Ponder Scripture Newsletter

 

 

ith the seemingly endless array of Bible-based articles, newsletters and other publications currently available on the Internet, there is a veritable "information overload" of sorts when it comes to searching for various Bible-related topics.  Since there is already an abundance of Bible-related topics to choose from, you can well imagine that one could devote his or her full time to reading these studies.  June and I have added our share of studies to cyberspace, some of which are very lengthy.  Indeed, some topics require lengthy explanations to provide in-depth answers.  On this page, however, we want to keep things as "short and sweet" as possible.  While we primarily gear our writings to those who share our understanding that the Torah is relevant for believers today, anyone is welcome to read and offer feedback; however, due to our schedules, we cannot guarantee a quick turn-around response time.  We invite you to direct all correspondence to seekutruth at aol dot com.

Archived Newsletters

 

Newsletter #4:  Sivan 2011 (Third Month of the Scriptural Year)

 

Is Pentecost Always on Sivan 6 When Counting from the Morrow of the Festival Sabbath?

 

by Larry & June Acheson

 

      Topping our list is the controversial issue of counting to Pentecost.  Year after year we find ourselves explaining to believers – many of whom we feel should know better – that for those of us who use the Scriptural calendar (as opposed to modern Judaism’s calculated calendar), Pentecost does not always fall on Sivan 6 when counting from the morrow of the “Festival Sabbath” of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  We’ve been pointing this out for over 20 years, but it feels as though our explanations fall on deaf ears.  The latest charge came from a fairly well-known, published author who otherwise seems to have a decent handle on Scriptural topics.  Here is what he wrote:

 

One might ask, if the Pharisaic system is correct, why would the Torah not say simply that Shavuot is on the 6th of Sivan in the same form that it tells us on what days the other festivals are? The reason is because unlike the other festivals, Shavuot does not occur on a fixed day of the month.

 

      We agree with the above author’s comment that Shavuot (Pentecost) does not occur on a fixed day of the month; however, his point is that it doesn’t occur on a fixed day of the month because that’s the only way he feels it can be when you count the way he does – from the morrow of the weekly Sabbath that occurs during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  What he doesn’t seem to understand is that Pentecost also doesn’t always occur on a fixed day of the month when you count to that day from the morrow of the “Festival Sabbath” – the “high day” Sabbath that falls on Abib 15.  In fact, that is precisely what happened this year.  It is true that more often than not, Pentecost will occur on the sixth day of the third Scriptural month (Sivan), but this year was one of those “exception years” when it fell on the fifth day of the third month.  In fact, for those who like to work with numbers, for those who count to Pentecost the way June and I do, it has fallen on a day other than Sivan 6 four times out of the past 12 years! 

      The mistake that the above author makes, along with several others of his persuasion, is apparently that of having some peculiar subconscious feeling that folks like June and me use modern Judaism’s calculated calendar, on which Shavuot will indeed fall on Sivan 6 each and every year.  I say that they have a “peculiar subconscious feeling” because most of these same “Sunday Pentecost Only” believers already know that June and I use the Scriptural calendar, for which the new moon sighting determines the first day of each month. 

      After weathering years of hearing the same tired arguments used to support the “Sunday Pentecost Only” view, June and I finally compiled a study titled “Facing the Pentecost Controversy.”  Completed in 2003, we did our best to objectively address all the arguments presented by proponents of both sides of this issue.  We’re only human, so we’re not trying to say we covered them all, but after eight years we’re still waiting for a new argument to come our way. Our study is here on our web site, so we invite you to read it and bring any oversights or errors to our attention.  Occasionally, we receive some timely and encouraging feedback on our articles, and we would like to extend a special note of appreciation to a reader named Dave, who wrote the following:

 

I didn’t realize it [Pentecost] was Sivan 5 this year until someone else brought it to my attention and [I] realized that last Sabbath was the new moon (first day of this month). Am fairly new at doing this.

 

I’ve read or heard both sides of the argument in bits and pieces.  Your article is the best so far as it seems to incorporate all the pros and cons and more in one place.  Thanks for your efforts in this regard.  I will recommend it to others.

 

      Dave nails down one of our primary objectives in composing our Pentecost study:  Addressing, in as unbiased a manner as possible, all the pros and cons.  Unlike many Pentecost studies that we have read from authors who seem all too interested in bashing the other view, June and I attempt to convey the fact that we understand the reasoning presented by proponents of both sides.  Ultimately, we all must choose which view we feel best fits the model presented by Scripture, so June and I do not shy away from revealing which way we lean, but we attempt to do so in a respectful manner.

 

Women Wearing Tassels

 

      Last month we addressed an e-mail that we received from a friend who was having reservations about wearing tassels due to the fact that she is a woman. There is a prevailing frame of mind within modern Judaism that women should not be expected to wear tassels. Their reasoning just doesn’t make any sense to me. In fact, when our friend submitted an inquiry on this matter to an online “Ask the Rabbi” board, she was told that women are not required to wear tassels because “time-related mitzvahs (works of obedience)” do not apply to women. Of course, this reasoning is man-made, man-contrived and nonsensical. Nevertheless, many who otherwise strive to obey the commandments found in Torah have fallen prey to man-contrived rulings. It would have been a small and easy thing for the Almighty to have only commanded men to wear tassels. Commandments directed to the “children of Israel,” however, were intended for both men and women. If women are exempted from obeying the command to wear tassels because the plural of the Hebrew word “ben” literally means “sons,” then women must likewise be exempted from obeying any commandments due to the fact that they were only commanded to be taught to the Israelites' “children” (sons) in Deuteronomy 6:7.

 

      In response to the answer we gave to our friend’s inquiry, she made the decision to wear tassels.  Here is what she wrote:

Hello my brother, you will be the first to know that after my morning prayer, asking Yahweh to please give me the understanding ... well, here is what came. Yeshua is our example - for men or women in EVERYTHING.  I don't need to read about an example where Mary his mother for instance wore these tassels, so that I will know that women are to wear them, too.  HE is my example, I am to imitate HIM in everything. There is no difference between man and woman. Now that I look back it was that simple (as it always is with the truth), but that little understanding was missing.

 

Praise Yahweh - now this is finally resolved.  Does this reasoning make sense to you? Have a wonderful Sabbath, I am going to wear the tassels today and every day from now on. Thanks for all your help.

   We are pleased to have made the acquaintance of this woman and all who, like her, simply want to know and understand the will of the Father before making their decision. So many times we hear from others that they believe or practice a certain way because that’s how their favorite pastor or leader does it. We are glad that our friend chooses to only believe us insofar as our understanding is supported by Scripture. From experience we know that there is no shortage of groups whose leadership expects their members to believe Scripture – but only as it is interpreted by them. Of course, they would never word it that way, but in the end – after the member has been disfellowshipped – it becomes clear that this was the expectation.

 

 

“I Don’t Get No Respect!”

 

   The late Rodney Dangerfield is most widely known for his catchphrase, “I don’t get no respect!” Many of us can relate to his plight, and that is likely what contributed to his popularity with the masses.  While his jokes poked fun at the way he was accustomed to being treated, they weren’t able to mask the level of hurt that we all feel when we have been treated in a disrespectful manner.  I have often told others that I don’t expect to be treated like royalty, but at the same time, I don’t want to be treated like dirt. 

 

   When it comes to the studies that June and I have written, some readers (or non-readers) are downright unkind in the way they react.  The non-readers often assume that they know what we surely must have written and therefore target their responses accordingly.  Often, they didn’t have a clue as to what we believe.  More recently, June and I put together a study titled “Should We Kill a Lamb for Passover?” in which we outlined our reasons for not sacrificing a lamb at Passover.  One of our primary concerns involves the fact that an increasing number of believers promote the understanding that Jerusalem is no longer Yahweh’s “chosen place” where He established and placed His name.  These believers maintain that Yahweh’s name is now placed in whatever location two or three are gathered in the Messiah’s name.  Thus, instead of “the place” He has chosen to place His name, they have altered Scripture so as to make it convey that He has chosen to place His name in “many places.”  Now we aren’t about to portray Jerusalem as being a pure, righteous city deserving of recognition as “the place where Yahweh has placed His name,” but then again, that characteristic is certainly not a prerequisite for having such a designation.  Just check out the conditions in Jerusalem during the reign of King Manesseh.

 

   The danger in teaching others that Yahweh has now, in these last days, placed His name in many places, is that of adding to the Word. Nowhere in Scripture do we read that Yahweh’s name is or will ever be placed in multiple locations simultaneously. In Leviticus 17, we read the commandment that any sacrifices made by the Israelites were to be brought to the door of the tabernacle or temple. When Jerusalem was chosen and the temple was built, the door of the temple was where those sacrifices were brought. Choosing any other method was simply an act of disobedience. In the seventh verse of this chapter, we read, “And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a-whoring.” In our study, we expressed our view that this verse suggests that if any should deviate from the mandate given in Leviticus 17, sacrifices that were not brought to the door of the tabernacle constituted “sacrifices unto devils.” The context of this entire passage seems to suggest that offering sacrifices in any other manner is tantamount to offering them to devils instead of Yahweh. In fact, that is precisely how the New Revised Standard Version renders verses six and seven of this chapter. Notice how this version presents those who disobey the command to bring the sacrifices to the door of the tabernacle (the only change we are making is that of restoring the name Yahweh where it appears in the Hebrew text):

 

6 The priest shall dash the blood against the altar of Yahweh at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and turn the fat into smoke as a pleasing odor to Yahweh,

7 so that they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves. This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.

 

    By now you may be wondering what all this has to do with my not getting any respect.  I’m getting to that now.  Keep in mind that I’m not saying that offering a Passover lamb as a sacrifice constitutes offering a sacrifice to a demon.  I am saying that offering a lamb anywhere other than where Yahweh says to do it may be regarded as sacrificing to devils.  That is what we believe is implied by the text of Leviticus 17:6-7.

 

   Nevertheless, one individual who supports killing a Passover lamb wherever one chooses to do so replied, "I do believe you compared sacrificing a lamb to a goat demon. Did I miss something or am I correct?"

   Boy, did he ever miss something! When it comes to discussing religious matters, misunderstandings will inevitably creep into the mix. The best way to avoid or at least minimize the damage created by misquoting and otherwise misrepresenting others is to directly quote them. In the discussion with the above individual, he essentially read something I wrote, came away with a distorted impression, and then presented his distorted impression as a representation of what I believe. If he had quoted me directly, I could have easily pointed out distorted impression. As it currently stands, he continues to maintain that he correctly represented my view, writing, “I will give you the quotes eventually as my time and internet access is limited.” Let’s do things right the first time by directly quoting authors. It’s not only a matter of demonstrating respect, but it also puts us on a faster track to resolution. [May 2024 update: The individual I just referenced never supplied the needed quotes. I assume he's extremely busy!].

 

Is Yeshua the Messiah? 

   We received correspondence from another individual who had a question that he says he “cannot seem to find an answer to anywhere,” so he wanted our input.  His question suggested that he may not recognize Yeshua as the promised Messiah Who died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead.  The reader asked, “Yeshua is referred to as the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. Where is there a precedent for this in Tanakh? The Pesach lamb is a memorial of the passing over of the firstborn males before leaving Egypt and to my knowledge, had nothing to do with a sin offering. Sin offerings involving lambs were always females and only for individuals. The bull was for the entire group. Would you mind giving me your input on this?”  We later confirmed that, indeed, the individual who asked this question does not necessarily regard Yeshua as the Messiah.

 

June and I do not claim to be experts with regard to the purpose behind each sacrificial method and why different animals were commanded for specific offerings. In fact, we tend to be a little skeptical of anyone who does claim to be an expert in such matters. We believe there are many aspects of the sacrificial system that we may never fully understand in this lifetime, so our primary attention is focused on other areas. What ultimately matters to us is the fact that, according to the Apostle Paul, if Yeshua is not risen from the dead, then our faith is vain. If He has indeed been raised from the dead, yet we do not fully understand the impact and purpose behind His sacrifice, then this can only mean that we don’t fully understand Yahweh’s purpose because certainly Yahweh wouldn’t have raised Yeshua from the dead if His sacrifice was meaningless and without purpose. Here is what the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19:

12 Now if Messiah is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Messiah has not been raised;

14 and if Messiah has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.

15 We are even found to be misrepresenting the Almighty, because we testified of the Almighty that He raised the Messiah—Whom He did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised.

17 If the Messiah has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

18 Then those also who have died in Messiah have perished.

19 If for this life only we have hoped in Messiah, we are of all people most to be pitied.

 

    We understand that the reasoning behind each of the sacrifices and why certain animals were specified for certain offerings is not easy for us to grasp.  Nevertheless, if Yeshua is the Messiah Who Yahweh raised from the dead, then not only is He the Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world, but He is also the Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep.  You might say He “wears many hats.”

 

   Our answer to the anonymous individual who posed the question proved to be unsatisfactory to him and it seemed pretty obvious that our answer was one that he has heard many times before, so he quickly responded with a rebuttal in which he expressed his feeling that human atonement for the sins of all mankind is a concept that is too difficult for him to accept.  Here is what he wrote:

 

I'm not saying necessarily that I don't believe he was/is Mashiyach, that very well could be, but atonement for all mankind's sins just doesn't fit at all with the prescription for atonement and forgiveness taught to us by YHVH. 

   Due to time and space constraints, I have no intention of getting into the arguments for or against Yeshua being the Messiah in this month’s newsletter.  One of these days we may put together something that more clearly explains our reasons for believing that He is the Son of Yahweh, that He died as the atonement for our sins and that he was raised from the dead after three days and three nights.  For now, we will settle for the simple explanation that we believe the testimony of those who lived with Him, who watched Him die and who saw Him after He was resurrected.  If their testimony is false, then we of all people are most to be pitied.

 

On Omitting “God” From the Pledge of Allegiance

   Just the other day June and I received an urgent plea for intervention from Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ (the American Center for Law and Justice).  He finds it offensive and outrageous that during NBC’s coverage of a golf tournament, “God” was removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.  Here is an excerpt from his diatribe:

Dear Larry,

It was patently offensive—outrageous—a slap in the face of every person of faith in America - when NBC decided to cut the phrase ''under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance during its broadcast of the U.S. Open golf tournament in Washington, D.C.

They did it not once, but twice—marring a patriotic tribute that should have made every American proud. Instead, they scorned the faith of our Founding Fathers—a clear-cut case of ''political correctness'' run amok.

NBC must put a policy in place that will guarantee such an affront never happens again, and that is exactly what the ACLJ is pressing them to do.

We took the lead from the onset, mounting a nationwide drive to call on NBC to do the right thing. Our Government Affairs team is working with Members of Congress who recognize the importance of our nation's religious heritage. We have already mobilized tens of thousands of concerned citizens. But to keep the pressure on- in addition to all of our ongoing work on behalf of life and liberty—we need your support.

 

Please give a generous online contribution to help us continue this crucial battle while at the same time working to protect your constitutional freedoms, religious liberties around the world, and the lives of the unborn.

 

This is not about just one telecast. This is part of a dangerous, ongoing trend to erase expressions of the Christian faith from public view on every level of American life. Our religious and constitutional freedoms have never been under greater attack.

The ACLJ is fighting back on multiple fronts. We have vigorously defended the constitutionality of the phrase ''under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance in courtrooms across the nation, and we continue to do so in the face of lawsuits by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), the ACLU, and other radical groups. We're also fighting to preserve the cross at war memorials, and we are back at the Supreme Court of the United States right now protecting public displays of the Ten Commandments.

 

But every case requires enormous effort and expense—legal research and writing, court filings, and more - which makes your support today so important. It is clear that anti-faith groups like the FFRF and the ACLU will not stop until they silence Christians - and eradicate every last public sign and symbol of Christianity.

I urge you to give a tax-deductible contribution right now, to help us answer attacks on your faith and your freedoms—most critically at this moment, pushing for NBC to ensure ''under God'' as part of the Pledge of Allegiance on all future broadcasts.

''Under God'' is not a throw-away line, an afterthought. It has been an essential component of the Pledge for more than half a century - designated by the United States Congress. It is not the place of a television network to throw God out of our national life.

If we sit idle and allow this outrage to stand, the door could very well open for the removal of our National Motto, ''one nation under God,'' from our currency. Our country, founded squarely on Judeo-Christian principles, could be systematically stripped of any and all messages rooted in our religious heritage. The ACLJ is committed to sending a strong message that we will not back down when it comes to the freedom of expressing our Christian beliefs in words and images.

Thank you for your patriotism and for standing up for America's religious heritage.

Sincerely,

Jay Sekulow

ACLJ Chief Counsel

     Like so many other mainstream believers out there, Jay Sekulow goes into a tizzy when “God” is tampered with, but he is silent about the fact that the name the Creator gave to Himself (pronounced “Yahweh”) was removed from Scripture by the translators.  June and I have written an extensive study on this topic demonstrating that “God” is, in fact, originally the name of an idol whose worship was (and is) condemned by Yahweh.  As such, it should not only be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, but from the Bible as well (except for the places where it appears in the original Hebrew text as the name Leah gave to Zilpah's son, the name of a prophet and the name of a heathen idol, whose worship is condemned by Yahweh).  Truth is stranger than fiction, though, and in this case the truth is just too strange for some folks to accept.  We invite those who really do want to look into this matter to check out our study God’s Identity According to Ancient Hebrew Scholars. [2021 Update: I also put together a 5-part PowerPoint presentation titled "Tracing the Origin of the Word 'God." Part 1 can be accessed here.]

 

     For those who would like a more subtle introduction to the above study, we recommend reading our study Sticks and Stones to see if it really does matter what name we use in reference to our Heavenly Father. 

 

     I don’t generally respond to generic mass-communication pleas such as the one we received above from Jay Sekulow’s ministry, primarily because I highly doubt that he will never read it and whoever does read it will not likely be able to process the magnitude or the import of our reply.  In the past, we have either received confused, generic responses or no responses at all from well-intentioned, but ill-informed representative. Nevertheless, for some reason I decided to send the following answer in response to Mr. Sekulow’s call to action:

Hello,

 

I support religious freedom, but regrettably, "God" can be demonstrated as being the name of the Canaanite idol of fortune.  This Hebrew name (spelled gimel daleth in Hebrew, which is pronounced "gawd") appears in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 65:11, and is incorrectly translated "that troop" in the King James Version of the Bible.  The Hebrew scholars who translated the Septuagint translated this name "daimon" in the Greek language.  "Daimon" is the Greek word for "demon."  We are not comfortable with referring to our Heavenly Father with a name that is pronounced identically to the name of a false idol.

 

From the text of Isaiah 65:11 we understand that unregenerate Israelites were worshipping the idol whose name is pronounced "God."  When the ten tribes of Israel were scattered, worship of this idol spread to other parts of the globe, including Europe.  The Russian word pronounced "gawd" is a word meaning "reptile" and the ancient Celts worshipped a "green serpent deity" whose name is pronounced "God El Gloss." The word pronounced "gloss" (glas) is the Gaelic word for "green" and the word pronounced "gawd" (Gad) was understood as a serpent.

 

I certainly support your right to refer to the Almighty by any name or title that you feel best honors Him.  As for me and my family, we can think of no better name to call Him than the name He gave to Himself, which is pronounced "Yahweh."  I understand that we represent a minority view, but thankfully truth is not determined by majority vote.

 

Sincerely,

Larry

 

     It’s a little too early for us to expect a response from Jay Sekulow’s team.  Depending on if and how he answers, we may include that response in our next newsletter.  Until then, here’s wishing you a blessed month. 

 

Update May 2024:  We still haven't heard from Mr. Sekulow's team.

 

 

Back to Ponder Scripture Newsletter Archives