falling upon the princes, who little suspected any such design, assassinated them to the number of four hundred and sixty barons and consuls ...." OED helpfully points out that the correct O.E. (with an uninflected plural) would be nimað eowre seax. For other national names that may have derived from characteristic tribal weapons, cf. Frank, Lombard. Still in 20c. used by Celtic speakers to mean "an Englishman." In ref. to the modern Ger. state of Saxony (Ger. Sachsen, Fr. Saxe) it is attested from 1634. Saxon is the source of the -sex in Essex, Sussex, etc. (cf. Middlesex, from O.E. Middel-Seaxe "Middle Saxons"). Bede distinguished the Anglo-Saxons, who conquered much of southern Britain, from the Eealdesaxe "Old Saxons," who stayed in Germany.

The original words, which were first used to represent this people group, then, were Seaxe, Sahsun, and Sachse, and they all are rooted in hand tools/weapons, and not genealogy or patrilineal sequence, and have absolutely NO linguistic tie to Hebrew's "B'ney Yitzkhak", the Hebrew for "Isaac's Sons". The modern word "saxon" has changed from its origin, drastically, and bears little similarity in phonetics to the original forms of the word, nor to any Hebrew word or English words for "Isaac's Sons". The same kind of trickery is used on the term "Britain", since it bears coincidental similarity to "brit", or "covenant". Yet the etymology of "Britain" shows no relationship to Hebrew, and no similarity to "Covenant". Similarly, assertions are made that the Danes are the missing "Danites" from scripture. Since the northern kingdom of Israel was not scattered until 700BC, this is impossible, given that Denmark was settled in 3900 BC! [Nielsen, Poul Otto (May 2003). "Denmark: History, Prehistory". Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs]. The original syllable in "Danmark" likely comes from tenne, meaning "flatland", or other geographic references, and not "judge", as the Hebrew syllable connotes. These and many other such irresponsible, unacademic, even deceptive assertions leave many of the promoters of this doctrine suspect, at best.

The scriptures clearly indicate that the northern tribes went East into territories known to be in Iran, and further east, and were forgotten. The "Lost Sheep" of the House of Yisra'el were those in Israel in His day who had been misled by their "shepherds"/"pastors", as YirmiYahu said of JUDAH. [Jer 50:6, a prophet to the SOUTHERN KINGDOM]. It had nothing to do with geography, nor the ten northern tribes, but everything to do with deception and error.

Bat-Tzion welcomes anyone who trusts one day that Yeshua will return all Israel to the land and save all Israel, but does not hold to the current physical manifestation or "revelation" of Ephraim in our day by those who are being 'saved' because of their mysterious, hidden genetic inheritance, which cannot be proven at all. Again, we are NOT saved because we are Yisra'el, we are Yisra'el because we are saved, and our genes have NO PLACE in that determination.

For detailed analysis of SCRIPTURE on this issue, please read: The Two Houses Theory and the Scriptures

Sacred Name/Yeshua’s Name

Sacred Name/Yeshua’s Name pronunciation privilege – that there is a 'revealed' pronunciation of either the Name hvhy , or of Yeshua, that precludes anyone else’s pronunciation.

Bat-Tzion does declare the Name hvhy , as instructed in scripture. And, Bat-Tzion does believe that Yeshua’s name is important, and therefore important to His identity. But, there is no one on earth whose argument over how hvhy is pronounced is any more compelling than the next to the degree that it should divide believers. Neither is there any pronunciation of either of those names that means that if one does not confess the NAME in THAT particular, special pronunciation, then that one is not saved/righteous.

The name hvhy has been shown to be pronounced "Yahu'ah" since times of antiquity. The Name Yeshua is rampant throughout the Aramaic text, the primary text of New Testament study for Bat-Tzion. There is almost zero room for any variation when tracing from the Aramaic, the sister language of Hebrew. At times, the Aramaic form of Yeshua was used in Hebrew portions of the Tanak in order to express the Hebrew equivalent name, Yehoshua. The Masoretes recorded the pronunciation of Hebrew in a voweling system LONG USED in Hebrew synagogues all the way back in the 6th century A.D. There is no reason to believe the language had changed that much at all. Modern Hebrew agrees with these pronunciations, and too many scholars have agreed. See the file: "You Shall Call His Name Yeshua" .

Bat-Tzion cherishes both of these Names, but will not be put under condemnation for not pronouncing them with any special group of people who claim to have the divinely revealed pronunciation. Several groups who have espoused any variant of this doctrine have turned into cults, with a single 'prophet' at the top who claims to have a seat next to Yah’s throne, and special communicative power with the Father no one else has. Not all who follow these pronunciation doctrines have gone that way, but the potential is certainly there.

Bat-Tzion calls the Father hvhy , and the Son “Yeshua”. In speaking The Name in conversation, we say only Yah, as in Psalm 94:12, but in sacred context of prayer and worship, and ministry, we declare the name hvhy . For more on our understanding of the Name, please read: "The Name"

The Yom Kippur Fast

The Yom Kippur Fast is not commanded – that the command to "afflict your souls" does not mean to fast as the "Jews" do, but simply to be 'serious' on Yom Kippur.

There is a trend in some of the 'two-house' leaning circles in Messianic “Judaism” that says we should not 'fast' on Yom Kippur, because that is what Jews do, and the word in Leviticus 23 does not say 'fast', but 'afflict', which only means to humble oneself. On the surface, this doctrine sounds lofty, sounds 'holy', and sounds like an honest attempt to get to truth. Unfortunately, this is rooted in lack of scholarship, and in anti-Semitism, and the hatred/mistrust of all doctrines of Jews, just because they are “Jewish.” They forget that Yeshua showed up and worked within the framework of 1st Century "Jew"daism during His ministry, and would not violate its 'customs' unless those customs violated the Torah.

Yeshua kept the Jewish customs, the ones that did not contravene Torah. The custom of fasting is less a custom and more a command, though to us who are so far removed from the word 'afflict', we do not see that “anah”, conjugated as “anitem et nafshoteikhem”, actually does mean to fast, and scripture proves it. We assume sometimes that “Strong’s Concordance”, a lexicon published in AD 1890 by a Methodist protestant, is the 'authoritative source' on Hebrew. That is a DANGEROUS assumption, and discredits mountains of other Hebrew scholarship, and does NOT take into account what ancient JEWS used words for and how THEY understood them, including Yeshua.

Further, Stephen, Shaul, and the rest of the Shlikhim, were FALSELY accused of wanting to do away not only with Moshe [Torah], but with the CUSTOMS established in Yisrael. Pay attention: these were FALSE ACCUSATIONS!

"And they appointed false witnesses who said, 'This man does not cease to speak against the Torah and against this makom hakadosh; for we have heard him say that Yeshua HaNatzri shall destroy this place and shall change the customs which Moshe entrusted to you.' ” Acts 6:13-14 [Perek Version]

"And when they heard it, they glorified Elohim and said to Sha’ul, 'Our brother, see how many thousands there are in Y’huda who are believers, and they are all zealous for the Torah: but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Y’hudim who are among the Goyim to forsake the Torah of Moshe, stating that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to follow after the customs of the Torah. Now, therefore, they have heard that you have come here. Do, therefore, what we tell you. We have four men who have vowed to purify themselves; Take them and go purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; then everyone will know that what has been said against you is a lie, and that you yourself uphold the Torah and obey it.' " Acts 21:20-24 [PV]

We see here, then, that keeping the customs/traditions was part of keeping Torah, in the minds of TENS OF THOUSANDS of JEWS who believed in Yeshua! And Shaul did NOT repudiate them, but agreed with them. He also declared that he kept both the Torah and the CUSTOMS, years later when he was defending himself against the same accusations:

Then Sha’ul answered, “I have committed no offense against the Torah of the Y’hudim, or against the Temple, or against Caesar.” Acts 25:8 [PV]

"And after three days, Sha’ul sent and called the leaders of the Y’hudim; and when they were come together, he said to them, 'Men and my brethren, though I have done nothing against the people and the Torah of my fathers, yet I was delivered from Yerushalayim in bonds into the hands of the Romans, who, when they had examined me, would have released me, because they found in me no cause worthy of death. But as the Y’hudim stood against me, I was obliged to appeal to Caesar, not that I had anything of which to accuse my own people.' " Acts 28:17-19 [PV]

There is a lot to see in these two passages. First, that he did nothing against the “Temple”; the temples embodied many 'customs' that were not explicit in Torah, but that went hand in hand with Torah commands. You will see, one of these was fasting on Yom Kippur. Next, we see that, again, Shaul declares that he himself did nothing against the 'traditions'/customs of 'our fathers', the JEWS. He is defending his obedience to JEWISH CUSTOM, even AFTER he became a believer in Messiah Yeshua. Check the book of Acts from about chapter 13 through the end, and you will see Shaul keeping customs. One of them was Synagogue attendance on Shabbat. There is no direct command to go to a Synagogue. Why, then, do we see Yeshua, Kefa and the 11, Shaul, and many tens of thousands of Messianic Jews doing so? We can also see that in the Jewish mind, the death penalty was justified for breaking CUSTOMS. Not just commands; why? Because in their minds, the customs were 'how' to keep the commands. They were not separate. Again, the ones Yeshua opposed were the ones that replaced or prevented actually keeping the commands. The ones that supported the commands, those handed down from Moshe, He upheld, as did Shaul and all the Talmidim of Yeshua.

Now, to fasting on Yom Kippur itself, the command reads this way:

“Howbeit on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement [Yom HaKippurim]; there shall be a holy convocation unto you, and you shall afflict your souls [anitem et nafshoteikhem]; and you shall bring an offering made by fire unto hvhy .” Lev. 23:27

Those teaching that this does not mean fast assert that since a Methodist preacher decided it only means “afflict”, they can discard the rest of scripture concerning the Hebrew use of this word and ignore the “custom” of fasting on Yom Kippur. That is a DANGEROUS day to tinker with! Ezra shows us how this word means to fast.

“Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river of Ahava, that we might afflict ourselves before Eloheinu, to seek of Him a right way for us, and for our little ones, and for all our substance.” Ezra 8:21

The word for 'fast' here is “tzom”, which is the root word for 'abstaining from food', lest there be any doubt about what Ezra is recording. It is followed by the phrase, “L’hitanot lifnei Eloheinu”, or “afflict ourselves before Eloheinu”. So, the fasting was done for the purpose of 'afflicting'. Indeed, Biblical 'affliction' is 'hunger', and this is seen in many hundreds of uses of the word in the Tanak.

Let’s make sure this holds up with more than one witness, however:

“But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into my own bosom.” Psalm 35:13
“And if you draw out your soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall your light rise in obscurity, and your darkness be as the noonday..” YeshaYahu (Isaiah) 58:10
“In those days I Daniel was mourning three whole weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled…. Then said he unto me: 'Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that you did set your heart to understand and to afflict yourself before Eloheikha, your words were heard…’” Daniel 10:2-3, 12
“Blow the shofar in Tzion, sanctify the fast, call a solemn assembly…” Yoel 2:15

So, we now have four scriptural witnesses that clearly show us that in many cases the word 'anah' is used to indicate that FASTING is the “how” we do the 'afflicting/humbling'. In Yoel, this is the second shofar of the fall season, and the 'fast' is accompanied with the assembly of weeping and supplication, and this has long been seen by Jews as Yom Kippur, the Great Shofar. This was NOT a later “Jewish” concept, but a deeply rooted Torah concept. Moshe taught the Jews this, that 'afflict' in the context of Yom Kippur meant 'fast', and the prophets echoed it. It is not a “Jewish”, Talmudic custom, as many in so-called “Messianic” circles are now teaching.

This is further born out in the Mishnah, a document that was compiled in the late 2nd/early 3rd century. The Mishnah is the writing down of the orally taught 'customs' that were used in the Temple during the Second Temple period. Messiah Yeshua went to that Temple to observe the customs, and to show how those customs pointed to Himself. The customs of our Jewish people are very, very important. The Mishnah is NOT the Talmud. These were the students of people like Gamliel in the Brit Khadasha, who wrote down their teachings about Temple service one generation after they passed. It is the closest we can get to understanding ‘how’ they did things.

In the Mishnah, in Tractate Yoma, which explains how Yom Kippur was conducted in the Temple by the priesthood, we see very clearly that the 1st century JEWS observed a FAST in order to AFFLICT their souls before Elohim as commanded. [Yisrael was made up primarily of the tribes of Judah [JEWdah], Benjamin, and Levi, but small remnants of all the other tribes as well, and they were all called JEWS/YISRAELIS interchangeably. Two-housers can’t wrap their head around that, and it thwarts their doctrine]

In “Perek 4” (Chapter 4) of the Yoma Tractate, we read:

“But this day he scooped them out with a gold one [and was not required to empty one to the other] and with it he would bring it in [and offer it, thus conserving energy for the High Priest on this fast day]. On all other days he would….”

Here, we learn that on Yom Kippur, the High Priest is fasting, and his duty with the ashes is modified to accommodate his fast. This is the first mention in this tractate of the fast. In other words, there must have been a common understanding in Yisra’el that they fasted, that the Mishnah did not need to explain what “anitem nafshoteikhem”/afflict your souls meant! It was simply stated as a matter of fact that the High Priest was fasting that day!

We see this same defacto understanding in Perek 6, where we read:

“At each booth they would say to him, here is food and water, not that it ever happened that one needed to break his fast, rather, it was a comfort for the person to know that it was there, if needed.”

This is describing the journey of the escort for Azazel, the 'goat for Azazel' [known incorrectly as the “scapegoat”]. This escort was offered food, but no escort EVER took it! This is on Yom Kippur, when he is escorting Azazel to the cliff. This also shows us that there was a 'defacto' understanding that everyone fasted on Yom Kippur, not just the High Priest.

Then, in Perek 8 we read:

“since the Torah states regarding Yom Kippur, “You must afflict yourselves”, one consuming less than the bulk of a large date including its pit does not alleviate the affliction of fasting…”

Here, we are reading how fasting applies to ALL YISRAEL, and how it is EQUATED with ‘anah’, or “affliction”/”humbling” oneself. Again, the command for one to fast is never mentioned, but it is treated as if everyone in Yisrael understood it this way, and it is showing some mercy on the part of Elohim and Moshe, saying that food the size of a date’s bulk is permitted in emergencies!

Again, Yeshua adhered to these customs, all the Shlikhim [Apostles] did, suffering and dying in never 'admitting' to the lies that they violated Torah AND Customs, and the biblical proof that 'anitem et nafshoteikhem' actually means 'fast' is more than sufficient. There are many, many other scriptures where 'anah/afflict' is used in the context of HUNGER. Those teaching that Yom Kippur is NOT a fast are in serious error. It is NO SURPRISE to us that this doctrine is coming from TWO HOUSERS.

Our congregational Halakha on Yom Kippur is that WE FAST IN HUMILITY on that day. “How can two [or more] walk [share halakha, halakha meaning 'your walk' ] TOGETHER, unless they are in agreement?” If you’re 'walking' with those who teach this and other doctrines, please prayerfully consider the wisdom of the Prophets instead.

Like...

Trinity

Trinity – that there is a “god-head” made up of three separate 'persons', who share a “body”.

Trinity: Definition and Etymology of the word:
"a group of three"
"the state of being threefold or triple"
from Latin 'trinitatem' for triad, three.

The first, "official" religious definition of "God" the creator as a "Trinity": Nicea, described "Christ" as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father", 325AD

The bishops were forced by Constantine to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture. They were compelled by an emperor who was not a believer, in fear of the loss of their lives, to "sign on" to this new doctrine.

It is the word 'substance' with which we take umbrage.

The Latin for 'one substance' is homoousios. "Consubstantial," meaning they share the same 'makeup,' 'essence', body, etc.

We differ on this, because Yeshua is a resurrected HUMAN BEING who had been born of flesh, but, having the divine "NATURE" of Elohim, and not the sinful 'nature' of Adam. That is what makes Him different from every other human being.

The Catholic church LATER changed the 'status' of the 'Holy Spirit' [Ruakh HaKodesh] from being the Power and Presence of Elohim, to being a separate male person, even though the Ruakh in Hebrew is treated as feminine in Hebrew grammar. This is not a 'gender,' but an expression of the nature of the Ruakh: life-giving and nurturing. The official trinity defines the "Holy Spirit" as a male PERSON the same as the Father and The Son, "separate but equal to" them, having 'his' own thoughts. No. The Ruakh expresses the thoughts of the Father, and of Yeshua, who always agree. Though English translations say 'He will lead you and guide you," concerning the Ruakh, the Aramaic [Hebrew] reads IT will lead you and guide you, which could easily be seen as 'SHE will lead you and guide you', as the articles that describe the Ruakh are feminine too... nonetheless, it is definitely not a "He", as in a separate male person,which is what the catholic 'trinity' demands we believe. Trinitarian doctrine teaches that the Spirit is to be worshiped; NOWHERE does scripture instruct us to worship the Ruakh. We are to worship the Father, with the Son, through the Ruakh, but we are NOT to worship the Ruakh.

The Ruakh emanates from the Father, and is not separate from Him at all. It is His Ruakh. The Hebrew word means "Breath." Breath comes out of and goes back into living beings continuously, and we are created in fashion after Him. His 'breath' carries His Word, just as our breath carries our words. His Word is LIFE and LIGHT, which emanates out of the Father through the power of the Ruakh.

The Father is spirit, but is also corporeal, having a form, a spiritual 'body.' We see that we are created in His 'tzelem', or 'image/outline/shadow', and also in his 'd'mut', or 'character'/to be like Him. We see His 'form' in the garden, walking with Adam in the cool of the day. We see His form at the mountain, where the elders saw His feet. We see Him again from the cleft, where He showed Moshe His Glory, not willing to show him His face. He has a head and face, therefore; WALKING by [having legs and feet], picking Moshe up [having arms and hands], and showing him His back. We see His form in the Hitgalut/Revelation, where He is seen sitting on the throne, having a scroll in His right hand.

Yeshua is the D'var, the WORD, which emanates from the Father in the power of the Ruakh. He is eternal. He is the Father's Son. He belongs to the Father. Before He became "A Body," [flesh] however, He was only in His Father. When He was here, He said "My Father is with me." "I proceeded forth and came OUT OF my Father." Before He became a man, He manifested in many 'forms' and 'ways' [Hebrews 1:1]: "From of old Elohim spoke to our fathers by the Nevi'im in many forms and in many ways; and in these Akharit HaYamim He has spoken to us by His Son, ...."
--Ivrim (Hebrews) 1:1
To Avraham at Mamre as a Malakh; to Ya'akov at Beit El as a malakh; to Moshe in the bush, as the Malakh hvhy ; to Manoah as the Malakh hvhy , to Shmu'el as the Malakh hvhy in the DAVAR, To Shadrakh Meshakh, Abednego and Nebukhadnezzar as The Son of God, and many, many times to the Prophets as THE WORD of hvhy .

These were temporary manifestations of the SON of Elohim, before He became the Son [Psalm 2: "I will proclaim the decree: hvhy has said, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'" This is a prophecy concerning the birth of Yeshua.] He has now PERMANENTLY manifested in a HUMAN BODY as the Son: "The WORD became a BODY and lived among us..." [John 1:14] "And the Word became a Body and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, a glory like that of the first-born of The Father, full of compassion and truth."
--Yokhanan (John) 1:14

Yeshua is, therefore, the Son, begotten of Elohim, therefore Elohim 'reproduced' or 'spiritually procreated' His Nature in His Son, Yeshua, A MAN. He is STILL a MAN, though having been raised from the dead. Yeshua is both DIVINE AND human. He died. God cannot die, but Yeshua's HUMAN body died. His HUMAN soul went into Sheol. [Psalm 16, Acts 2] His Father, the Almighty RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD.

Yeshua has now been GIVEN all power and authority. If He had always been 'Very God of Very God," then "God" would not have had to give Him anything. Yet this is what we read. And, He does not know all that His Father knows, since He Himself does not know the time of His return. "Only my Father knows." He will return all things to His Father in the End, He is subject to His Father, in obedience. He NOW stands at the Right Hand of His Father, and the Father gives the Ruakh to those who trust, through His Son. Yeshua is the commonality between God and Man. He is not "God" BY HIMSELF, but stands equal with God, because His Father is pleased with Him, and hence has exalted Him, and given Him His Name.

This is what the plain meaning of the texts teach.

Trinitarian 'logic' goes far beyond scripture, defines NEW terms that are not in scripture, and completely ignores the greatest commandment, according to Yeshua the Son:

"Shema, Yisra'el, hvhy is our Elohim, hvhy is ONE."

The Father is hvhy ; His son is Yeshua, who has also been given the Name hvhy ; the Ruakh is His LIFE/BREATH, emanating out of the Father, through Yeshua the Son, to us. ONE ELOHIM, manifesting in the Son and the Ruakh. That the Ruakh is not a 'person' is obvious, since it 'burns' before the throne in SEVEN Lights of a Menorah. [Revelation 4:5] "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings, and thunderings, and noises; and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Rukhot of Elohim."
--Hitgalut (Revelation) 4:5

There are NOT "three gods" in "one substance," which is what the catholic trinity demands, but ONE GOD manifesting permanently in His Son, who manifests to us by His Ruakh, as this is what HE has chosen to do. He could be WHATEVER HE WANTS: "Eyeh Asher Eyeh", "I will be whatever I will be." [Exodus 3]. But HE said "I am hvhy ." He first sent His Son, a manifestation of His Nature, and then sent His own Breath/Ruakh through that Son. But, He has never been more than ONE.

Most Christians teach a “trinity”, which is a holdover from the worship of Mithras, a trinity, whom Constantine continued to worship and incorporated into Christianity at the council of Nicea.

We have shown that the council of Nicea declared the Father and the Son to be “of the same 'substance' ”, or corporeally the same, which denies the Son of His resurrected flesh and bone, or, makes the Father 'substantially' flesh and bone and not spirit. The Son of G-d, Yeshua, declared “I came out of Elohim, and now I have arrived here. I did NOT come on my own: HE SENT ME”. John 8:42] "Yeshua said to them, 'If Elohim were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and came out from Elohim; I did not come of my own accord, but He sent me.' "
--Yokhanan (John) 8:42
He was “IN Elohim” in the beginning. [John 1:1-2, "1In the beginning was HaDavar, and that very Word, He was in Elohim, and Elohim was He, the Word. 2The same was in the beginning with Elohim."
--Yokhanan (John) 1:1-2
John 8:42] "Yeshua said to them, 'If Elohim were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and came out from Elohim; I did not come of my own accord, but He sent me.' "
--Yokhanan (John) 8:42
And the Father was IN HIM while He was here, “The ONE who SENT me is still with me”. [John 8:29] "And He who sent me is with me; and My Father has never left me alone, because I always do what pleases Him."
--Yokhanan (John) 8:29

Because the catholic trinity is so misunderstood and has so many variant understandings among protestants, many of whom confess they do not 'understand it,' we DO welcome 'trinitarians' into the congregation, unless they make issue of this. We DO NOT accept Trinitarians who accuse us of being “un-saved” for not agreeing with this doctrine of man, and we DO NOT accept those who attempt to “convert” us to this doctrine, outside of honest scriptural based questions and interpretations. But, our confession must come from scripture ALONE, and not Socratic logic and extra-biblical terms and definitions that are necessary in order to 'understand and accept' this subtle form of paganism. ['trinity' is a pagan concept that goes back to ancient Bavel and the scattering of the nations. The 'dates'/'seasons' of the worship of this trinity were imposed by Constantine at the same time as this doctrine, changing the feasts and the Torah.] Come let us search the scriptures daily to see whether these things are so. Usually, when a courageous, serious look is taken into the doctrine, the magic “I believe” button most had to push in order to accept the doctrine is easily released, realizing there is no support for the Trinity doctrine in scripture.

Bat-Tzion agrees with the great command as declared by Yeshua the Messiah, the Son of Elohim:

“HEAR, O Israel! hvhy is our Elohim, hvhy is ONE!”

[Mark 12:29, "Yeshua said to him, “The first of all the mitzvot is, ‘Shema, Yisra’el, hvhy Eloheinu, hvhy Ekhad! [Hear O Yisra’el, hvhy is our Elohim, hvhy is One].' ” "
--Yokhanan-Markos ([John- ] Mark) 12:29
Deut 6:4]

Tongues

Public use of “tongues” – that “tongues” is the only sign/ or the one 'necessary' sign of the presence of the Ruakh HaKodesh, that it can be given to another by man, and/or that it must manifest in every congregational setting.

Bat-Tzion believes in the several powers of the Ruakh HaKodesh, and that they are for the Kahal [congregation] today. However, this one manifestation is misused and abused, and completely misunderstood in some cases, and in many cases, simply forged.

It is the Father’s decision to empower the believer, converted “sons of the Most High”, with His Power. [1st Cor 12:11] "But all of these gifts are wrought in that one and the same Ruakh, dividing to every one severally as it will."
--Korinti’im Alef (1st Corinthians) 12:11
He has given us the ability to discern when and when not to move in that power. [1st Cor 14:32] "For the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."
--Korinti’im Alef (1st Corinthians) 14:32
This particular ability, “tongues” is a private enabling of the power of the Ruakh HaKodesh, which is NOT to be used in public settings, UNLESS there is a KNOWN INTERPRETER, or someone KNOWN to have the power of interpretation of languages, which, oddly, is a power that is not widely recognized or employed.

He does NOT give the SAME abilities to everyone in the SAME WAY. He gives SOME to prophesy, some to teach, and SOME to speak in other languages [1st Cor 12:8-10]. "8For to one is given in The Ruakh the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge in the same Ruakh. 9To another faith in the same Ruakh; to another gifts of healing in the same Ruakh; 10to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the means to discern spirits; to another, different languages; to another, the interpretation of languages."
--Korinti’im Alef (1st Corinthians) 8:10
Notice that the 3,000 who were immersed on Shavuot did not all speak in other languages! [Acts 2:6-8] "6And as the sound took place, all the people gathered together, and they were confused because every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed, and marveled, saying one to another, 'Behold, are not all these who speak from the Galil? 8How is it that we hear every man in our own native language?' "
--Ma’asei HaShlikhim (Acts [of] The Apostles) 2:6-8
Only the original five hundred or so did, and it was TO SAVE THE 3,000! Tongues, in a public setting, is for the UNBELIEVER! [1st Cor 14:22]. "Thus, the gift of languages is instituted as a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers; but prophesying is meant, not for those who do not believe, but for those who believe."
--Korinti’im Alef (1st Corinthians) 14:22

Much of what is considered “tongues” in the various congregations is nothing more than syllabic nonsense, not inspired/given by the Ruakh HaKodesh. [1st Cor 14:9-11] "9Even so you, except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what you say? You shall speak as into the air. 10For, behold, there are many kinds of languages in the world, yet none of them without meaning. 11So if I do not understand the utterance, I shall be as a barbarian to the speaker, and the speaker shall be as a barbarian to me."
--Korinti’im Alef (1st Corinthians) 14:9-11
Biblical “tongues” are LANGUAGES that are coherent, and spoken on earth for MEN to understand. If Elohim gives a person the use of a language unknown to himself, whether in the presence of men or messengers of heaven, it is for PRIVATE use [1st Cor 14:2,4], "2For he who speaks in an unknown language speaks not to men, but to Elohim; for no man understands what he says; however, through The Ruakh he speaks mysteries. 4He who speaks in an unknown language edifies himself; but he who prophesies edifies the congregation."
--Korinti’im Alef (1st Corinthians) 14:2,4
and only Yah understands it.

Bat-Tzion welcomes the power of the Ruakh, but not indiscriminately, where things are out of order, but that what is done is done for the edification of the Body, and not the spiritual 'glorification' of would-be prophets. We are praying that IF anyone indeed has a message for our Kahal in another language, that there will be an interpreter of that message, and that it will be the POWER of Elohim, and not the fanciful wishes of men conjuring an incoherent, horoscope-style promise of spiritual cake and ice-cream. When Elohim speaks, it is FEARFUL.

Miracle Healings

Miracle services/healing ministry – that the Kahal can at any time decide to have a 'miracle service', invite Jesus, and He will come and heal anyone who is sick.

Bat-Tzion believes in the power of the Messiah to heal. Many in our congregation have been healed miraculously by Messiah. Bat-Tzion prays DAILY for the health of its Body, and on Shabbat prays for an hour, much of it beseeching Yah through the scriptures [Psalm 6, 33, 40, 88, 103] for Him to heal His people. And, our Kahal has reaped the benefit of those prayers. But, Messiah healed only those whom HIS FATHER TOLD HIM TO.

If the Father did not compel Yeshua the Son to heal EVERYONE in Israel when He was bodily present on earth, He will neither do so today. Not everyone is healed who is a believer and gets sick. Not everyone who is a believer is guaranteed not ever to get sick. The sad truth is, some of us will suffer.

Bat-Tzion’s elders pray corporately for members of the Body when those members ASK. “Is any among you sick? Let HIM CALL for the elders of the Kahal; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of hvhy .” In James 5:14, "And if any is sick, let him call for the Z'kenim of the congregation, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of Adoneinu Yeshua: ...."
--Ya'akov (James) 5:14
notice that it is the sick person who should call for the elders. Therein is faith.

Bat-Tzion does not hold a prayer service every time the doors are open, begging Yah to manifest in some miraculous way. But we are in continual prayer for the sick in our Body, even after congregational meetings. The communion is a healing process, and healing may occur at times simply during Shabbat worship, because He is there. But it is His decision. If two of us gather as He would have us gather, He IS there. What He does, however, is up to Him.

Yeshua did not often “pray” for healing. In fact, He never did, according to the gospels. Many times, He only stated that “YOUR FAITH has made you whole”. A plea from someone who WANTED healing was made because the sick “saw” Him, and believed He WOULD heal them. Interestingly, those who called Him Rabbi [teacher] were healed by His touch. Those who called Him Adon [Master] He would speak to and heal. But those who called Him hvhy Son of Elohim, or Messiah, THEIR FAITH HEALED THEM even from great distances. The onus is on the sick, and on the Father. We are only vessels who can pray when asked. He is the healer. Bat-Tzion, again, is praying for the various powers of the Ruakh, of which healing is one.

Calvinism

Calvinism of any variation – that there is a special subgroup of hand-picked people who merit salvation for some mysterious, unknown reason, while others are predestined to die a death in hell, and could not possibly be saved from that destruction.

Bat-Tzion believes in predestination, but that the predestination spoken of in scripture is a direct result of the foreknowledge of hvhy , who is NOT confined by time, but “Who WAS, and who IS, and who WILL BE”. “Because He FOREKNEW US, He therefore predestined us”. [Rom. 8:29]. "He knew them in advance and He marked them with the likeness of the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren."
--Romim (Romans) 8:29

hvhy set HIS PATH in our place because He knows His Children, so He gave them who accept His Will the ability to become all to which they aspire. But, He has given EVERY MAN the opportunity to become His child. The Messiah died “not only for our sins, but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD”.

Elohim has given the human mind the power of choice; and He did this to confound the enemy, HaSatan, who CHOSE to defy TRUTH. When we hear the “Good News” about the Kingdom of Elohim and RECEIVE it by FAITH, the Spirit enables us to move in that predestined path, the Torah of righteousness, the 'image' of His Son.

Yeshua came to save the WORLD. He has ALL POWER, but the will of man will condemn man, not Elohim [John 3:19-21]. "...19And this is the judgment: that light has come into the world, and yet men have loved darkness more than light, because their works were evil. 20For every one who does hateful things hates the light, and he does not come to the light, because his works cannot be covered. 21But he who does truthful things comes to the light, so that his works may be known, that they are done through Elohim."
--Yokhanan (John) 3:19-21
He “desires” all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). "...who desires all men to be saved and to return to the knowledge of the truth."
--Timoteus Alef (1st Timothy) 2:4

If he desires all men to be saved AND He has all power, how is it that all men are not saved if Calvinism is true? Calvinism requires accepting statements that are clear contradictions, such as “we have not means to go to God ourselves, either by choosing or by good works” AND “we do choose to accept His amazing gift of grace.” In an attempt to obscure such obvious contradictions, additional terms are defined such as irresistible grace, special grace, enabling grace, sufficient grace, efficacious grace, etc., that are not defined in scripture.

Passover or Chagigah

A new teaching, or more accurately an old teaching that has resurfaced, has been circulating around the Messianic community lately. The teaching claims Messiah’s Pesakh with His Talmidim was not an actual Pesakh, but a “Chagigah” sacrifice occurring the evening before Pesakh.

This teaching appears to be another attempt to reconcile the timing of Pesakh with that of the Rabbis of today and the Pharisees of the 1st century. This error is seen in Yokhanan 18:28

“Then they brought Yeshua from Kayapa to the Praetorium; and it was morning; and they did not enter into the Praetorium, so that they might not be defiled before they ate the Pesakh.”

We at Bat-Tzion believe the Pesakh offering is commanded to be at the beginning of the 14th day of the first month, not at the end of the 14th day. For a detailed explanation of why we believe this way, please refer to our teaching “Reckoning Pesakh” which can be found at www.battzion.org .

The claim in regard to the Chagigah offering is that it was an offering in the first century customarily held between 1 and 4 days before Pesakh and which was occasionally even referred to as a Pesakh offering.

The first proof which proponents of this teaching give is that the Chagigah offering is described in the Mishna. However, upon further investigation you see that the Chagigah section talks only of the offerings concerning the chagim (festivals). While it does discuss different aspects of the festal-offerings, festival-offerings and pilgrimage-offerings, it never mentions that any of these offerings are made 1-4 days before Pesakh, nor does it EVER refer to any other offerings as “a Pesakh offering”.

Based on the Mishna, even the definition of the pilgrimage-offerings are different between the different sects of Judaism.

Abaye said: Beth Shammai and R. Eleazar and R. Ishmael are all of the opinion that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was a pilgrimage-offering. And Beth Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilean are all of the opinion that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the ‘continual burnt-offering’. (Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 6a)

Notice that even those who believed these were not the continual burnt offerings just believed they were offerings given to appear before Elohim at the temple during the three pilgrimage feasts.

The festal and festival offerings refer to the actual Pesakh offering and the other offerings commanded during Khag HaMatzot (the festival of unleavened bread) respectively, which are listed in BaMidbar (Numbers) 28:16-25

16And in the first khodesh, on the fourteenth day of the khodesh, is the Pesakh of hvhy . 17 And on the fifteenth day of this khodesh shall be a Moed; seven days shall Matzot be eaten. 18In the first day shall be a Mikrah Kodesh; you shall do no manner of servile work; 19but you shall present an offering made by fire, an Olah unto hvhy : two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven he-lambs of the first year; they shall be unto you without blemish; 20and their Minkhah, fine flour mingled with oil; three tenth parts shall you offer for a bullock, and two tenth parts for the ram; 21a several tenth part shall you offer for every lamb of the seven lambs; 22and one he-goat for a Khatat, to make atonement for you. 23you shall offer these beside the Olah of the morning, which is for an Olah Tamid. 24After this manner you shall offer daily, for seven days, the food of the offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto hvhy ; it shall be offered beside the Olah Tamid, and the Nesekh thereof. 25And on the seventh day you shall have a Mikrah Kodesh; you shall do no manner of servile work.

There is no mention in the Mishna of any specific offering prior to the Pesakh offering, especially one that would have been partaken of outside of the Beit HaMikdash. It is only the Talmudic commentary of the Mishan that gives a date on any of these offerings, but notice that based on the Talmud itself, the festival-offering is to be brought AFTER the festal-offering (The Pesakh offering).

GEMARA: …And regarding the festal-offering of the first festival day of Passover, 29 Beth Shammai say: [It must be brought] from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money; but Beth Hillel say: [It can be brought] also from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money. Why is the festal-offering of the first festival day of Passover different? 30 — It comes to teach us this: Only the festival-offering of the fifteenth [of Nisan must be brought from animals bought with unconsecrated money] but not the festal-offering of the fourteenth [of Nisan].31 (Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 7b)

Notice this section is discussing the type of money that can be used to purchase each of the offerings, and only mentions the dates of the offerings, to differentiate between the two offerings being discussed.

So, to summarize, neither the Mishna nor the Talmud itself establishes any argument for the Pesakh that Yeshua had with His Talmidim to be anything other than what Messiah called it, a Pesakh seder.

The second claim is that this Chagigah offering came from Torah. The claim is that the commands concerning the Pesakh in Shemot differ from the commands concerning the Pesakh in D’varim and the conclusion is that the sacrifice commanded in D’varim is NOT the actual Pesakh sacrifice, but a Chagigah sacrifice that is also referred to as a Pesakh offering.

The differences listed between the two accounts are;

  1. The Shemot account prescribes a Passover ritual that takes place around the full moon (12:6); but in D’varim, the account says on the new moon (16:1).
  2. The Shemot account has the ritual near the officiant’s own home (12:3); D’varim is at a central location and not at one’s home (16:2, 5, 7).
  3. Shemot specifies a lamb or a goat (12:5), but D’varim offers a choice, either “from the flock (sheep or goat) or the herd (cattle)” (16:2).
  4. Shemot features a lamb or goat that is “wholly roasted,” boiling being explicitly prohibited (12:8); D’varim states that the meat should boiled (most translations render this roasted not boiled).

Any difference between the Passover instructions of Shemot and the Passover instructions of D’varim can be explained due to the fact that the first one was the actual event, while the second one is the memorial of the actual event. They wouldn’t necessarily be exactly the same. In fact, you wouldn’t want them to be exactly the same, because all of the first born in Shemot who didn’t participate in that Passover died.

Think about those who recreate famous battles as a “memorial” to the original. They make similar changes for practical reasons. The memorial is shorter, with less people, not with live ammunition, probably not in exactly the same place, and again, nobody dies.

As for point two above, regarding the different locations of where to observe Pesakh, the Shemot Pesakh was in Egypt, but the D’varim Pesakh states “in the place where hvhy chooses to establish His name.” In the Shemot Pesakh they were commanded to put the blood on the door posts of their houses, but there is no such requirement in the memorial of D’varim. For the Shemot Pesakh, they were commanded to stay in their homes, but the memorial is commanded to be away from homes at Jerusalem. Should we perfectly reenact the Shemot Pesakh and all travel back to Egypt to hold it? Of course not! The command to stay in their homes in Shemot was specific because of the judgment hvhy was carrying out on all the firstborn in Egypt.

hvhy may have allowed differences in the memorial Pesakh offerings for practical and/or spiritual reasons, which makes perfect sense. And both of the Pesakh memorials (2 Kings 23 and 2 Chronicles 35) follow the procedure in the prescribed memorial of D’varim. If the rabbis of history missed this and the current rabbi’s dismiss it, that doesn’t make their error truth. The Torah is truth.

So let us look at the Torah itself to see if all these supposed differences really exist or if there are other factors, such as misunderstanding of scripture, or even blatant deception going on here.

To address the first point in the list above, it doesn’t seem that D’varim 16:1 is saying that the Pesakh lamb is to be sacrificed at the “khodesh” of Aviv, because it is not pointing to the exact date of the month, but to the correct month of the year. The Shemot Pesakh was just stated as setting the “first” of months for them, and no name needed to be given to it, because it was happening right then. However, many years later, as a memorial, it is necessary to tell people in advance on what month (khodesh) the Pesakh will be occurring. That month, or khodesh, is Aviv.

In point three above, the claim is that the D’varim account specifies from the flock or from the herd, unlike the Shemot account which commands the offering be chosen only from the flock. This is clearly a case of bad translation, which appears to be intentional due to the fact that most good translations translate it just the way the Hebrew is written; צֹ֣אן וּ בָקָ֑ר  “from the flock AND from the herd”. This is obviously referring to choosing the Pesakh offering from the flock, just as was instructed in Exodus, AND from the herd, for the other offerings that were commanded during the feast in BaMidbar 28 starting on the first day of the feast.

The claim in point four above, that there were two different offerings in each account because a different word is used for the cooking method, is also a clear “twisting” of the scriptures with a deceitful translation to support a false doctrine. The problem is that the proponents of this argument translate the Shemot account correctly, in this way;

12:8 They shall eat the flesh that same night; they shall eat it roasted ( צְלִי ) over the fire ( אֵ֣ש ) with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs. 12:9 Do not eat any of it raw, or cooked in any way with water, but roasted—head, legs, and entrails—over the fire.

Then they translate the D’varim account incorrectly in this way;

16:7 You shall boil (וּבִשַּׁלְתָּ֙) and eat it at the place that the LORD your God will choose; and in the morning you may start back on your journey home.

The Hebrew word 'bashal' used in D’varim does mean boil if you refer to Strong's or even Brown Driver Briggs, HOWEVER, it also has the idea of cooking or "being done".  That is why most GOOD translations translate it as roast in D’varim. Because in context, it has to be roast because it is speaking of the Pesakh offering, which we KNOW (based on Shemot) had to be roasted and could not be cooked in water per Abba's instructions.

The reason we can say that these teachers are intentionally misrepresenting translations of Scripture is because of their proposed solution to the differences between these accounts from 2nd Chronicles. The proposed solution is that in 2 Chronicles there are 2 different offerings and the assumption is that one is the Pesakh and the other the Chaggigah and both are referred to as Pesakh offerings.

They translate 2nd Chronicles 35 this way;

35:7Josiah donated to the people flocks— lambs and goats, all for passover sacrifices for all present — to the sum of 30,000, and cattle, 3,000 — these from the property of the king.
35:13  They roasted ( וַֽיְבַשְּׁל֥וּ ) the passover sacrifice in fire ( בָּאֵ֖שׁ ), as prescribed, while the sacred offerings they boiled ( בִּשְּׁל֗וּ ) in pots, cauldrons, and pans, and conveyed them with dispatch to all the people.

Notice that the same Hebrew word 'bashal' from D’varim is translated here as ‘roasted’ in the first part of the verse and then as ‘boiled’ in the second part of the verse.  It HAS to be translated as ‘roasted’ in the first part of this verse for two reasons; first it is followed with the word 'in fire' which wouldn't make any sense if it were translated as “boiled in fire” and secondly; because of context, being that it is the Pesakh offering which has to be roasted. (Refer to Abba's instructions in Shemot)

So the the translator(s) recognizes this fact in Chronicles and translates 'bashal' as roasted here, but then turns around and refuses to acknowledge that same fact (that bashal can mean roasted) in D’varim, and what’s worse, is then they go on to build an argument based on the "fact" that it says roasted in Shemot but boiled in D’varim.

By the very translation that is used in Chronicles, it proves that bashal can mean roasted, so this shows that there is NO contradiction in the cooking method between Shemot and D’varim, which discredits the idea that this was an additional sacrifice that was also referred to as a Pesakh sacrifice.

There are also additional arguments from the Brit Khadasha accompanying the Chaggigah teaching that try to support the claim that Yeshua was not having His Pesakh when He did. One of those is that is that the word “artos” (Bread) of 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 could only be leavened bread. This, again, is just wrong. Artos was a generic word for all breads, which could easily have been unleavened bread, because unleavened bread is still artos. But more directly in D’varim 16:3 for the Pesakh, it states; “You shall eat no khametz (H2557) with it; seven days shall you eat Matzot (H4682) therewith, even the Lechem (H3899) of affliction.” Lechem is the generic Hebrew word for bread that most often means leavened bread, but can also mean unleavened bread just as it surely does here. And just like the Hebrew does this, so does the Greek Septuagint. There it reads; “no leaven (G2219), but unleavened bread (G106), the “artos”(G740) of affliction”. So, how can they claim that the “artos” of Yeshua’s Pesakh could only have been leavened bread, when the Greek Septuagint of D’varim claims this very same bread of Pesakh was “artos”?

There are also claims that the “remembrance” in 1 Corinthians 11, is the same as the Hebrew “Chagigah.” However, the word for “remembrance” in Hebrew is not “Chagigah”, but Zekher. And the first use of “zekher” is in Shemot 17:14 and is used in a negative connotation to “put out the remembrance (zekher) of Amalek”. In fact, the vast majority of uses of “zekher” are not for remembering positive things of hvhy , but remembering negative things; not to do them.

In conclusion, the argument that Messiah was not having Pesakh with His talmadim on the evening of the 14th day of the first month is nothing new. Christianity has tried for almost two thousand years to separate itself from anything Jewish since Constantine spoke these words at the council of Nicea in 325 CE; “For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforward let us have nothing in common with this odious people;”

In like manner the rabbis of today who follow the customs of the Pharisee’s of the 1st century have tried to discount Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel, and what better way to do that than to try to show that He did not keep Torah. However, Yeshua kept Torah perfectly, and the clear deceitfulness of this teaching is evident. This is a clear attempt to show that Messiah did not keep the Pesakh with his talmadim on the 14th of the first month, by making up a “custom” that neither the Torah, Prophets, nor the Mishna support, and it is just one more false charge against our Messiah.

Be diligent to dig into the truth of the Word. With all the tools we have available to us today there is no way these false teachings and deceitful translations can stand up to scrutiny and to the truth of the Word of Elohim.

Graphic: Public Domain Dedication Letters: 57361 Words: 11941