The Feasts of Israel​

​
Copyright © Tim Warner

In order to understand the significance of the Jewish feasts, we must comprehend their purpose and timing.
The most complete description of the feasts is found in Leviticus 23. Each of the feasts have both a historic
and prophetic significance. They celebrate a historical event in Israel's past, but also are a prophecy of future
events which have been, or will be, fulfilled. The first four feasts were fulfilled by Jesus Christ during the
actual celebration of those feast days. The last three will be fulfilled at His second coming. The feasts are as
follows:

1. Passover: [Ex. 12:1-14 & Lev. 23:4,5] On the 10th day of the first month, Nisan, [roughly equivalent to
April on our calendar], every family of Israel was to take a lamb, without blemish, and separate it from the
flock. On the evening of the 14th the Passover lamb was killed, cooked, and eaten during the night. The
blood was applied on the door posts and lintel. This feast celebrates the Exodus from Egypt. But, like all of
the feasts, it also has a prophetic meaning. It looked forward to the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God who taketh
away the sin of the world." This was clearly demonstrated by Paul when he wrote, "For even Christ our
Passover is sacrificed for us." [1 Cor. 5:7]. Not only did Jesus fulfill this feast symbolically, but also quite
literally. On the 10th of Nisan, Palm Sunday, Jesus rode down the mount of Olives on a colt. He was crucified
four days later on Passover.

2. Unleavened Bread: [Lev. 23:6-8] The day following Passover, the 15th of Nisan, began the feast of
Unleavened bread. This feast covered seven days, from the 15th to the 21st of Nisan. The first and last days,
[15th & 21st], were "High Sabbath" days, although they do not necessarily fall on the weekly Sabbath. "High
Sabbath" days are mandatory rest days which occur during some feast days. They are identified in Lev. 23:7,
8, 21, 24, 27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 39. Just as with the weekly Sabbath, the day before any "High Sabbath" is a
"preparation day." This means Passover, the 14th, is also the "preparation day" for the "High Sabbath" on the
15th, [see: John 18:28, 19:14,31]. The feast of Unleavened Bread celebrates the journey of the children of
Israel through the wilderness, when God fed them with manna from heaven and supplied water out of the
rock. This feast was fulfilled by Jesus during the Feast of Unleavened Bread when He said, "I am the living
bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." [John 6:51]. Jesus was crucified on Passover.
His body [His flesh] was laid in the tomb just before sunset, when the "High Sabbath" of the Feast of
Unleavened Bread began. His body laid in the tomb for the first three days of this feast, from the 15th
through the 17th of Nisan.

3. Firstfruits: [Lev. 23:9-14] During the seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread fell a Sunday. In the year of
the crucifixion, Sunday fell on the 18th of Nisan, three days after Jesus was put in the tomb. On this Sunday,
called the Feast of Firstfruits, each Israelite family brought a single bundle of barley to the Temple. The priest
would then wave it before the Lord. This bundle represented the very first of the harvest. It was gathered at
the beginning of the harvest and given to the Lord. Jesus fulfilled this feast as well. He rose from the dead on
the Feast of Firstfruits. The Apostle Paul said, "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become
the firstfruits of them that slept."..."For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But
every man in his own order, Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." [1 Cor.
15:20,23]. The resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of our resurrection.

4. Pentecost: [Lev. 23:15-21] From the feast of Firstfruits, the Jews were to count seven Sabbaths, [49
days]. The Sunday following the seventh Sabbath, was the Feast of Pentecost, [which means "fiftieth"]. This
feast commemorated the giving of the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai. On that day God himself came down in a
cloud on Mt. Sinai in fire and smoke and a blast of God's trumpet, to establish His covenant with His people.
This feast was also a prophecy of the coming of the New Covenant which was consummated on the same
day, the Day of Pentecost, with a mighty rushing wind, tongues of fire and miraculous demonstrations of the
Holy Ghost. Even though the disciples were trained by Jesus for their task of world evangelism, Jesus
instructed them to remain in Jerusalem until they received the power of the Holy Spirit which came on the
Jewish Feast of Pentecost.
The first four feasts were fulfilled by Jesus both symbolically and literally at His first coming. The last three
will be fulfilled by Jesus at His second coming. Since the first four feasts were fulfilled on the very
days God commanded His people to celebrate them, it is reasonable to conclude that the remaining
three feasts will also be fulfilled on the actual feast days as well.

5. Feast of Trumpets: [Lev. 23:23-25] God commanded Israel to keep a "High Sabbath" on the first day of
the seventh month, by blowing a series of trumpets. Although the Scripture does not specify what this feast
represents, it possibly looked forward to the fall of Jericho. In the days of Joshua, they were instructed to
march around the city of Jericho seven days. Each day the trumpets were blown by the priests, but the
people kept silent. On the last day, they marched around the city seven times with the seven priests blowing
seven trumpets. When the last trumpet sounded, the people raised a great shout, and the walls of the city
fell flat. Is it a coincidence that Paul said we will be raised at the "last trumpet?" [1 Cor. 15:54]. Is it also a
coincidence that at the rapture there will be a great "shout?" [1 Thes. 4:16].

6. The Day of Atonement: [Lev. 23:26-32] The Feast of Trumpets is followed by ten days called by modern
Jews, "the days of awe." This is a time of national repentance for Israel. The 10th day of the seventh month
is the Day of Atonement. On this day the priest entered the Holy of Holies into the presence of God to
sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant. The Passover clearly represents personal
salvation, [each family had their own lamb, and celebrated Passover at home]. But the Day of Atonement
represents national salvation for Israel. Only one sacrifice was offered for the whole nation. The Bible
makes it clear that at the second coming of Christ, the surviving Jews will look upon Christ and be saved in
a day. [cf. Zech. 12:9,10 & 13:1, Rom. 11:25-27, Rev. 1:7] If there is any day on the Jewish calendar which is
a prophecy of the second coming of Christ to overthrow the world kingdoms and deliver His people Israel,
this is it.

7. The Feast of Tabernacles: [Lev. 23:33-43] Five days after the Day of Atonement is the Feast of
Tabernacles. From the 15th to the 22nd of the seventh month was a time of the greatest rejoicing. It was the
festival of all festivals. Israel was commanded to build tents [tabernacles] and live in them during the feast
days. This commemorated how God brought them out of Egypt, through the wilderness into the promised
land. Secondly, they were to cut off branches of palm trees and wave them, rejoicing before the Lord. Even
the Jews today recognize that the Feast of Tabernacles looks forward to the Kingdom of the Messiah.
Zechariah 14:16-21 states clearly that after Christ sets up His Kingdom the people will celebrate the Feast of
Tabernacles as a yearly memorial. Also, Revelation 7:9-17 describes the saints who have come through the
"great tribulation." This scene takes place at the inauguration of Christ's Kingdom. It depicts a grand
celebration with the saints waving "palm branches." Why are they waving palm branches? Obviously they
are celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles. The marriage supper will likely take place during this feast, [Isa.
25:6-8].

There is another day that is celebrated by Israel, Channukah. It begins 75 days after the Day of Atonement
[the 25th day of the ninth month - or in our December] and lasts for 8 days. Channukah is not mentioned in
the Old Testament, because it began to be celebrated during the period between the Old Testament and New
Testament. Basically, it is a celebration of the cleansing of the Temple after the Jews defeated Antoichus
Epiphanies. Antiochus was a Syrian King who invaded Jerusalem, defiled the Temple by placing an image of
Zeus in the Temple, and offering a pig on the altar. He persecuted the Jewish people terribly, and they began
a resistance against him. Eventually, they recaptured Jerusalem, and immediately set about to cleanse the
Temple. So, in essence, this is the celebration of the cleansing and rededication of the Temple to God. It is
referred to one time in the New Testament, where Jesus was present in Jerusalem for Channukah.

John 10:22-23​
22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.​
23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.​
(KJV)

That Channukah is always 75 days after The Day of Atonement may be related to an interesting prophecy in
Daniel.
Dan 12:12​
12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.​
(KJV)

1,335 days is exactly 75 days more than the 1260 days that Antichrist will reign. So, if the Antichrist is
destroyed on the Day of Atonement, then the extra 75 days lands us directly on the first day of Channukah. It
seems likely this has to do with the rededication of the Millennial Temple, from which Christ will rule.

Since Jesus fulfilled the first four feasts on the actual feast days, we can conclude that He will fulfill the last
three in the same manner. This means that the battle of Armageddon will likely be on the Day of Atonement,
the 10th day of the seventh month. Could the rapture be the same day? Or, could it be perhaps 10 days
earlier on the Feast of Trumpets?

Sabbath or Sunday, the Biblical Evidence​

​
Copyright © Tim Warner

Sunday is not a pagan holiday any more than Saturday is a pagan holiday. Sure, "Sunday" was named for
the "sun god," and ancient pagans who worshipped the sun worshipped on Sunday. The Romans and
Greeks worshipped the celestial bodies, and thought they were gods. So, they named the days of the week
after these gods. Sunday is named for the sun, monday for the moon, etc. Saturday is named for Saturn.
And pagans who worshipped Saturn worshipped on Saturday. Does this make the Sabbath a pagan holiday?
And are Jews idolaters for worshipping on the Sabbath? Are they worshipping Saturn? Then neither are
Christians idolaters for worshipping on Sunday.

The clear teaching of the New Testament is that believers have freedom to worship the Lord, or to honor any
day they choose, or none at all.

Rom 14:4-14​
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be
holden up: for God is able to make him stand.​
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind.​
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth
not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord
he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.​
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.​
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live
therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.​
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.​
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand
before the judgment seat of Christ.​
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to
God.​
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.​
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock
or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.​
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that
esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.​
(KJV)

Likewise, Paul told the Colossian church not to be intimidated by the Judaizers and Sabbath keepers.

Col 2:16-17​
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or
of the sabbath days:​
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.​
(KJV)

The practice of meeting for worship on Sunday comes from the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ. The disciples met on two consecutive Sundays, beginning with the day of the resurrection.

John 20:19-29​
19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the
disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace
be with you."​
20 Now when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when
they saw the Lord.​
21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."​
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.​
23 "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."​
24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.​
25 The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord." So he said to them, "Unless I see in
His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I
will not believe."​
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors
being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!"​
27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and
put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."​
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"​
29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have
not seen and yet have believed."​
(NKJ)

This first gathering described is really the very first meeting of a Christian church. Even though the disciples
were not fully aware of what was happening, their eternal salvation and inheritance had just been
accomplished by Jesus Christ. Luke gives us more information about the first appearance of Jesus on
Sunday afternoon. Notice that Jesus took this occasion to give a lengthy exposition of Scripture to His
Church. The account picks up with the two disciples, who had spoken with Jesus on the road to Emmaeus,
hurrying back to Jerusalem to announce their encounter to the rest of the disciples.

Luke 24:32-49​
32 And they said to one another, "Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and
while He opened the Scriptures to us?"​
33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with
them gathered together,​
34 saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"​
35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the
breaking of bread.​
36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Peace to
you."​
37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.​
38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?​
39 "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and
bones as you see I have."​
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.​
41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, "Have you any food here?"​
42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.​
43 And He took it and ate in their presence.​
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things
must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."​
45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.​
46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise
from the dead the third day,​
47 "and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem.​
48 "And you are witnesses of these things.​
49 "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued
with power from on high."​
(NKJ)

Seven weeks later, again we find the disciples assembled on Sunday. The Feast of Pentecost was always on
the Sunday after the seventh Sabbath following Passover [Lev. 23:15,16]. The word "Pentecost" means
"50th" because it was the 50th day after the Passover Sabbath. According to Scripture, it must always fall on
a Sunday. It was on this Sunday that the disciples' assembly was interrupted again, not with the physical
presence of Jesus as twice before, but with the coming of the Holy Spirit. Peter then took the occasion to
preach to the crowds outside who had come to Jerusalem for the Feast. And what a sermon it was! Three
thousand Jews from the Diaspora were saved, baptized, and added to the Church on that seventh Sunday
after the resurrection.

The next indication we have of the day Christians met, comes from the following passage.

Acts 20:6-7​
6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five
days; where we abode seven days.​
7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached
unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.​
(KJV)

Verse seven seems to indicate that it was the practice of this church to meet on Sunday. Here is a reference
to the "love feast" which was commonly practiced by the early Christians. They would meet together on
Sunday to eat, and then worship [1 Cor. 18-34 & Jude 1:12]. The expression "break bread" is thought by
some to refer to a normal meal. But, the term most often appears in Scripture in reference to Jesus'
"breaking the loaf" at the Last Supper.

Matt 26:26​
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and
said, Take, eat; this is my body.​
(KJV)

The next occurrence of "breaking bread" is found in Luke's account of the two disciples on the road to
Emmeaus on resurrection Sunday [Luke 24:30]. They did not recognize Jesus until he took the loaf of bread
and broke it, just as He had done three days earlier at the Last Supper. Luke says immediately they
recognized Him, and he vanished from their sight. When they reported back to the other disciples, they said
that Jesus was known to them because of His "breaking of bread" [v. 35]. This implies that there was
something unique here.

Also, Paul informs us that Christians placed a special significance on "breaking bread" that was associated
exclusively with keeping the Lord's Supper.

1 Cor 10:16​
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we
break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?​
(KJV)

Even if the term "breaking bread" was common in the first century, it took on a different meaning for
Christians.

1 Cor 11:24​
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for
you: this do in remembrance of me.​
(KJV)
Notice Jesus' "breaking" the bread was an act symbolizing the broken body of Christ on the cross for us.
Notice also, that Jesus told the disciples to repeat the practice of "breaking" the bread as a part of their
Communion. He did not merely tell them to eat little crackers. He told them to take a loaf, to brake it, and
then to partake of it. That is most significant to the latter usage of the term, "breaking bread" in Acts.

The next time "breaking bread" is mentioned is in reference to the new converts continuing in the "Apostles'
doctrine."

Acts 2:42​
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in
prayers.​
(KJV)

It seems to me that this "breaking of bread" is not simply eating ordinary meals. Of course they continued to
eat meals after conversion! It would be rather redundant to tell us they continued eating, because no one
supposes that Christians stop eating after conversion! Also, the other things listed in this verse have to do
with godly living, not with the needs of the body. This was more than just an ordinary meal. It became the
practice of the early Christians to meet together to eat, and to observe the Lord's Supper. Such gatherings
were called "love (agape) feasts."

Jude 1:12​
12 These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves.
They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled
up by the roots;​
(NKJ)

Paul had to rebuke the Corinthian church because of their abuse of the "love feast." Some of the wealthy
members had taken to bringing quite an elaborate meal for themselves, and did not share with those who
were of meager means, embarrassing them (1 Cor. 13:18-34). He basically told them, "if you're that hungry,
eat at home! Don't defile the Lord's supper." At any rate, we see that it was common practice for the
churches to meet together regularly for this "love feast" and to observe the Lord's Supper, the "breaking of
the loaf."

Therefore, when Acts 20 tells us "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break
bread," Luke was indicating something that was common practice among the churches. Now, it is certainly
possible that they called together a special meeting because of Paul's imminent departure, as Sabbatarians
usually claim. But, one wonders why? If they normally met for the "love feast" on Saturday, and if Paul was
departing on Monday, there is no logical reason to call the church together on Sunday. They could have their
normal meeting on Saturday, and Paul could preach to them, and could then have time to rest before his trip
on Monday morning. Since they met for their love feast on Sunday, and Paul preached till midnight, he
actually was rather inconvenienced and sleep deprived having to catch his ship on Monday morning! There
is simply no logic to their moving the love feast to Sunday as a special meeting, since this would cause Paul
inconvenience, and there was no benefit.

Next, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church regarding a special collection to be taken up for the poor saints at
Jerusalem.

1 Cor 16:2-3​
2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that
there be no collections when I come.​
3 And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem.​
(NKJ)

Here, Paul told them to set aside their offering on Sunday. One must ask, why Sunday unless this was when
they gathered together? Sabbatarians claim that the words "lay aside" simply mean to set their gift aside at
home. But, then why Sunday? If Paul was supposing that they do this weekly (as mention of Sunday
indicates), then he would be under the impression that they received their wages weekly. If so, it would seem
that Fridays would be the day to set aside one's gift. Furthermore, this interpretation ignores Paul's real point.
He didn't want to have to deal with collecting the gifts when he came. He wanted them already collected
before he arrived. How would setting aside a gift at home each Sunday help Paul's collection of the gifts? It
would not! The collection must be done prior to Paul's arrival. That is the whole point. Therefore, "laying in
store" is a reference to bringing your gift on Sunday, where they would be collected and stored until Paul's
arrival. By telling them to do this on Sunday, Paul was supposing that they would be meeting together on
Sundays.

Our final evidence comes from John's use of the expression "the Lord's day." This phrase is a reference to
Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection. Sabbatarians claim it means the Sabbath. However, the Greek word
for "Lord's" in this verse is used only one other time in Scripture, in reference to "the Lord's supper" [1 Cor.
11:20]. This is clearly referring to Jesus. "The Lord's supper" is Jesus' supper, the "breaking of the loaf"
practiced weekly by the early Christians. So, "the Lord's day" would most likely refer to "Jesus' day," Sunday,
the day of the resurrection. There is really no question that John meant Sunday. We know this from other
Christian literature also written in the latter part of the first century by those who knew John personally, which
shows that the term "the Lord's day" was a common expression for Sunday. (See our article: Sunday and the
Early Church).

There is no example in Scripture of a New Testament local church meeting on the Sabbath. We are not
claiming that all Jewish Christians immediately abandoned the Sabbath. Many continued to observe the
Sabbath as well as meeting on Sunday. Paul himself said that he was innocent of the charges leveled by the
Jews about breaking the Law. However, we get a glimpse into Paul's practice from his own words.

1 Cor 9:18-23​
18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not
make use of my rights in preaching it.​
19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.​
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law
(though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.​
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but
am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.​
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible
means I might save some.​
23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.​
(NIV)

Paul was "observant" of the Law when with the Jews. But, when with the Gentiles, he did not follow the
requirements of the Law, including Sabbath observance. Neither did Paul teach the Gentiles to be observant
of the Law. In fact, Paul's teaching to the Gentiles became the noose whereby the Jews attempted to hang
him at his arrest in Jerusalem. His teaching the Gentiles that they were not under the Law of Moses gave
rise to even the Jewish believers in Jerusalem mistakenly assuming that he was teaching the Jews of the
Diaspora also that they must forsake the traditions passed down by Moses. And they were not very happy
about it. The Apostles in Jerusalem warned Paul of this, and launched a plan to avoid a conflict. However,
the plan was ill-conceived and backfired, and Paul ended up being arrested.

Acts 21:18-30​
18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.​
19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles
through his ministry.​
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many
myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;​
21 "but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to
forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the
customs.​
22 "What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.​
23 "Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow.​
24 "Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and
that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you
yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.​
25 "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe
no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things
strangled, and from sexual immorality."​
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to
announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of
them.​
27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up
the whole crowd and laid hands on him,​
28 crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the
law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."​
29 (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that
Paul had brought into the temple.)​
30 And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the
temple; and immediately the doors were shut.​
(NKJ)

In conclusion, the evidence from Scripture indicates that Christians worshipped on Sunday from the very
beginning. That some of the Jewish believers also rested on the Sabbath is clear, from the above passage
which describes them as "zealous for the Law." But, Sabbath observance was never imposed on the Gentile
believers. The Gospel message that was consistently preached by Paul, the "Apostle to the Gentiles,"
emphasized the fact that the Law, which was given exclusively to Israel, had been superseded by the New
Covenant. That Christians continued to worship on Sunday is perfectly clear from the earliest extra-biblical
Christian literature as well.

Sunday & the Early Church​

​
Copyright © Tim Warner

It is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church that she alone switched Sabbath worship to Sunday worship by
her own authority. Seventh Day Adventists often quote Roman Catholic documents, and echo her claims, in
order to justify their rejection of Sunday worship as a genuine Christian custom, established by the Apostles
themselves. Many Christians today claim that Sunday was a pagan holiday, and brought into Christianity by
Constantine in the 4th century. Furthermore, it is claimed by Seventh Day Adventists that the Roman Church
is the "Beast" of Revelation, and Sunday worship is the "mark of the beast."

The purpose of this article is to show that both the Roman Catholic claims, and the Seventh Day Adventist
claims are false, and not based on the historical record. The intent of the Roman Catholic claim, is to rub the
noses of Protestants in the [alleged] fact that Protestants are unknowingly bowing to the Roman Catholic
Church's [alleged] authority to change what the Bible teaches. This is a lie, propagated by a distorted and
false history. And, unfortunately, Seventh Day Adventists have swallowed the lie, hook line, and sinker.

The earliest documents from Church history record that Christians were worshipping on Sunday in the first
century, more than 200 years before Constantine or the Roman Catholic Church made any decrees of any
kind. Before Constantine, all of the Christian Churches were local independent autonomous churches.

Below are quotes from the Ante Nicene Fathers. These are documents written by the early Christians. I have
included only those from the earliest period, that is, authors who personally were acquainted with the
Apostles, or lived contiguous to the time of the Apostles. Since our intent is to discover the earliest recorded
tradition, later quotes are simply redundant, and of little value to our study. These earliest quotes establish
the fact that it was the Christian custom, even while John was still alive, to worship on Sunday, not Saturday.

Ignatius:​
Ignatius was one of the "Apostolic Fathers." This term is applied by Church historians to those men who
were personally acquainted with the Apostles, and/or lived during the lifetime of the Apostles. Hence they
were well acquainted with Apostolic tradition. Ignatius' seven epistles are probably the most valuable source
of early Christian thinking because he lived during the earliest years of the Christian Church. He was born
around AD30, the year Christ began to preach. And he became a martyr of Jesus - thrown to the wild beasts
- on December 20, AD107. Ignatius' acquaintance with Apostolic tradition was without question having been
under the personal instruction of John, along with Polycarp and Papius. He was Bishop of the church in
Antioch (Paul's home-church) during John's imprisonment on Patmos, and therefore was well versed in the
history of this local church, where the disciples were first called "Christians."

It is also clear that the church of Antioch carried more influence than the Roman church, since Ignatius'
epistles carry a tone of authority, not unlike Paul's. After all, the Antioch church was the mother church to all
of the churches of Asia Minor, having originally sent Paul and Barnabas out to evangelize the Gentiles. But,
the only Roman epistle from the first century, that of Clement to the Corinthians, carries a much milder tone
of brotherly encouragement, without direct commands or exercise of authority. It seems that the "Presbyters"
(a term Irenaeus used for the "disciples of the Apostles") carried a kind of authority as faithful witnesses to
the Apostolic teachings (2 Tim. 2:2). Hence, these men wrote several epistles to other smaller churches.
Ignatius wrote seven which have survived; Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, wrote one (to the Philippians); and
the epistles of Papius are lost - the only real documentation coming from later writers who quoted him.

It was also believed in the early Church that Ignatius was the little child that Jesus placed in the midst of the
disciples (Matt. 18:2). But there is no way to confirm this.

One point of great importance is Ignatius' use of the term "the Lord's day." This was a common term in his
epistles (as well as other first century writers), always in reference to Sunday. And being a disciple of John,
we can conclude that John's use of the term "the Lord's day" in Rev. 1:10 is the same. This fact weighs
heavily in favor of Apostolic connections to Sunday observance.

The following quotations are from Ignatius' epistle to the Magnesians, regarding Christians and the Law, and
in particular, the Sabbath.

CHAPTER VIII - CAUTION AGAINST FALSE DOCTRINES​

"Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live
according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets
lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to
fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son,
who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.
Be not deceived with strange doctrines, "nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies," and things in
which the Jews make their boast. "Old things are passed away: behold, all things have become new." For if
we still live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have
received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. On this account also they were
persecuted, being inspired by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, the Almighty,
who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not spoken, but essential. For He is
not the voice of an articulate utterance, but a substance begotten by divine power, who has in all things
pleased Him that sent Him.

CHAPTER IX - LET US LIVE WITH CHRIST​

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession
of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on
which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death — whom some deny, by which mystery we
have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only
Master — how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit
did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them
from the dead. If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope,
expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would
have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;" and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw
it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am; " how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets
were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as
their Lord and Savior, saying, "He will come and save us." Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath
after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat."
For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every one of you keep
the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body,
admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks,
and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in
them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a
festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this,
the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day," on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory
over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Savior, deny, "whose
God is their belly, who mind earthly things," who are "lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form
of godliness, but denying the power thereof." These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and
giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing
up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!

CHAPTER X - BEWARE OF JUDAIZING​

"Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we
should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of
Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the
evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in
Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to
profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that
so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God. Let us not, therefore, be insensible to
His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. For "if Thou, Lord,
shalt mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" Let us therefore prove ourselves worthy of that name which
we have received. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, he is not of God; for he has not
received the prophecy which speaks thus concerning us: "The people shall be called by a new name, which
the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people." This was first fulfilled in Syria; for "the disciples were
called Christians at Antioch," when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church. Lay aside,
therefore, the evil, the old, the corrupt leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven of grace. Abide in
Christ, that the stranger may not have dominion over you. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the
tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity
there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that
confesses, is gathered unto God. And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of
Abraham, the friend of God; and in his seed all those have been blessed who were ordained to eternal life in
Christ." [Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, VIII-X]

The ninth chapter opens with these words: "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of
things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the
observance of the Lord's Day..." Ignatius was referring to the Apostles as the ones "brought up in the ancient
order of things" (meaning under the Old Covenant). He was arguing that since the Apostles, who were
brought up in Judaism no longer kept the Sabbath but rather "the Lord's day," there is no reason for his
readers to do differently. This indicates personal knowledge by Ignatius that the Apostles did NOT continue
to observe the Sabbath, but rather Sunday. No doubt this comes from John, as does the term "the Lord's
day."

Some have interpreted Ignatius' words to imply that Christians were keeping the Sabbath, and Ignatius was
encouraging them to stop. Therefore, they gain support for their claim that Gentile Christians originally kept
the Sabbath. Note however, that Ignatius was NOT arguing for a change in Christian practice, but that
Christians should not succumb to the Judaizers. In other words, the very same problem that Paul
continuously encountered from the Judaizers, who insisted that Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Law,
was still an ongoing concern. Ignatius was arguing that the Churches CONTINUE the tradition of the
Apostles and RESIST the efforts of the Judiazers. He indicated that this Apostolic tradition was Sunday
observance, in honor of the resurrection.

In Ignatius' "Epistle to the Trallians" he also repeatedly referred to Sunday as the "Lord's Day." Since
Ignatius was trained by John, there is little question that He got this from John's use of the term "Lord's Day,"
as recorded in Rev. 1:10.

CHAPTER IX - THE REALITY OF CHRIST'S PASSION​

"On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father
permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and
before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph
of Arimathaea had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord's day He arose from the dead, according to what
was spoken by Himself, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of
man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The day of the preparation, then,
comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord's Day contains the
resurrection." [Ignatius, "Epistle to the Trallians," IX]

Barnabas:​
Not much is know of the authorship of the Epistle of Barnabas. Some have supposed that he was Paul's
companion, but there is no way of knowing for sure. This epistle is usually dated by scholars around the
latter part of the first century, around the time John wrote Revelation.

CHAPTER II - THE JEWISH SACRIFICES ARE ABOLISHED​

"For He hath revealed to us by all the prophets that He needs neither sacrifices, nor burnt-offerings, nor
oblations, saying thus, “What is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me, saith the Lord? I am full of
burnt-offerings, and desire not the fat of lambs, and the blood of bulls and goats, not when ye come to
appear before Me: for who hath required these things at your hands? Tread no more My courts, not though
ye bring with you fine flour. Incense is a vain abomination unto Me, and your new moons and sabbaths I
cannot endure.” He has therefore abolished these things, that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which is without the yoke of necessity, might have a human oblation." [Epistle of Barnabas, II]

CHAPTER XV - THE FALSE AND TRUE SABBATH​

"The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: And God made in six days the works of
His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.” Attend, my children, to
the meaning of this expression, He finished in six days.” This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six
thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, Behold, to-day will
be as a thousand years.” Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be
finished. And He rested on the seventh day.” This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the
time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall
He truly rest on the seventh day.... Further, He says to them, Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot
endure.” Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I
have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a
beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on
which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the
heavens." [Epistle of Barnabas, XV]

Justin:​
Justin Martyr was born at the end of the first century and wrote a considerable amount of Christian
apologetic literature during the first half of the second century. He was first a philosopher, but after failing to
find true peace in philosophy, he became a Christian. Justin was the first "apologist" for Christianity,
explaining and defending the Christian Faith to the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews. His works are very
valuable to the Sunday/Sabbath question, because they were intended to characterize Christian beliefs and
practice of the Church at large, rather than being indicative of one locality. Justin was later beheaded for his
testimony to the Lord. Here is one quote from his "First Apology."

CHAPTER LXVII - WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRISTIANS​

"And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the
needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all
through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in
cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the
prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally
instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we
before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like
manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and
there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those
who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each
thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and
those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers
sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we
all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the
darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For
He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the
day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have
submitted to you also for your consideration." [Justin Martyr, "First Apology," LXVII]

Here are several quotes from Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho." This is a record of a debate between Justin,
a Gentile Christian, and an orthodox Jew named, Trypho.

CHAPTER 18 - CHRISTIANS WOULD OBSERVE THE LAW, IF THEY DID NOT KNOW WHY IT WAS
INSTITUTED​
"For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did
not know for what reason they were enjoined you, — namely, on account of your transgressions and the
hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and
demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict
such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver
commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us, — I speak of
fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts?" [Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, XVIII]

CHAPTER XXVI - NO SALVATION TO THE JEWS EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST​

"And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not
repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and
have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with
the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although
they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts Assuredly they shall
receive the holy inheritance of God." [Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho," XXVI]

CHAPTER XXXIII - THE OPINION OF THE JEWS REGARDING THE LAW...​

"But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinion, as if it were not the same God who
existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the flesh, nor observed
Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances... For if there was no need of
circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before
Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the
Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham". [Dialogue With
Trypho, XXXIII]

CHAPTER XLIII - HE CONCLUDES THAT THE LAW HAD AN END IN CHRIST, WHO WAS BORN OF THE
VIRGIN​
“As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts
with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people’s
heart, so it was necessary, in accordance with the Father’s will, that they should have an end in Him
who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David; in Christ the Son of
God, who was proclaimed as about to come to all the world, to be the everlasting law and the everlasting
covenant, even as the forementioned prophecies show." [Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, XLIII]

CHAPTER XLVII - JUSTIN COMMUNICATES WITH CHRISTIANS WHO OBSERVE THE LAW. NOT A FEW
CATHOLICS DO OTHERWISE​
"And Trypho again inquired, “But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognizes that this man is
Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he be
saved?”​
I said, “In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other
men, — I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things
as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so. This you did yourself at the
commencement of the discourse, when you declared that I would not be saved unless I observe these
institutions.”​
Then he replied, “Why then have you said, ‘In my opinion, such an one will be saved,’ unless there are some
who affirm that such will not be saved?”​
“There are such people, Trypho,” I answered; “and these do not venture to have any intercourse with or to
extend hospitality to such persons; but I do not agree with them. But if some, through weak-mindedness,
wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but
which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people’s hearts, along with their hope in
this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live
with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like
themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to
join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren. But if, Trypho,” I
continued, “some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this
Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately
with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded
by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be
saved. And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone
back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented
not before death, shall by no means be saved. Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live
according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved, and
especially those who have anathematized and do anathematize this very Christ in the synagogues, and
everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire." [Justin, Dialogue with
Trypho, XLVII]

These ancient Christian witnesses lived contemporary or contiguous to the Apostle John. And all say
Christians worshiped on Sunday. Granted, this does not prove Christians worshiped on Sunday because the
Apostles taught them to do so. But, it does prove that even in the first century, while the Apostle John was
still alive, Christians customarily worshiped on Sunday. And this seems to be something practiced
universally by the early Christians. Since it is apparent that the term "the Lord's Day" referred to Sunday in
first century Christian literature, it is obvious then that John meant Sunday, when he wrote "I was in the spirit
on the Lord's day..." [Rev. 1:10], and most likely meant that he was worshipping privately on Sunday while in
prison.

These witnesses were more than 200 years before Constantine or the Roman Church exercised any
authority outside of the local church in Rome. If Sunday worship is the "mark of the beast," as is claimed by
many Seventh Day Adventists, then it seems Christians [even the martyrs of Jesus] were already taking it
while the ink on John's Revelation was still wet!

Christians from the earliest times worshiped on Sunday as a memorial to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This practice originated with the resurrection of Jesus, and was continued from the disciples' meeting
together on two consecutive Sundays (John 20:19,26). It seems to also have been a continuation of
Pentecost Sunday (which the early Christians called "Whitsunday"). On this Sunday, Peter preached and
3,000 souls were saved, baptized, and added to the Church. And, in Acts 20:7, we have another record of a
local church meeting on Sunday for their "love feast" (see: 1 Cor. 11:20 & Jude 1:12) and to hear Paul's
preaching. Nowhere in Scripture is there a record of a New Testament local church meeting on the Sabbath.

Our Seventh Day Adventist friends seem to have based their main doctrine on a mirage that was constructed
by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC has revised history in order to bolster their claim to authority above
the Scriptures. They claim that there is no basis for Sunday worship in Scripture (not true), and that the
Roman Catholic Church changed worship from the Sabbath to Sunday by their own authority. Yet, even
though the earliest witnesses prove them wrong, Seventh Day Adventists continue to quote Roman Catholic
sources as though they were "inspired" and make false and misleading statements about the practice of the
early Church. Likewise, the implied claims, that Christians who worship on the day of the resurrection are
participating in some form of pagan rites, are equally false. If the resurrection, the Day of Pentecost, and the
church in Acts 20 were not pagan, then neither is worshipping on any Sunday pagan.

Following Jesus' Example?​

​
Copyright © Tim Warner
One argument often used by Sabbath-keepers is that we should follow Jesus' example, and He kept the
Sabbath. The problem with this argument is it ignores the change in dispensation that occurred at the
crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus and the disciples observed the Law regarding Sabbaths and
Feasts during Jesus ministry.

If one is consistent, he would have to agree that such a position also requires that he go up to Jerusalem
three times a year, as commanded by the Torah, and observe all of the feasts - because Jesus did. Here is
what the Law demanded of all Jewish males.

Deut 16:16​
16 "Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place which He
chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and
they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed.​
(NKJ)

And it seems Jesus followed the commandment.

Luke 2:41-42​
41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.​
42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.​
(NKJ)

John 2:23​
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they
saw the signs which He did.​
(NKJ)

John 4:45​
45 So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things He did in Jerusalem
at the feast; for they also had gone to the feast.​
(NKJ)

John 5:1​
1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.​
(NKJ)

John 7:2,10​
2 Now the Jews' Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. ...​
10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.​
(NKJ)

John 12:12​
12 The next day a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to
Jerusalem,​
(NKJ)

Matt 26:17​
17 Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him,
"Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"​
(NKJ)

So, it is clear that Jesus observed the commandment, and went up to Jerusalem three times a year for the
festivals. But, notice what He told the Samaritan woman:

John 4:19-24​
19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.​
20 "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one
ought to worship."​
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this
mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.​
22 "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.​
23 " But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and
truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.​
24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."​
(NKJ)

Jesus prophesied that the Mosaic dispensation was closing, and a new way of worship was about to
commence, that of worshipping "in spirit and in truth."

This type of worship does not require legalistic observance of particular days. That is why Paul wrote the
following.

Rom 14:4-6​
4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to
stand, for God is able to make him stand.​
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced
in his own mind.​
6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he
does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the
Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.​
(NKJ)

Col 2:16-17​
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,​
17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.​
(NKJ)

Paul said not to let anyone judge us regarding these Old Covenant things. They are NOT the reality; Christ is
the reality. They were only a shadow. The reality is in Christ. Those of us who rest in Him are keeping the
real Sabbath.

Heb 4:1-11​
1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to
have fallen short of it.​
2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no
value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.​
3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They
shall never enter my rest.'" And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.​
4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested
from all his work."​
5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."​
6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did
not go in, because of their disobedience.​
7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as
was said before: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."​
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.​
9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;​
10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.​
11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of
disobedience.​
(NIV)

The writer of Hebrews was saying that the "Sabbath rest" that remains for Christians is our future reward in
the Kingdom of God. The Jews of the Old Testament had the "promised land" as their future hope of "rest."
Yet, because of unbelief, most could not go in. We have as our hope of Sabbath-rest entrance into the
Kingdom of Christ when He comes. And the writer encourages us to remain faithful.
 The Ten Commandments​
​
Copyright © Tim Warner

The "commandments of God" in Scripture have been a source of much confusion among Christians. Some
claim that only Paul's teaching applies to us directly. Some claim that all "New Testament" commandments
are for us. Others say some Old Testament commandments apply also. Others say all of the commands in
Scripture are to be obeyed. Who is correct? If we must obey all commands in Scripture, then animal
sacrifices and stoning our children when they disrespect us are called for. If only some of the commands
from the Old Testament apply to us, on what basis can we make this distinction? The Bible does not divide
the "Law" into a "moral law" and "ceremonial law." That is an arbitrary distinction. And what of Jesus'
commands? He told the rich young ruler that if He kept the commandments he would have "eternal life." Yet
Paul said it is not by works of the Law! And if we limit the application of the commands of Scripture to Paul's
words only, then how do we explain the Great Commission? Jesus said to preach the Gospel to all the
nations, and teach them to observe ALL THINGS He commanded His disciples (in the four Gospels)! He
said, "if you love me, keep MY commandments." It is the job of the Church to teach the Gentile nations to
observe Jesus' commandments.

This is THE most crucial question in Christian theology. Different systems, like Covenant Theology and
Dispensationalism, are attempts to develop a framework that works consistently with all Scripture. But, both
of these systems have serious problems in several passages. Unless the right dynamic system is used, all
other biblical interpretation is skewed. For in depth studies regarding this question, please see our Last
Trumpet - Progressive Dispensationalism section.

One of the things missed by most Christians is a distinction between "principles" on which commandments
are based and the commandments themselves. God's moral principles never change. They are uniform from
Genesis to Revelation. But, specific commandments do indeed change, and are specific to certain
individuals, nations, or other entities. The context of a given passage indicates to whom the particular
commandments are addressed. God is always the same. His character never changes. Yet, He has not
always required the same things of all people. His dealings with people vary depending on His covenants.

Covenants are legal contracts between two parties where one or both parties pledge to do certain things.
One party may pledge to do or abide by certain conditions, and the other party pledges to do certain things in
response. This is a "conditional" covenant. Other covenants are "unconditional" since one party pledges to
do something regardless of what the other party does. The specifics of the Covenants that God has made
with various individuals and groups vary. But, God is the same, and His principles and His character never
change. All of His covenants are in keeping with His moral character. Yet, the specifics vary depending on
circumstances involved, as well as God's PURPOSE in making each covenant. God made a covenant with
Noah. He made one with Abraham. He made another with Moses and the twelve tribes of Israel after the
exodus. Later, He promised a "new covenant" to replace the "old covenant" (Mosaic covenant) in Jeremiah
31:31-34. He also made a covenant with David regarding the Messianic Kingdom. The "New Covenant" was
inaugurated by Jesus with His disciples. Some of these were unconditional. This is true of the covenant with
Noah. God promised to never again destroy the earth with a flood. It did not depend on what Noah or his
descendants did. The same was true of God's covenant with Abraham. He promised to make a great nation
from Abraham's descendants. He also promised that through Abraham's seed all (Gentile) nations would be
blessed. It mattered not what Abraham did. God was bound by His covenant. The same was true of the
Davidic Covenant. God swore to David that He would raise up a king of David's descendants to rule over
Israel forever. The Law, including the 10 commandments given through Moses on Mt Sinai, was a conditional
covenant. It was made only with one nation, Israel. And its "blessings" were conditional upon the Israelites
keeping the commandments. A look at Deut. 28,29 clearly shows the conditional nature of the Mosaic
Covenant (Old Covenant). Even Jeremiah's prophecy of the "New Covenant" (Jer. 31:31-34) indicated that
the New Covenant would eventually replace the Old Covenant BECAUSE Israel did not keep their end of the
covenant.
Contrary to what many in the Hebrew Roots movement teach, the Old Covenant has been completely
replaced and superseded by the New Covenant. I see no way to escape this conclusion. The following
passages clearly teach this.

Heb 8:6-9​
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better
covenant, which was established upon better promises.​
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.​
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:​
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded
them not, saith the Lord...."​
13 In that he saith, "A new covenant," he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and
waxeth old is ready to vanish away.​
(KJV)

Heb 10:8-10​
8 Above when he said, "Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not,
neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law";​
9 Then said he, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God." He taketh away the first, that he may establish the
second.​
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.​
(KJV)

The question then is, are the 10 commandments separate from the Old Covenant, or are they its
centerpiece?

Exod 34:28​
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water.
And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.​
(KJV)

Deut 4:13​
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten
commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.​
(KJV)

It is obvious from these verses that the 10 commandments are the centerpiece or icon of the Old Covenant.
If the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant, then the 10 commandments are necessarily
obsolete.

This is not to say that the principles on which the 10 commandments are based are obsolete. The moral
principles are based on God's character which never changes. We are not at liberty to steal, or to kill, or to
commit adultery just because the Old Covenant is obsolete. The New Covenant has its own set standards
that we must live by as Christians. And these standards forbid all of these things. They are in keeping with
the character of God, and the universal principles of morality and right and wrong. But, they deal much more
directly with the heart that is the source of sin.

The New Covenant is a much more MATURE covenant. The Old Covenant should be compared to the rules
we give our children when they are young. They need specific seemingly cumbersome rules in order to learn
the principles of right and wrong, and what is good for them in the long run and what is harmful. But, when
maturity is developed, the cumbersome rules are no longer needed. Yet, the basic principles remain. This is
the perfect illustration of the relationship of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant. In fact, this is the
illustration Paul used in Gal. 3, where he said the Law was the "schoolmaster" to point Israel to Christ. But,
once Christ came, Israel is no longer under the old schoolmaster.

THE LAW OF CHRIST​

When Jesus began to preach the New Covenant, one of the first things He did was to take His disciples up
into a mountain, just as God took Moses up into Mt. Sinai. Jesus proceeded to give His disciples 10 of His
own commandments, contained in Matthew 5-7. These commandments are based on the same principles or
"spirit" of the Old Covenant 10 commandments. But, they are not identical in their specifics, they are new.
They deal with the heart, not with outward observances.

It is easy to see that Jesus was actually superseding the Old Covenant, not just returning them to a better
understanding of the Law, as Hebrew Roots folks claim. For example;

Matt 5:31-39​
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:​
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth
her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.​
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt
perform unto the Lord thine oaths:​
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:...​
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:​
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him
the other also.​
(KJV)

The Sermon on the Mount is the foundation of all New Covenant teaching. The rest of the New Testament
teaches us as Christians to live by the Sermon on the Mount, in order to be pleasing to the one who called us
out of darkness to light.

Jesus did not arrive on the scene one day and declare the Law of Moses obsolete, and that He was
replacing it with His own Law. He said He did not come to "demolish" the Law, but to "fulfill" it [Matt. 5:17].
The word "fulfill" means to bring to its proper conclusion. It is the same word used of Christ's fulfilling the
prophecies of His coming. Did Jesus "fulfill" the Law in one day? No! He did it over His entire ministry, by
walking in perfect holiness, and by becoming the sacrifice of which the Law was prophetic. There was a slow
transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. In fact, this transition took 40 years, [one generation].
From AD 30, when John the Baptist and Jesus first began to preach the New Covenant, until the destruction
of the Temple in AD 70, when God saw to it that Biblical Judaism could not be practiced anymore, there are
exactly 40 years. Hebrews 8:13 says that the Old Covenant was "waxing old" and it was "about to vanish
away." This was written shortly before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, which Jesus had clearly
predicted in Luke 19:14-44, because the Jews had refused to accept the New Covenant. During Jesus'
ministry, the two covenants existed along side one another. It took Jesus 3.5 years to fully implement the
New Covenant. And it took 40 years for the Old Covenant to fully expire. After the Day of Pentecost, God still
allowed a period of time for the nation of Israel to accept the gospel.

During His ministry, Jesus did not publicly teach New Covenant doctrine to the multitudes. But, when He was
alone with His disciples, He taught them privately New Covenant doctrine. [Take a look at Mark 4:10-12,
33,34]. Jesus was preparing them to be His missionaries to the whole world.

The most important key to understanding the teaching of Jesus is this: Everything He taught directly and
specifically to His disciples, is New Covenant doctrine. How do I know this?

Matt 28:19-20​
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit,​
20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even
to the end of the age." Amen.​
(NKJV)

Did He say to teach to the nations all things He taught to the crowds? Or to the Scribes and Pharisees? No!
Because much of this teaching was Jesus' rebuke for their failure to keep the Old Covenant as God
intended. Jesus commanded the disciples to only teach what Jesus had personally taught to them. To whom
were they to teach this? To all nations! And for how long? Until the end of the age! That is the Great
Commission! Make more disciples, baptize them, and teach them everything Jesus taught His disciples. The
best place to start is the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' 10 commandments, the "Law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).

When I finally realized the full impact of this passage, I did something that really made the Gospels come
alive for me. I went verse by verse through the four Gospels and highlighted everything that Jesus taught His
disciples directly. Try this, you will like it. Now, at a glance, you can see exactly what God expects from you,
and what you are to teach to His sheep. Some of the major discourses you should highlight would be
Matthew 5-7, Matthew 18, Matthew 24&25, and John 13-17. There are many more smaller passages
scattered throughout the Gospels too.

There is so much confusion in Christianity regarding what in the Gospels applies to the New Covenant, and
what does not (or even if the New Covenant is in force yet). Some have made the mistake of drawing a line
on a certain date, like the Day of Pentecost, or the day of Jesus' baptism. They think everything before that
event is "Old Covenant" and everything after it is "New Covenant." But this is arbitrary, and clearly wrong.
Those who divide dispensations at Pentecost, toss out all of Jesus' teaching! And that is what He said to
take to all the world! They have become "Paulians" instead of "Christians." But, those who draw a line at His
baptism, are confronted with statements like the one to the rich young ruler. They just don't fit with the New
Covenant. But, when you recognize that Jesus brought in the New Covenant, while allowing the Old
Covenant to begin to expire at the crucifixion, and then completely at the destruction of the Temple,
everything fits. The division of dispensations was not on a certain date. The division should be drawn by the
audience to whom Jesus was speaking! The transition took place over a period of years, not on a single
date.

In my opinion, this issue is the single most important theological dilemma facing Christianity. It is the main
reason for the plethora of Christian denominations. It is the main reason for the separation of Christian
brethren over various doctrinal issues, including eschatology. And it is the main reason so many Christian
laymen are at a loss when it comes to good biblical exegesis of Scripture, and are forced to rely on what they
are told rather than allowing the Spirit of God to teach them through independent Bible Study. If I could get
across to pastors only one thing from all of my years of research, and work on the Last Trumpet websites, it
would be this. Teach your people HOW to interpret the Scriptures by building this foundational understanding
of the covenants of God, and how they relate to each other. Everything else falls into place once the
foundation is laid. This is how you can equip them to be "approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth." (1 Tim. 2:15).

The Law of Christ​

​
Copyright © Tim Warner

Seventh Day Adventists and many in the Jewish Roots Movement claim that the Law of the Old Covenant,
and especially the 10 Commandments, are universal laws. They claim that these laws were inaugurated at
creation. This theory is essential to their position, because if the Law was given much later, then these
commandments were NOT binding on those who lived for 2,000 years prior to the Law being given through
Moses on Mt. Sinai. Therefore, it served a purpose for a unique group of people for a unique period of time.

However, Paul clearly refutes this concept. He argues that the Law of Moses was given to the Israelis 430
years after God made His covenant with Abraham. Paul tells us why God gave the Law through Moses.

Gal 3:16-25​
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of
one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.​
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.​
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.​
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should
come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator....​
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be
revealed.​
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.​
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.​
(KJV)

Here we see clearly that the Law given through Moses [including the 10 Commandments]
was temporary until Christ came. Also, it is clear that the Law of Moses was NOT in effect before Moses.
Paul also makes this perfectly clear in another passage.

Rom 5:12-14​
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for that all have sinned:​
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude
of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.​
(KJV)

So we see that the Law of Moses did NOT exist from Adam to Moses. Likewise, there is no hint of anyone
keeping Sabbath before Moses and the Exodus of the Israelis from Egypt. Furthermore, the Law itself
proclaims that it was a unique covenant between God and the people of Israel, and especially the Sabbath
commandment.

Exod 31:16-18​
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their
generations, for a perpetual covenant.​
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.​
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two
tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.​
(KJV)

Deut 5:1-3​
1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak
in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.​
2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.​
3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here
alive this day.​
(KJV) [Moses them recounted the 10 Commandments in the following verses].

We see clearly from these statements that the Old Covenant, and particularly the 10 Commandments, were
NOT universal laws binding on all mankind since creation, but were specific to Israel, from the days of Moses
onward.

Moses Predicted the coming of Jesus, and a New Law.

Acts 3:22-23​
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your
brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.​
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among
the people.​
(KJV)

John 5:46-47​
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.​
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?​
(KJV)

Likewise, Jeremiah prophesied of the coming of a New Covenant that would supersede the Law of Moses.
Jer 31:31-32​
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah:​
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband
unto them, saith the LORD:​
(KJV)

Jesus Himself brought the New Covenant, and sealed it in His own blood. When we examine the deeds of
Christ, it is apparent that He not only superseded the Old Covenant, but He also brought His own 10
Commandments to be followed by all those under the New Covenant. These 10 Commandments of Jesus
can be found in the Sermon on the Mount, contained in Matthew 5 - 7.

Moses & the Old Covenant Jesus & the New Covenant
Moses & the people WASHED;​ Jesus WASHED;​
Exod 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto Matt 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, unto John, to be baptized of him.
and let them wash their clothes,

Moses fasted 40 days;​ Jesus fasted 40 days;​

Exod 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty
days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor nights, he was afterward an hungred.
drink water.

Moses went up into a mountain;​ Jesus took the disciples up a mountain;​

Exod 19:20 And the LORD came down upon mount Matt 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a
Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the LORD called mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came
Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went unto him:
up.

God gave 10 Commandments; Exod 20​ Jesus gave 10 Commandments; Matt.5-7​

I. No other Gods before me.​ I. Do not be angry with a brother or sister.​
II. No graven images.​ II. Do not lust.​
III. Do not take the LORD's name in vain.​ III. Do not swear oaths.​
IV. Keep the sabbath day holy.​ IV. Turn other cheek - Love your enemies​
V. Honor your father and mother.​ V. Do good deeds in secret.​
VI. Do not kill.​ VI. Store treasure in heaven, not on earth.​
VII. Do not commit adultery.​ VII. Do not judge others.​
VIII. Do not steal.​ VIII. Don't cast pearls before the swine.​
IX. Do not bear false witness.​ IX. Ask God for your needs.​
X. Do not covet. X. The Golden Rule.

Gal 6:2​
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.​
(KJV)

Jesus said;

John 14:15​
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.​
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall
be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.​
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love
him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.​
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's
which sent me.​
(KJV)
Are we of the household of Moses, or the household of Christ?

Heb 3:1-6​
1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our
profession, Christ Jesus;​
2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.​
3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house
hath more honour than the house.​
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.​
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which
were to be spoken after,;​
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the
rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.​
(KJV)

Was the New Testament Written in Hebrew?​

​
Copyright © Tim Warner

I have been concerned about certain forces within the Hebrew Roots movement and where this is leading.
While understanding the Hebrew foundation of Christianity is something all Christians should pursue, there is
something sinister going on below the surface. There seems to be an attempt to draw Christians away from
the simplicity of the Gospel back under the Old Covenant (Law) into Judaism. Eventually, I believe the result
for those who are absorbed into this movement will be forsaking the only begotton Son of God for another
“Yeshua” who was just a Jewish sage. The destination seems to be the same as the Jesus Seminar, it is just
arrived at via another route. I realize that this is a tough statement. But, after interaction with several who
have been involved in this movement for some time, I am convinced it is accurate.

One of the subtle attacks on the Christian Faith comes from the notion that the New Testament was not
written in Greek, but in "Hebrew." This may seem benign at first, but it is not. It is an attack on the reliability of
the text of your Bible. If the Greek text is unreliable and has been corrupted by Greeks, as is charged by
some, there is no longer a standard of truth. The Protestant cry of "Sola Scriptura" is meaningless unless we
have a historically stable and reliable text. Once the New Testament itself is discredited, the rope tying your
boat to the dock has been severed, and you are bound to be “carried about with every wind of doctrine.” ”We
must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.” [Heb.
2:1].

No ancient Hebrew manuscript of the New Testament has ever been found from the early centuries of
Christianity. The oldest are Greek. The oldest papyrus fragment [a portion of the Gospel of John] dates back
to the late second century. So the manuscript evidence alone weighs heavily against the concept of Hebrew
“originals.” The proponents of the Hebrew New Testament claim that internal evidence suggests the original
language of the text was “Hebrew.” Actually, the “Hebrew” of the Torah was not widely spoken at the time of
Christ. It was the language of the Jewish scholars, but not widely spoken by common Jewish folk. It was like
the “Latin” of the day. It had long since gone out of common use since the Babylonian captivity. In Israel of
the first century, Aramaic [or “Chaldee”] was fairly common, which is similar to Hebrew. But, this was the
language picked up during the Babylonian captivity, which found its way into Jewish life. [There are a few
parts of the Old Testament written in Aramaic, parts of Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezra]. So, lets not begin with a
false impression that true “Hebrew” of the Torah is even a possible candidate for the original documents of
the New Testament. It is not. No one except a few Jewish scholars would have been able to read it. When
the New Testament refers to the “Hebrew tongue” it is not referring to pure “Hebrew” of the Torah, but to “the
common language of the Jews” ie., the common tongue spoken by Jews, Aramaic or “Chaldee,” adopted
from the language of the “Chaldeans” [Babylonians].

Proponents of the “Hebrew” New Testament concept claim that the Greek New Testament is unreliable, due
to “Hellenization” of the text. “Hellenized” simply means influenced by Greek culture and thought. This theory
leads to the conclusion that the Greek New Testament, from which we get our English New Testament, is
unreliable, and we are subject to errors of “Hellenism” when we read it. The real message of Jesus was
allegedly lost in the “Hellenized” and “embellished” documents we call the four Gospels. My friends, this is
NOT of God! It is EXACTLY the tactic of every major cult. They all claim that true Christianity was lost, and
they have been chosen to “recover” the true message of Jesus and the Apostles. It is the same message
Islam teaches, that Christians have corrupted the Scriptures over the centuries.

The Hebrew New Testament proponents would have us trust them to fix the faulty Scriptures, by relying on
their supposed knowledge of Jewish customs and figures of speech. In short, we need to sit at the feet of
rabbis in order to understand what was written. But, by editing the text of the New Testament to conform to
so-called Jewish thought only leads AWAY from the message preserved by the providence of God. God
promised to preserve His Word for every generation [Psalm 12:6,7 Matt. 24:35]. God kept His word! The
Traditional Greek text of the New Testament is reliable. Any changing [regardless of motive] of what has
been preserved by God is a blatant violation of the commandment found in the last chapter of Revelation.
Those who remove words that God has preserved in His Word, will be removed from the “Book of Life,” and
those who add to His words, to them God will add the plagues.

Limiting the words of Jesus and the Apostles to a Jewish culture and to Jewish thought is to limit the Son of
God to human ideologies! It is to make Jesus out to be just another “radical rabbi.” The message of the New
Testament transcends the Jewish and Greek cultures! Sure the writers of the New Testament were Jewish.
But they used language and explanations understood by common folk, in the common language of the
Roman Empire, Greek. Sure, there are uniquely “Jewish” expressions and ideas found in the words of Jesus.
After all, He was Jewish, speaking to those of the Jewish culture. But, Aramaic was not the only language
spoken in Israel. The common language of commerce was Greek, as it was all over the eastern Roman
Empire. Jews spoke Greek in their daily trade. Being bilingual was very common all over the Roman Empire.
And this is particularly true of the Jews.

The New Testament writers adapted the Gospel message to the thinking of the ones they were addressing!
This is seen clearly by comparing two passages from Acts where Paul addressed two different groups from
two different cultures.

First, when Paul was arrested at the Temple, because of false charges from a mob of Jews hurling
accusations, he was immediately brought before the Roman guard.

Acts 21:36-22:3​
36 For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him.​
37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who
said, Canst thou speak Greek?​
38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness
four thousand men that were murderers?​
39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I
beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.​
40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the
people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,​
22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.​
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he
saith,)​
3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of
Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God,
as ye all are this day.​
(KJV)

Here we have recorded that Paul addressed the Jews on the Temple Mount in Aramaic. Why? Because He
was being accused of bringing a Gentile into the Temple. He wanted to make an impression that He was
indeed a Jew, as he clearly stated in his opening statement. He proceeded to give a long discourse in the
language of the Jews.

Now, compare this to Acts 17.

Acts 17:22-24,28-29​
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are
too superstitious.​
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN
GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.​
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in
temples made with hands;​
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For
we are also his offspring.​
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold,
or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.​
(KJV)

Here, Paul addressed the men of Athens in their native tongue, Greek. He also quoted two excerpts from a
Greek philosopher in support of His preaching! Now, talk about “Hellenism!” It is easy to see that Paul
adapted the message of the Gospel to the language and culture of his hearers.

Based on these two quotes, what can we conclude about the language in which Acts was written? Acts
contains no statement that Paul addressed the men of Athens in Greek, yet we know they spoke Greek. In
Acts 21, when Paul addressed the Jews on the Temple Mount, a point is made by Luke of the fact that he
spoke Aramaic. The logical conclusion is that Luke recorded Acts in Greek, and noted where he had to
translate from Aramaic to Greek himself.

That Acts was originally written in Greek is further supported by the fact that it was addressed to a Greek
man. Luke commented that his “former treatise,” ie. the Gospel of Luke, was also written to this same Greek
man, Theophilus.

Acts 1:1-2​
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,​
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments
unto the apostles whom he had chosen:​
(KJV)

We can conclude from this that both Luke and Acts were originally written in Greek.

Mark and John were both written to Greek speaking Gentiles. Mark makes it a point to explain some of the
Jewish customs to His Greek speaking audience. This would have been gratuitous had they been Jewish.
Note:

Mark 7:2-4​
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they
found fault.​
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the
elders.​
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be,
which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.​
(KJV)

Mark was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey to the Gentiles. His Gospel was
most likely recorded for the benefit and use of Paul and the Gentile churches founded by Paul. So, his
explanation of the Jewish customs was considered necessary so that the Gentiles would understand why the
Pharisees were so upset with Jesus. Mark was definitely not written to those who were well acquainted with
Jewish customs.

The Gospel of John shows thoroughly Roman thinking by the Apostle himself. The Gospel of John was
written much later than the others, after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 During this time John had
taken over the leadership of the churches of Asia Minor that Paul had founded, after Paul’s martyrdom at
Rome. This is a fact of Church history, and it is also apparent in Revelation, where John was instructed by
Jesus to send the seven letters to the local Gentile Greek-speaking churches of Asia Minor.
One piece of evidence from John indicates that by the time he wrote his Gospel, he had adopted Roman
methods of time-keeping. That is, midnight to midnight, rather than sunset to sunset, as was the practice of
the Jews. And he wrote his gospel in such a way that Gentiles would understand the hours correctly.
Compare the following, where the synoptic Gospels use Jewish reckoning, but John used Roman reckoning.

Matt 27:45​
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.​
(KJV)

Here, the crucifixion of Jesus is referred to using Jewish reckoning. The Jews reckoned the days from sunset
to sunset [around 6:00PM]. And the daytime hours were counted beginning at sunrise. So, the sixth hour
would be around noon, and the ninth hour was 3:00PM. Now, compare John’s Gospel.

John 19:14​
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold
your King!​
(KJV)

Here, we find Jesus before Pilate at the “sixth hour” prior to the crucifixion. Yet, Matthew has Jesus on the
cross at the “sixth hour.” The apparent discrepancy is because John used Roman time. Hours were counted
from midnight. So, the “sixth hour” was 6:00AM. Three hours later he was crucified at 9:00AM. And at noon
the sun turned dark, until 3:00PM.

The question then arises; Why would John, a Jewish Apostle, use Gentile methods of reckoning time?
Because he wrote to Gentiles after the destruction of Jerusalem. Since the Jews had been dispersed from
Jerusalem, Jewish time-keeping was no longer being practiced on a large scale, even in Israel. And John’s
Gentile audience might not understand the hours properly had he used Jewish reckoning. This illustrates a
couple of important points. The intended audience of most of the New Testament books were
Greek-speaking Gentiles, who not only could not possibly understand Aramaic, but did NOT fully understand
the Jewish customs. The fact that the New Testament writers took this into consideration, making allowances
through explanatory notes or by using time-keeping familiar to the Greeks, shows that the New Testament
was not only written in the language of the Roman Empire, Greek, but was already adapted to Gentile
thinking by the original writers. It needs no further tampering by the Hebrew Roots movement!

The Jews spoke Greek, not exclusively Aramaic. Greek was necessary for trade, and because the Roman
Empire was governing Israel at the time. In order to interact with the authorities, primarily Greek and even
Latin were necessary. The multilingual nature of the Jewish culture at the time of Christ is clearly seen in the
inscription hung on the top of the cross.

Luke 23:38​
38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE
KING OF THE JEWS.​
(KJV)

Jews of the Diaspora [Jews who were descendants of those who did not return to the land of Israel after the
Babylonian captivity] had settled in little Hebrew communities all over the Roman Empire. Paul encountered
them in his travels to many Gentile cities. These Jews spoke Greek in order to participate in commerce, and
also spoke the languages unique to the local area. This is illustrated in Acts 2, where Jews of the Diaspora
had traveled to Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost.

Acts 2:5-11​
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.​
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every
man heard them speak in his own language.​
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak
Galilaeans?​
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?​
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia,
in Pontus, and Asia,​
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews
and proselytes,​
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.​
(KJV)

Notice the Jews of the Diaspora were speaking among themselves, obviously in a common language. But
what language? Notice they were from many different places, and their native languages were those of the
areas in which they lived. Also, notice they EXPECTED the Apostles, who were “Galileans” [from Galilee –
north of Judea], to be speaking in the language common to Galilee. Yet, to their surprise, the 120 brethren
were speaking “the wonderful works of God” in the native languages of all these men. Now, pay particular
attention to the fact that the language of Judea is listed among these languages in contrast to the language
of the Galileans! The language of the Judeans was “Aramaic” [or what the New Testament calls “Hebrew.”]
So, since this crowd was amazed that the Galilean believers were speaking the Hebrew [Aramaic] of Judea
[as well as the other languages of Jews of the Diaspora], we must conclude that Aramaic was NOT the
normally spoken language of Galilee! Jesus and the Disciples were from Galilee, with the exception of Judas
Iscariot, who was from Judea. This is strong evidence that Jesus and the disciples normally spoke
Greek, common to Galilee, rather than Aramaic or Hebrew, which was primarily spoken in Judea.

That Jesus was bilingual, and spoke both Greek and Aramaic, is indicated by Mark. He made special note of
the fact that Jesus uttered some words in Aramaic. These special notations by Mark would indicate that
Aramaic was not Jesus' normally spoken language. In other words, Mark records these Aramaic comments
of Jesus as unusual.

Mark 5:41​
41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted,
Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.​
(KJV)

Mark 15:34-35​
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is,
being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?​
35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.​
(KJV)

Some might argue that Jesus always spoke in Aramaic, and the Gospel writers simply translated His words
themselves into Greek. But, notice in the above passage, those standing around the cross did not
understand these Aramaic words! They thought Jesus was calling Elijah! This is because the majority of
Jews spoke Greek.

The late Alfred Edersheim is considered one of the greatest Messianic Jewish scholars of the 19th century.
In his book, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," he wrote the following about the languages spoken
in Israel during Jesus' ministry.

Pg. 17. "When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that in the West, we seem to breathe quite
a different atmosphere. ... These Jews of the West are known by the term "Hellenists" from ελληνιθειν, to
conform to the language and manners of the Greeks." Pg. 22 "Why, this sway extended even into Palistine
itself, and was felt in the innermost circle of the most exclusive Rabbinism. We are not here referring to the
fact that the very language spoken in Palestine came to be very largely charged with Greek, and even Latin,
words Hebraised, since this is easily accounted for by the new circumstances, and the necessities of
intercourse with the dominant or resident foreigners."

There are also cases in the New Testament where Aramaic names are used, but are identified as “Hebrew”
[Aramaic]. There would be no reason to make such distinctions had the original documents been written in
Aramaic to begin with. If the Greek manuscripts had been translated from Aramaic originals, the translators
would NOT have left these words in Aramaic, but would have used Greek equivalents as they do with all
other words or names. Here are some examples;

John 5:2​
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda,
having five porches.​
(KJV)

John 19:13​
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a
place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.​
(KJV)

Acts 26:14​
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew
tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.​
(KJV)

Rev 16:16​
16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.​
(KJV)

In each of these cases, had the written Word been originally recorded in “Hebrew” [Aramaic], there would
have been no reason to add the comment about the Aramaic pronunciation..

Actually, the idea that the entire New Testament was originally written in Hebrew is nearly absurd, because
all, except Matthew, Hebrews, and James, were written primarily to Gentiles. And Gentiles did NOT speak
Aramaic.

The fact that several uniquely Jewish expressions and figures of speech are used does NOT show that the
original documents were written in Aramaic. This phenomenon can easily be explained by the fact that the
writers of the New Testament were bilingual, even though they were mostly Jewish men. They conveyed
some Jewish thinking in Greek words. Sure, their thinking was mostly influenced by Jewish culture and
tradition. That simply means the authors were Jewish themselves. It does NOT say anything about the
language in which they wrote, or even the language they usually spoke. In the same way the Apostles could
speak the “wonderful works of God” to men from “every nation under heaven,” using all of the languages
listed, so too did they write New Testament books to Gentiles conveying the necessary concepts in Greek.

Another fact that argues against a Hebrew New Testament is the Septuagint [commonly represented by the
numerals LXX]. This is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek made by Jews some 200 years before
Jesus. It was commonly used and quoted by the New Testament writers. And it was adopted by the early
Church as their Old Testament. In fact, this is why many of the quotes of Old Testament passages found in
the New Testament do not read exactly word for word from the Hebrew Old Testament. Yet, many are word
for word from the Greek Septuagint [LXX]. The different spellings of names in the New Testament like
“Esaias” instead of “Isaiah,” “Jesus” instead of “Joshua,” etc., are from the LXX. It was the Jews, who
translated the LXX before Christ, that transliterated these names. By the time of Christ this was how these
names were pronounced by Greek speaking Jews. Paul and the other New Testament writers had no
problem using these Greek transliterated names. Not once is Jesus referred to as “Yeshua” in the New
Testament. We saw earlier that in some cases writers would give Aramaic names of places, and make a
comment about the Hebrew [Aramaic] pronunciation. Yet not once is this done with the name of Jesus, God,
the names of the OT saints, etc. The common Greek pronunciation is always used. When Paul preached the
Gospel, he preached “Iesous Christos” not “Yeshua Messiah.”

The idea that the OT Hebrew language was fixed and names remained the same is a myth. The Hebrew
language underwent an evolution. The language of Moses and the Torah gave way to changes over time.
This can best be illustrated by a comparison of the name of Joshua [which incidentally is exactly the same
name as “Jesus”] in the Old Testament from the time of Moses, and the mention of the same name after the
Babylonian captivity.

Exod 33:11​
11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again
into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.​
(KJV)
Here the name of Joshua in the Hebrew Text is “Yehowshua” [Strong’s #3091]. This is the “Torah” [Old
Hebrew] pronunciation. But, at the time of the closing of the OT cannon, after the Babylonian captivity, the
name “Joshua” [which is also the name of our Savior] had changed rather dramatically.

Neh 8:17​
17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under
the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done
so. And there was very great gladness.​
(KJV)

Here the Hebrew text has “Yeshua” [Strong’s #3442]. Strangely enough, most Hebrew Roots folks use this
post-Babylonian pronunciation of the name of our Lord rather than the Torah pronunciation.

Finally, I would like to propose the main reason for the New Testament being originally written in Greek rather
than Hebrew or Aramaic. The Hebrew language is not a very precise language. It does not have all the
intricacies of Greek. The Greek language is very precise, making all kinds of distinctions with subtle
differences in verb tenses, etc. To translate the Bible accurately from Hebrew to any other languages is
extremely difficult. The exact meaning of the text is very often unclear. This is compounded by the fact that
the old Hebrew did not even use vowels. In later Hebrew, little marks above and below the consonants gave
the vowel sounds. But, the early Old Testament manuscripts did not contain these, and many times the
scribes had to guess which word was meant, since without vowels, sometimes completely different words
were spelled the same in the text. This problem of the Hebrew text is overcome to some degree by modern
translators using the Greek Septuagint translation to find out which Hebrew word was intended.

The Greek language was in place precisely at the right time for the Gospel to be proclaimed to all nations,
because translation from Greek is far easier and much more precise. Perhaps that is one reason Paul wrote,
“when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son…” The circumstances were such that the
Gospel could travel along the Roman trade routes, and could be carried in a common tongue all over the
known world, using the common language of trade, Greek.

In conclusion, all of the manuscript evidence supports a Greek New Testament. The internal evidence shows
a Greek original as well. The uniquely Jewish expressions and figures of speech can easily be explained by
bilingual authors who were Jewish, but conveyed their words in the Greek language. The fact that the New
Testament makes a point of identifying unique Aramaic names as “Hebrew,” and tells us when someone
spoke Aramaic, illustrates that the original documents were NOT Aramaic. The fact that the intended
audience for the vast majority of the New Testament was Greek-speaking Gentiles, also argues against this
theory. The only possible candidates for a Hebrew (Aramaic) original would be Matthew, Hebrews, and
James, all of which had a Jewish intended audience. Of these, a few claims of Hebrew originals circulated in
the early Church for Matthew and Hebrews. But, none of these claims provide any credible evidence to
support them. Nor is there any examples of manuscripts or fragments of such hypothetical Hebrew originals.
The practice of New Testament writers quoting from the Greek LXX is further evidence that the New
Testament was given by God in the Greek tongue, the one language that was spoken nearly all over the
known world at the time the Gospel was launched from Judea.

​
Jesus or Zeus?​
​
Copyright © Tim Warner

Some websites that claim to be "Messianic" are promoting the myth, proclaimed by the "sacred name" cults,
that the name "Jesus" means "son of Zeus." This is a lie, and a blatant attack on the name of our Savior.
There is absolutely no credible historic evidence that Jesus' name has anything whatsoever to do with Zeus.
The only connection is a similarity in part of the sound in the English language.

The New Testament was written in Greek. For an in-depth study of this fact, see our article Was the New
Testament Written in Hebrew? When Paul preached "Jesus Christ" he spoke the Greek words "Iesous
Christos" (pronounced "Yay-soos"). When He wrote his Epistles to the Gentile Churches, he wrote the

name Ιησους Χριστος (spelled "Iesous Christos" using English characters). When Luke wrote the book
of Acts to a Greek man named "Theophilus," he wrote in Greek quoting Peter as saying:

Acts 4:10-12​

10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ ( Ιησους
Χριστος) of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man
stand here before you whole.​
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.​
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among
men, whereby we must be saved.​
(KJV)

Luke, Peter, or Paul, didn't make it up. The Greek name "Iesous" was the name for Joshua in the Greek
Translation (LXX) of the Old Testament, made 200 years before Christ was born by 70 Jewish scribes. There
is a plethora of historical proof for this translation and other Greek translations that predate Christ. In fact, the
name "Iesous" appears many times in the LXX Old Testament, that was in common use by the Jews of the
Diaspora of Jesus' day, as well as in Israel itself. The book of "Joshua" in the LXX is the Book of "Iesous."
So, when Jesus was born, the name "Iesous" was already well known among the Jews as the name of an
Israelite hero, Moses' successor. Greek was commonly spoken in Israel at the time of Christ, as the following
Scripture demonstrates.

John 19:19-20​
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING
OF THE JEWS.​
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it
was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.​
(KJV)

These are the names that appeared over the cross; Yeshua (Hebrew), Iesous (Greek), Iesus (Latin).

It is a blasphemous lie to proclaim that the name "Jesus" is derived from Zeus, or means "son of Zeus."
There is absolutely no historical documentation for this claim. It is simply repeated by those who wish to
insult Christians and blaspheme the name of our Savior. You should run from any group that promotes this
lie of the Devil.

In the Old Testament, the name of Joshua the son of Nun in Hebrew was originally "Hosea" or "Howshea"
(Strong's #1954) meaning "deliverer." In Numbers 13:16, Moses modified his name to "Yehoshua" (Strong's
#3091) meaning "Yehoveh saves." During the Babylonian captivity, the name was shortened to "Yeshua"
(Strong's #3442) meaning "he will save" (cf. Ex. 33:11 & Neh. 8:17). The name is exactly the same in
Aramaic, "Yeshua" (Strong's #3443) and is found in an Aramaic portion of the book of Ezra (5:2).

Two hundred years before Jesus was born, Jewish scribes translated the Old Testament into Greek. They
transliterated "Yehoshua" and "Yeshua" as "Iesou" (Yay-soo) and "Iesous" (Yay-soos). In both Greek and
Latin, the "s" ending (Iesous {Greek} and Iesus {Latin}) is added in the nominative case only (when the name
"Jesus" stands alone or is the subject of the verb). The "s" ending is not used in other cases. If you check a
Greek or Latin text of the New Testament, you will find the Greek spelling "Iesou" and the Latin spelling
"Iesu" are used when Jesus is not the subject of the verb, while the "s" endings (Iesous and Iesus) are used
in the nominative case. In both of these languages it was proper to pronounce Jesus' name as "Yay-soo" or
"Yay-soos" depending on the sentence structure. (In Spanish, both "Hay-soo" {Jesu} and "Hay-soos" {Jesus}
are still used). In Exodus 17:9,10 of the Greek Old Testament (LXX), we find the name of Joshua as "Iesou"
in verse 9 (Joshua not being the subject of the verb) and "Iesous" in verse 10 (Joshua being the subject of
the verb). The "s" ending was added to Joshua's name by the Jewish scribes who translated the LXX, in
order to conform to proper Greek grammar. This is also the case with all of the New Testament books as
well, and in the early Latin translations. Since we do not make this distinction in modern English, the "s"
ending is retained in all cases. So, the "s" ending was simply a function of Greek and Latin grammar, and
has nothing to do with the name "Zeus."

When the Bible was first translated by Wycliffe from Latin into English, the Latin spelling "Iesus/Iesu" was
retained. When William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English from the original Greek in 1525,
he followed Wycliffe and also used the Latin spelling (Iesus/Iesu) because English uses the Latin alphabet.
The other early English Bibles, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, and the 1611 KJV all used the "Iesus/Iesu"
spelling. Not until the 1629 edition of the KJV was the "Jesus" spelling used.

The only reason "Jesus" is spelled with a "J" instead of an "I" in our modern English Bibles is because of the
evolution of the English language. English eventually dropped the practice of using the "s" ending only in the
nominative case, and retained it regardless of case. In the sixteenth century, like Latin, the letter "I" was both
a vowel and a consonant. As English evolved, the letter "I" became two letters. "I" retained the
characteristics of the vowel exclusively, and a hook was added to the bottom to distinguish the consonant
form (J). The pronunciation remained the same as Latin for both the vowel and consonant. By the time the
1629 edition of the KJV was published, the "J" was in wide use and was incorporated in this edition. Even
though Jesus' name was spelled "Jesus" in the 1629 KJV, it was still pronounced exactly the same as in
Greek and Latin (Yay-soos) and in the previous English versions. This is also very close to the pronunciation
in Italian and Spanish, two other languages derived from Latin. Since the seventeenth century, the
pronunciation of the letter "J" evolved into what it is today. In Spanish, "J" evolved into the "H" sound, Jesus
being pronounced "Hay-soos/Hay-soo." In French, the "J" took on a unique sound. In English "J" evolved in
pronunciation to its present form because of French influence on the language. Also, as English drifted away
from its Latin roots, the vowel "e" evolved from the "ay" sound (as in Latin and Spanish) to the long "ee" and
short "eh" vowel sounds. The "u" also developed a long "ou" and short "uh" sound in English. Hence over the
last 500 years, the pronunciation of the Latin spelling "Iesus" slowly evolved from "Yay-soos" to "Jee-sus."
The spelling has followed the normal transliteration process from Greek, to Latin, to modern English.
The pronunciation in the earliest English versions was precisely the same as the original Greek. The only
real change in pronunciation, from the time of Christ until today, is due solely to the evolution of the English
language in the last 500 years. The pronunciation remained the same for 1500 years in both Greek, Latin,
and was retained unchanged in the languages which use the Roman alphabet - early English, Spanish,
Italian, and German.

The important point is this; just as "Peter" is "Petros" in Greek, "Petrus" in Latin, "Pedro" in Spanish, and

"Peter" in English, with no harm being done to the person or name, so too can the Greek "Ιησους" be
transliterated into the Latin "Iesus" or the English "Jesus" and no harm is done to the name or person.

The fact is, the Greek spelling (Iesous/Iesou) and pronunciation (Yay-soos/Yay-soo) is the ONLY thing we
have recorded in Scripture for the name of our Savior. Nowhere in the Bible is the name "Yeshua" used of
our Lord. And the only record we have that Jesus' own name was ever actually written in Hebrew characters
is John's statement about the inscription over the cross being written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Yet, even
in this case, it was probably Aramaic and not pure Hebrew. When the New Testament speaks of "Hebrew"
words, the actual words in the text are Aramaic, since Aramaic was the "language of the Jews" at that time
(see: John 5:2, John 19:13). If this was an issue when the New Testament was written, surely the Hebrew
name "Yeshua" would have been used by the inspired writers. They had no trouble giving a direct
transliteration of Peter's names "Cephas" (Aramaic) and "Simeon" (Hebrew). Yet, no such Hebrew
transliteration is provided for "Jesus" (Iesous) in the entire Bible. I guess His name is actually "Iesous" after
all!

Don't let Hebrew Roots folks talk you out of the name of our Savior. There is nothing wrong with using the
Hebrew "Yeshua" if you prefer. But, just keep in mind that this name is not found anywhere in the Bible in
reference to our Savior. It is found in the Old Testament as the name of Joshua the son of Nun (Neh. 8:17),
and nine other Israelites in the Old Testament, but never of Jesus. "Yeshua" is probably the correct rendering
in Hebrew. But Jesus' name is not given to us in Hebrew. And there is no doubt that Jesus was named after
Joshua. Joshua was Moses' successor in the physical sense, and Jesus was Moses' successor in the
spiritual sense (see: Heb. 3). Joshua's name (Yehoshua) meant "Yehoveh saves," and the shortened name
"Yeshua" meant "salvation." Hence the angel told Mary, "thou shalt call his name Jesus, for He shall save his
people from their sins." Ιησους is simply Joshua's name transliterated into Greek. It is NOT a Greek name,
but a Hebrew name spelled with Greek characters and according to the rules of Greek grammar. Therefore,
the meaning is still the same as the Hebrew, "salvation." The Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire the New Testament
writers to follow the example of the LXX using "Iesous/Iesou" rather than give a different transliteration of the
Hebrew name. It doesn't matter whether Mary called Jesus "Yeshua" (if she spoke to Him in Hebrew or
Aramaic) or "Iesous" if she spoke to Him in Greek. Those whom Jesus encountered during His ministry
referred to Him with both, depending on whether they spoke Greek or Aramaic. (And we know that Jesus
Himself spoke both Greek and Aramaic - see: Mark 5:41). What really matters is that the Apostles wrote the
New Testament in Greek. Even Gabrael, when he appeared to Mary, spoke to her in Greek.

Matt 1:21-23​

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS ( Ιησου): for he shall save his
people from their sins.​
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,​
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is, God with us. (KJV)

Note the fact that Matthew had to give the interpretation of "Emmanuel" to his readers. Had Matthew written
in Hebrew, the name "Immanuel" (from Isaiah 7:14) would have already been apparent to his readers.
"Immanu-el" is a compound of two Hebrew words meaning "Accompanying" and "God." As a compound
word it means "God accompanying" or "God with us." Yet, as was the practice with names, this word was
transliterated and not translated. The difference being, in transliteration, the phonetic sound of names is
retained as much as possible from the Hebrew by using Greek characters. In translation, the meaning of the
word is retained using a corresponding Greek word without concern for the phonetic sound. That is why
Matthew had to add, "which being interpreted is, God with us." By his adding this comment, we know that
Matthew did not write His Gospel in Hebrew, otherwise the interpretation would be self-evident to his
readers. He simply would have written in Hebrew, "his name shall be called Accompanying-God." But, since
Matthew obviously wrote in Greek, and He recorded Gabrael's words to Mary in Greek, including the Greek
name "Iesous," we can be absolutely certain that Mary named her child "Iesous" (Yay-soos) and not
"Yeshua."

If you are concerned with the precise pronunciation as used by all of the Apostles, then the only accurate
pronunciation according to the Bible is "Yay-soos/Yay-soo." But, for all practical purposes, the English
"Jesus" is perfectly fine, in my opinion. If you are concerned about spelling, then the closest we can come is
the Latin spelling, "Iesus/Iesu." Of the three languages contained in the inscription over the cross, Latin is the
only one that uses the same characters as English.

All the fuss over the precise pronunciation and spelling is largely due to the idea that the name of Jesus has
some kind of magical powers. That is not the case at all. The power is in the person of Christ, not in syllables
or phonetic sounds. As long as we know who we are referring to, and others know who we are speaking
about, there is no problem with the slight variations of Jesus' name in the languages of the world.

Zeph 3:8-9​
8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is
to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my
fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.​
9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to
serve him with one consent.

Pauline Authorship of Hebrews​

​
Copyright © Tim Warner
The authorship of Hebrews is important to several contemporary issues of theology, particularly regarding
the "eternal security" debate, as well as the "Law/Grace" debate instigated by the modern Hebrew Roots
movement. The early Church considered this Epistle to be Paul's. But, modern Evangelical scholarship often
denies this, usually because of theological reservations.

Primary Arguments Against Pauline Authorship​

The arguments against Pauline authorship concern two main points. First, the following verse is said to rule
out Paul.

Heb 2:3​
3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord,
and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,​
(NKJ)

The objection to Pauline authorship is that the writer seems to speak as though his knowledge is
second-hand. Paul would not have spoken in this way, since He was also sent by Jesus, when He appeared
to him on the Damascus road. And Paul was given special revelation by the Spirit.

However, Paul did not sit under the teaching of Jesus Christ in person, as the other 11 Apostles had.
According to Acts 15 and Gal. 2:1-9, Paul's mission was to the Gentiles, and Peter retained the title of
"Apostle of the circumcision" (Jews). It was the other Apostles in Jerusalem who were seen as the spiritual
authority for the Jewish believers, since they had been taught personally by Jesus. Paul carried no authority
over the Jewish believers. When he went up to Jerusalem, Paul always submitted himself to the leadership
of the Apostles and elders regarding the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:18-26). Even when Paul confronted the
Judaizers who threatened his ministry among the Gentiles, Paul appealed to the Apostles and elders in the
Jerusalem church to rein in the Messianic "Judaizers" who were creating the problem (Acts 15). Paul always
respected the other Apostles, and let them handle the Jewish believers as they saw fit. He did not interfere or
assert himself while on their turf. However, when Peter came to Antioch and did not act according to the truth
of the Gospel, Paul confronted him publicly, because Peter was on Paul's turf (Gal. 2:11-15). It is not that
difficult to see that Paul was merely acting in character here, and acknowledging the fact that the Jewish
believers, to whom he was writing, owed their allegiance to the 11 Apostles. These men were the conduit for
the proclamation of the Gospel to them, not Paul. When it came to the Jews hearing the Gospel, and
thousands of them being saved, Paul really had no part in that aspect of the development of the early
Church, nor in their being discipled in the Faith. It would simply not have been proper for Paul to include
himself in those who confirmed the message of Christ to the Jewish believers. Paul wrote, "how shall we (the
Jewish believers) escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the
Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him."

The second objection is based on the writing style of the book of Hebrews, which differs from Paul's other
Epistles. While it is true that Paul's other Epistles display a more crude form of Greek, and Hebrews is very
polished and eloquent Greek, Paul rarely wrote his own Epistles. In fact, the only one he actually wrote
himself was Galatians.

Paul had an eyesight problem, which was most likely his "thorn in the flesh" that he referred to in 2
Corinthians. Paul almost always had a companion with him. Paul usually dictated his Epistles, which were
transcribed by a companion. You can see this in many of the closing remarks of his Epistles. For example:

Rom 16:22​
22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.​
(KJV)

However, for some reason, Paul wrote the entire book of Galatians himself, perhaps so that the Galatians
would understand that he was very serious, and that the Epistle was not a forgery.

Gal 6:11​
11 See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!​
(NKJ)
The original manuscript of Galatians was written in very large print, because of Paul's extremely poor
eyesight.

Gal 4:13-16​
13 You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first.​
14 And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God,
even as Christ Jesus.​
15 What then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked
out your own eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the
truth?​
(NKJ)

That different people wrote the different Epistles of Paul for him, explains the differences in writing style.
Luke was Paul's companion on his journeys according to Acts. And the Greek style of Hebrews is
indistinguishable from Luke's other works, his Gospel and Acts.

Internal Evidence of Pauline Authorship​

Paul indicated that there were some forged epistles in circulation, which were attributed to Paul, yet were not
written by him. Most likely, they were written by some of the Judaizers who were constantly at loggerheads
with Paul.

II Thess 2:2​
2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come
from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.​
(NIV)

Because of Paul's infirmity, and because it was not difficult for someone to claim a forgery was genuine
because he used a variety of scribes, Paul's Epistles were "password protected." Paul let it be known that in
EVERY epistle that was genuinely from him, he would write in his own handwriting (using the large letters)
something along these lines, "grace to you." Paul's Gospel was all about grace. And he signed each letter
with a note to the readers, about the grace of God to them. In the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul
wrote the last two verses in his own unique handwriting:

II Thess 3:17-18​
17 The salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle; so I write.​
18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.​
(NKJ)

Every Epistle of Paul's contains this closing blessing, written in his own handwriting. Here are all fourteen:

Rom 16:20​
20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be
with you. Amen.​
(KJV)

1 Cor 16:23​
23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.​
(KJV)

2 Cor 13:14​
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with
you all. Amen.​
(KJV)

Gal 6:18​
18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.​
(KJV)
Eph 6:24​
24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.​
(KJV)

Phil 4:23​
23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.​
(KJV)

Col 4:18​
18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.​
(KJV)

1 Thess 5:28​
28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.​
(KJV)

II Thess 3:18​
18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.​
(KJV)

1 Tim 6:21​
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.​
(KJV)

2 Tim 4:22​
22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.​
(KJV)

Titus 3:15​
15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.​
(KJV)

Philemon 1:25​
25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.​
(KJV)

Heb 13:25​
25 Grace be with you all. Amen.​
(KJV)

With this well know signature of Paul's, I can assure you, no other orthodox writer in the early Church would
have infringed on Paul's signature statement. If you look at the other epistles by James, Peter, John, and
Jude, none of them have this statement.

During Paul's lifetime, he oversaw the care of the churches from Italy to Asia Minor. However, after Paul's
death, and prior to his being imprisoned on the Isle of Patmos, John was handed over the care of the
churches of Asia Minor, that were the result of Paul's missionary activity. It is no surprise then, that long after
Paul's death, when John delivered the seven letters and the book of Revelation to these seven churches,
that he ended with a salute to Paul.

Rev 22:20-21​
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.​
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.​
(KJV)

John really took up Paul's mission after his death in Rome, and became the "Apostle to the Gentiles."

There are other indications of Pauline authorship in Hebrews as well. The theology is most definitely
"Pauline," as Hebrews is the companion book to Galatians, only written to the Messianic believers rather
than to Gentiles. It is beyond the scope of this article to do an extensive comparison. However, one example
regarding the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant should suffice.
Gal 4:19-5:4​
19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,​
20 how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!​
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?​
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.​
23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the
result of a promise.​
24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from
Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.​
25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because
she is in slavery with her children.​
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.​
27 For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who
have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."​
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.​
29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the
same now.​
30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will
never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."​
31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.​
5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again
by a yoke of slavery.​
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at
all.​
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.​
4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.​
(NIV)

Heb 8:6-13​
6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is
superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.​
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for
another.​
8 But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make
a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.​
9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out
of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the
Lord.​
10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my
laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.​
11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will
all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.​
12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."​
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging
will soon disappear.​
(NIV)

Many of the churches Paul started contained some Jewish believers too. Some people have the idea that
Paul started exclusively Gentile churches. But, if you follow Luke's account in Acts, some of them actually
had a core group of charter members who were Jews of the Diaspora. For example, the church in Ephesus
was started as a split from the synagogue (Acts 18:19-21 & Acts 19:1-20). The original members of the
Ephesian church were Jews and Jewish proselytes (Gentiles who had formerly converted to Judaism).
Likewise, the church in Antioch was mixed also. Those mixed churches had already been followers of Paul's
Gospel teaching. Hebrews was written primarily to the Jews who had lived in Judea, many of whom were on
the run because of the persecution from the unbelieving Jewish leadership.
Heb 10:32-35​
32 But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with
sufferings:​
33 partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became
companions of those who were so treated;​
34 for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing
that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven.​
35 Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward.​
(NKJ)

This is a reference to Paul's arrest in Jerusalem, and imprisonment in Caesarea (a few miles west of
Jerusalem) prior to his appealing to Caesar, and being sent to Rome (where he was when he wrote this
Epistle). Paul had Messianic friends in Ceasarea, whom he visited on his way to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:8-15​
8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into
the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.​
9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. 10 And as we tarried there many days,
there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.​
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus
saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver
him into the hands of the Gentiles.​
12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to
Jerusalem.​
13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound
only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.​
14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.​
15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.​
(KJV)

After arriving in Jerusalem, Paul was arrested at the instigation of the unbelieving Jews, put in prison, and
eventually shipped back to Caesarea to be held in prison (Acts 23:23ff). Paul spent two years in the Roman
jail at Caesarea, while the Jewish believers ministered to his needs.

Acts 24:23-27​
23 And he commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid
none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him.​
24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and
heard him concerning the faith in Christ.​
25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered,
Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.​
26 He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he
sent for him the oftener, and communed with him.​
27 But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix' room: and Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure,
left Paul bound.​
(KJV)

This is what Paul referenced when writing to the Jewish brethren in Hebrews. The unbelieving Jews in Judea
were at that time persecuting the Messianic believers. Yet, they ministered to Paul from their own means,
while he was in the Roman prison. Thus he writes to them, "for you had compassion on me in my chains,
and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring
possession for yourselves in heaven."

Also, note that Paul mentioned his companion, Timothy.

Heb 13:23-25​
23 Know that our brother Timothy has been set free, with whom I shall see you if he comes shortly.​
24 Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.​
25 Grace be with you all. Amen.​
(NKJ)

Paul was writing from "Italy" (Paul was in prison in Rome for 2 years at this time, having been sent there from
Caesarea because of his appealing to Caesar {Acts 28}).

External Evidence of Pauline Authorship​

Church tradition, from the earliest days, has classified Hebrews as Paul's. In fact, in the first few centuries,
manuscripts of New Testament books were not bound all together. Often, each book was a separate scroll.
But, sometimes they were bound together in sections. This was the case with the four Gospels and Acts,
being bound together. And it was also the case with Paul's fourteen Epistles including Hebrews. Also some
of the Early Church Fathers made reference to Paul's fourteen epistles.

Here is an example, written in the second century by Clement of Alexandria, commenting on the "style" of
writing. Luke was Paul's companion on his missionary journeys. Clement argues that Luke's style of Greek
writing (from Acts) is evident in Hebrews, which he attributes to Paul.

"As Luke also may be recognized by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have
translated Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews." [Clement, Fragments from the Latin of Cassiodorus, I]

Eusebius, the fourth century Christian historian, had quite a bit to say about the authorship of Hebrews which
he gleaned from earlier writers.

"But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the
writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul’s Epistles."{Eusebius, Book II, ch. XVII].

"Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some
have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that
it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time
I shall quote in the proper place." [Eusebius, Book III, ch. III]

Referring to Clement of Rome, Paul's acquaintance (Phil. 4:3) who wrote one of his own epistles (I Clement),
Eusebius wrote the following: "In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.
Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For as Paul had
written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement
himself, translated the epistle." [Eusebius, Book III, ch. XXXVIII]

Clement was in Rome at the time of Paul's imprisonment. He also wrote his Epistle to the Corinthains (I
Clement) after Paul's death, and quoted from Hebrews. Eusebius' conclusion is that Hebrews was known to
Clement in the mid-first century, so it can be traced back to Rome about Paul's time. He concludes that it is
not a more recent epistle, as the detractors claimed.

Speaking of Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius wrote; "He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of
Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and
published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.
But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the
Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very
beginning by giving his name. Farther on he says: “But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord
being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his
modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because
being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance.”" [Eusebius,
book VI, ch. XIV]

"In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it:
“That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle,
who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech,’ that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one
who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of
the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully
examines the apostolic text will admit.” Farther on he adds: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the
thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered
the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any
church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the
ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some
who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke,
the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But let this suffice on these matters." [Eusebius, Book VI, ch.
XXVI]

In summary, it is clear that the orthodox Christians of the early Church recognized the Epistle to the Hebrews
as Paul's genuine work. The most common tradition was that Luke, Paul's companion, transcribed the book
for Him into Greek. Some thought Clement of Rome did the transcription. Some claimed that Paul wrote the
original in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke translated it into Greek. As Eusebius says, only God knows who
the scribe was. Regardless, the consensus of the earliest testimonies is definitely that the Epistle is
genuinely Paul's.

The Perversion of Repentance​

@ Wild Branch Ministries​
Copyright © Tim Warner, September 2007

Criterion for Understanding the New Testament

According to many teachers in the Hebrew Roots movement, the
Gentile mind is not equipped to properly comprehend Scripture. They
draw a distinction between “Gentile thinking” and “Jewish thinking.”
This distinction is alleged to be more than merely having different
presuppositions, but rather a completely different thought process and
basis for understanding. Consequently, Gentiles need a thorough
education in “Jewish thinking” in order to understand the New
Testament. This includes instruction in the Hebrew language. A
converted Gentile cannot normally read the Old and New Testaments
and arrive at a proper understanding without a Jewish teacher. Having
been taught “at the feet” of some Jewish scholar or rabbi is the
claimed credential of several prominent “teachers” of the Hebrew
Roots movement.

Historically, Christians have always believed that the Old Testament is

sufficient background material for the New Testament. Paul
distinguished between those who are able to comprehend and those
who are not. The criterion he gave has nothing to do with the Hebrew
language or “Jewish thinking.”
 1 Cor. 2:11-15
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of
the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God
except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit
who is from God, that we might know the things that have been
freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom
teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual
things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of
God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly
judged by no one.
NKJV

According to Paul, even “Jewish scholars” do not understand the

things of God unless they have received the Spirit of God. Jesus Himself
gave us a pretty good picture of the unconverted “Jewish Scholar” in
Matthew 23. It is therefore critical that modern Hebrew Roots teachers
fully disclose to their hearers the names of the “Jewish Scholars” under
whose instruction they have learned. And those “scholars” should be
carefully scrutinized to see whether they are true believers.

The New Testament was Primarily Written to Gentile Minds

With the exception of Matthew, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James, the New
Testament was written by the Apostles for Gentile minds. The New
Testament contains almost no explanatory background information
about Jewish thinking. The Apostles frequently quoted the Old
Testament, without comment, as supporting material to the particular
point they were making. References to Old Testament events were
frequently given as illustrations and moral lessons in the language of
the Greeks. More often than not, they quoted the Septuagint (LXX), the
Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Greek speaking reader
was expected to be familiar with the Septuagint, and this was deemed
by the Apostles to be sufficient for understanding their own writings in
the New Testament. The Apostles frequently quoted from the Greek
translation of the Old Testament with which their readers were familiar.
There was no appeal made by the Apostles to extra biblical Jewish
sources for explanatory information. One wonders why modern Gentile
Christians need such sources when the Apostles obviously did not think
it beneficial for their Gentile audiences in the first century who knew
little about Jewish thinking. In fact, Jesus Himself was antagonistic to
such sources, claiming they perverted the Word of God (Matt. 15:2-14).
The Jewish scholarly commentaries were characterized by Jesus
as “the blind leading the blind” (v. 14). Why would modern Christians,
who have received the “Spirit of Truth,” want to be taught by “the
Blind?” Yet, such is now the case in this movement.

Some might contend that in the context of the early Church, there was
a great deal of oral teaching by the Jewish Apostles, and the Epistles
were merely supplementary material. That is true in some cases. Paul
spent three years in Ephesus before writing his epistle to this church.
However, the major theological treatise on the Law (Romans) was
written by Paul to a local church no Apostle had yet visited. His second
Epistle on the Law and grace, Galatians, was written to the churches
(plural) of Galatia, of which we have no direct record of his spending
time in discipleship. Yet, Paul expected that the Greek Old Testament
(LXX) would be adequate background material for the Gentile mind to
comprehend his teaching on the covenants, the Law, and grace.

Is “Repentance” Turning Back to Moses?

In his website article series on “repentance,” Brad Scott made his real
intentions clear in the closing paragraph of part I.

“The foundation of repentance is the return to where you came

from. The root of repentance is to go back to something. Adam
came from the dust, and that is where he will teshuvah, or return
to. The root of repentance is to go back to something. It is what

we are to go back to, that is critical.”1 [Bold mine]

Scott is intent on incorporating into the term “repentance” the idea

of returning to a former condition. And as he stated in the above
quote, the thing to which one is to return is the critical factor. In Scott’s
theology, this is a return to God’s laws revealed through Moses, the
ultimate destination for his followers. He made this point crystal clear.

“The very first words that we hear from Yochanan the immerser
(John the Baptizer) is REPENT! Who was he speaking these words
to? the Nations? Of course not. The nations would not have a
clue as to what to go back to! He speaks this word to the local
Jewish leadership. Yochanan is pleading in behalf of Yahshua for
YHVH's covenant people to go back to the covenant. Yahshua's
first words to the Jewish leaders is to REPENT! (Mattityahu 4:17).
The two main religious systems in Judaism, the Pharisees and the
Sadducees, had strayed away from the Word of YHVH. He
certainly knew this in advance. Go Back! YHVH says. The
common myth that Judaism was a law-keeping religion that
YHVH came to denounce and change is a lie. Most of the Jewish

leaders of that time were big time law breakers.”2

Was Jesus Simply Moses’ Revival Preacher or The New Lawgiver?

When Jesus and John the Baptist called Israel to “repentance,” Scott
wants you to believe that he was calling them back to Moses. Hence,
Scott makes John and Jesus missionaries and preachers of Moses by
manipulating the word “repentance,” as we shall prove shortly. The
Scripture, however, does not portray Jesus as Moses’ revival preacher,
but as the new Lawgiver, proclaiming a new Law far superior to that of
Moses. Jesus brought the “Law of Christ,” a higher Law, which
superseded the Law of Moses. It did not supplement the Law of Moses.
Consequently, the “household of Christ,” according to Scripture, is not
the former “household of Moses,” but a completely new “household.”

Hebrews 3:1-6
1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,
consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ
Jesus,
2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was
faithful in all His house.
3 For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than
Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than
the house.
4 For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is
God.
5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a
testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward,
6 but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if
we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to
the end.
NKJV

Paul drew a clear distinction between the “house of Moses” and the
“house of Christ.” Keep in mind that Paul wrote this to Jewish believers,
implying that they were no longer of the “household of Moses” after
joining the “household of Christ.” A few chapters later, the Apostle
expands on this distinction.

Hebrews 8:1-13
1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have
such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of
the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which
the Lord erected, and not man.
3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and
sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have
something to offer.
4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there
are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;
5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things,
as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the
tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according
to the pattern shown you on the mountain."
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch
as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was
established on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place
would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: [from Jer. 31:31-34]
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah—
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead
them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not
continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the
LORD.
 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in
their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their
God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his
brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from
the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins
and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first
obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is
ready to vanish away.
NKJV

The Meaning of “Repentance”

The Greek word translated “repent” in the NT is “μετανοεω”

(me-ta-nah-eh-O), Strong’s #3340. As with a multitude of Greek verbs,

it consists of a verb prefixed with a preposition. “Μετα” (preposition)

means “after.” And “νοιεω” means “understand” or “comprehend.”

Hence, the basic sense of “μετανοεω” is “after-thought.” In modern

English idiom we would say, “after second thought.” It indicates a
change of mind after further contemplation. All Greek lexicons define
this word as a “change of mind.” None suggest, as does Scott, that this
change of mind is a return to a former place, condition, or state. In
fact, it is usually a turning AWAY from a former way of thinking that is
being stressed. We will list below a couple of examples of lexical
definitions.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary

 Repentance, There are three Greek words used in the New
Testament to denote repentance.
(1.) The verb metamelomai is used of a change of mind, such
as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin, but
not necessarily a change of heart. This word is used with
reference to the repentance of Judas (Mat_27:3).

(2.) Metanoeo [μετανοεω], meaning to change one's mind and

purpose, as the result of after knowledge.

(3.) This verb [μετανοεω], with the cognate noun metanoia, is

used of true repentance, a change of mind and purpose and

life, to which remission of sin is promised. 3

Unger’s Bible Dictionary

REPENTANCE, a "change" of mind. In the theological and
ethical sense a fundamental and thorough change in the

hearts of men from sin and toward God. 4

The most comprehensive study of the koine Greek language from

ancient Greek writings was done by the German scholar, Gerhard
Kittle. His ten volume Greek lexicon (TDNT) far exceeds all other
lexicons. While most Greek lexicons trace Greek word usage in the NT
and the LXX, Kittle adds massive evidence from thousands of secular
Greek manuscripts written in both classical and koine Greek of the
period. There is no better source for understanding the “common”
meanings of Greek words in every day life of the first century.

According to Kittle’s TDNT, “μετανοεω” (repent) was used in secular

Greek literature of the period to mean, “change one’s mind,” “adopt
another view,” or “change one’s feelings.” He gives many examples of
these in Greek literature. Kittle then adds, “…if the change of mind
derives from recognition that the earlier view was foolish, improper or
evil, there arises the sense ‘to regret,’ ‘to feel remorse’.” He cites many

examples of this as well.5 In no case does Kittle suggest the idea of

returning to a former place, state, or condition, as part of the Greek
word “repent” in common Greek usage. Brad Scott is simply wrong.

In the face of massive contrary linguistic evidence, Scott alleges that

Christianity has redefined “repentance” to suite its own ends. Yet, as
we shall see, it is Scott who has done precisely what he alleges of
Gentile Christians – twist the meaning to suite his own purpose.

Scott’s Manipulation of “Repentance”

Scott completely ignores the etymology of “μετανοεω” and all the

lexical evidence, all the while pretending to offer a more nuanced
definition which he claims is derived from the Hebrew equivalent. He
claims that Jesus, John, and their hearers would have held his view of
“repentance” because of their Hebrew background and alleged
equivalent Hebrew term with which they would have been intimately
familiar.

“When Yahshua and Yochanan (John the baptizer) said to the

P’rushim (Pharisees), ‘repent for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand’ what did they mean by repent? Do you really believe the
meaning of repent in the English or the Greek is what they
meant? Do you believe that 23,214 verses of teaching in the

Tenach (Old Testament) about this word is irrelevant?”6

Scott gives the impression, in the above quote, that there are over
twenty-three thousand verses in the Old Testament that contain
teaching on the word “repent,” and that all modern lexicons ignore
this “teaching.” The fact is, there is only a handful of Old Testament
verses that use the verb “repent,” or its noun form “repentance,” and
not one of them supports Scott’s definition.

Scott’s “Shell Game” Exposed

Brad Scott plays a “shell game” with the Hebrew words. He declares

by fiat that the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word “μετανοεω”

(repent) is the Hebrew word, “shoov” (Strong’s #7725). He offers not
one shred of linguistic or historical evidence in support of this claim,
which is THE fundamental premise of his entire series of articles on
repentance.

While it is true that “shoov” (or “shoob”) does mean “return” in many
cases, it does not always. Strong’s Hebrew lexicon states this very
clearly.

shûb shoob A primitive root; to turn back (hence, away) ‫ ׁשּוב‬7725“

transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively (not necessarily
with the idea of return to the starting point); generally to retreat;

]often adverbially again:”7 [emphasis mine

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia adds that “shoov” can

either mean “return” or “turn away,” the latter having nothing to do

with returning to a former place or state.8 Numerous examples of this

meaning can be found, (Gen. 27:44-45 for example).

Even IF “shoov” (shoob) was the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek

“μετανοεω” (repent), which it is not, it would not prove Scott’s point.

Even the Hebrew word “shoov” is used in Old Testament contexts
where the idea of returning back to a former state, place, or condition
is clearly not intended, as Strong’s lexicon and the ISBE point out.
Consequently, the meaning Scott seeks to squeeze out of this word is
NOT always essential to its basic meaning, and therefore not
necessarily the sense even if it was the exact equivalent for the Greek
word for “repent” in the New Testament. Had Scott been successful in
establishing equivalence between the Hebrew, “shoov,” and the

Greek “μετανοεω,” the most he would have accomplished would be to

establish a possibility, but not a necessity. In other words, had Jesus
and John the Baptist used the Hebrew word “shoov” instead of the

Greek “μετανοεω” they might have meant “turn away” rather than
“turn back” (to Moses) as Scott insists.

Earlier I used the term “shell game” to describe what Scott has done.
The “shell game” is a classic swindle in which slight of hand is used to
fool the target of the con. And slight of hand is what Scott has
apparently done here. The way to determine equivalence between
words of different languages is to examine ancient translations from
one language to the other. There are two such sources for determining
equivalence between Old Testament Hebrew words and New
Testament Greek words. They are the Septuagint (LXX), and the
Apostles’ quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament. It is a
simple thing to search the Septuagint (LXX) to verify Hebrew
equivalents for Greek terms. There are no New Testament Apostolic
quotes of the Old Testament that use the word “repent.” We are left
with the Septuagint as our source.

One cannot accuse the LXX translators of “Gentile thinking” or any

bias against Judaism, since they were themselves Jewish scholars living
shortly before the appearance of Jesus Christ. They were far more
fluent in the Hebrew of the Torah and ancient Greek than any modern
Hebrew Roots teacher, including Brad Scott. They translated the
Hebrew Bible into Greek, choosing the best Greek equivalents for the
Hebrew words of the Old Testament. If Scott were correct in his claim
that John and Jesus had the Jewish idea of “return” contained in the
word “shoov” when they spoke of “repentance” in the Gospels, we
would expect the LXX translators to render the Hebrew word “shoov”

as “μετανοεω” (repent) in their Greek translation of the Hebrew Old

Testament. However, not once did those seventy Jewish scholars

translate “shoov” as “μετανοεω” in their Greek translation of the Old

Testament! So, not only does Scott’s view flow counter to all modern
linguistic scholars, but also the Jewish scholars of the Septuagint!

The Jewish translators of the Septuagint used the Greek word

“μετανοεω” (repent) in their translation. But, when it appears, it

translates the Hebrew word, “nacham” (Strong’s #5162), not “shoov.”

They used “μετανοεω” sixteen times in their Greek translation in the

following verses: 1 Sam. 15:29, Prov. 20:25, Prov. 24:32, Jer. 4:28, Jer. 8:6,
Jer. 18:8,10, Jer. 31:19 (38:19 in LXX), Joel 2:13,14, Am. 7:3,6, Jon. 3:9,10,
Jon. 4:2, Zech. 8:14.

In each of these verses, “μετανοεω” translates the Hebrew word

“nacham” (#5162), except in Prov. 20:25 & Prov. 24:32. And in neither
of these exceptions do we find the Hebrew word “shoov.” In the
former it translates a Hebrew term that means to “inquire,” and in the
latter it translates two Hebrew words meaning to “make to
understand.”

So, what is the meaning of the Hebrew word “nacham” which the LXX

translators rendered as “μετανοεω?” The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia says that nacham “implies difficulty in breathing, hence,
‘to pant,’ ‘to sigh,’ ‘to groan’ … Naturally it came to signify ‘to lament’
or ‘to grieve,’ and when the emotion was produced by the desire of
good for others, it merged into compassion and sympathy, and when
incited by a consideration of one's own character and deeds it means

‘to rue,’ ‘to repent’.”9 In no case does “nacham” mean to return to a

previous place, state, or condition.

Furthermore, there are a few verses in the Hebrew Bible where both
Hebrew words “shoov” and “nacham” appear together in the same
sentence, but are mutually exclusive! In other words, the context
clearly shows that they are NOT the same thing, but were being
contrasted with each other, or their diverse meanings were used to
compliment each other. For example, Jer. 31:19 says this: “Surely after
that I was turned (shoov) I repented (nacham).” That these two words
are contrasted in this way proves their meanings are not the same. If
“shoov” means “repent,” as Scott claims, then Jeremiah said, “After I
repented I repented,” a rather nonsensical statement! The meaning is
precisely as the NKJV renders it, “Surely after that I was turned
(changed course), I repented (regretted the former course).”

In Jer. 4:28, the Lord made a similar contrasting statement using both
terms. “I have purposed it, and will not repent (nacham), neither will I
turn back (shoov) from it.” The word “neither” in the above sentence
indicates contrasting ideas, NOT a restatement of the same idea.
Consequently, “shoov” (translated “return”) and “nacham” (translated
“repent”) do NOT have the same meaning. The former means to
“retreat” or “return” and the later “to change the mind” or “regret.”

Joel 2:14 uses both terms as well. “Who knoweth if He will return (shoov)
and repent (nacham) and leave a blessing behind Him.” Here the two
terms have a cumulative effect, hoping that God will do two distinct
things: return to His favor for Israel and also change His mind (or regret)
regarding His intent to judge Israel.
We have at least two hard pieces of evidence that “shoov” and
“nacham” do not have the same meaning. First, both terms are used
in the same sentences in contrast to each other. Second, the LXX

translators frequently rendered “nacham” as “μετανοεω,” but never

rendered “shoov” as “μετανοεω.” They did not view “shoov” and

“μετανοεω” as equivalent terms. If the LXX translators, who knew both

Hebrew and Greek, did not see “shoov” and “nacham” as equivalent,

or more importantly, did not see “shoov” and “μετανοεω” as equivalent,

why would we suppose that Jesus and John the Baptist did, or their
hearers? More importantly, why should we think Brad Scott knows more
about linguistics than the Jewish translators of the LXX and authors of

all Greek lexicons? If the LXX translators did not think “μετανοεω”
meant “to return to where you came from,” neither should you. Scott
has played fast and loose with the Hebrew words in order to lead you
where he wants you to go, back to the Law of Moses.

Should Gentile Pagans “Return” to Where They Came From?

If “repent” (μετανοεω) in the Gospels means “to return to where you

came from,” then the use of the same word in evangelizing Gentiles
would mean they should return to their pagan roots, their “wild olive
tree!” Scott does not seem to notice this problem. While arguing that
“repent” in the Gospels requires his definition, he wrote the following;

“The very first words that we hear from Yochanan the immerser
(John the Baptizer) is REPENT! Who was he speaking these words
to? the Nations? Of course not. The nations would not have a

clue as to what to go back to!”10

Yet, Paul encouraged the Gentiles to “repent” as part of his
evangelism.

Acts 26:19-20
21 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the
heavenly vision,
20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and
throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that
they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting
repentance.

Here, Scott’s definition of “return to where you came from” simply will
not work in the context. “Works befitting repentance” in Scott’s bogus
lexicon would be offering sacrifices to Zeus or the goddess Dianna! The
same problem appears in the other passages that speak of Gentile
“repentance,” none of which suggest “return to where you came
from.” (Acts 17:30, Acts 26:20), and the noun form “repentance” (Luke
24:47, Acts 11:18, 2 Cor. 7:10, 2 Pet. 3:9). Jesus told the disciples, when
sending them out to the Gentiles with the Great
Commission, “that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:47). How does Brad Scott
suppose these Gentiles would “have a clue as to what to go back to?”

Other Greek Words Mean “Return” or “Turn Back”

There are other common Greek words that mean “return back” and

“return again.” First, “υποστρεφω” (hupo-strepho Strong’s #5290)

comes from the preposition “hupo” (under or back) and “strepho” (to
turn). Examples can be found in Luke 1:56, Luke 2:20,43,45, Luke 4:1,14).

Second, “αναστρεφω” means “return again,” from the preposition

“ana” (again) and “strepho” (to turn). This latter term is probably the
closest to the Hebrew “shoov” as Scott defines it. Yet, it is nowhere
used in the New Testament in the sense Scott promotes, a turning back
to the Law of Moses. In fact, it is never used in an evangelistic sense in
the New Testament.

What is painfully obvious from Scott’s treatment of “repentance” is that

he is manipulating the evidence to suite his purposes. His work is
unscholarly, manipulative, and malicious, in my humble opinion.

The “Judaizers” (neo-Galatians) are Back

A distinction needs to be made between two classes of modern “Law
keepers” – those who practice “Law keeping” as a preference but not
a necessity (Messianics who are Jewish by birth), and those who claim
or imply that it is a salvation issue and binding on Gentiles. Brad Scott
clearly falls into this latter category, what is commonly referred to as a
“Judaizer.” Scott is proclaiming the same heresy Paul called “another
gospel.” Here it is in Brad Scott’s own words.

“I am going to, very bluntly, tell you that without a scriptural

understanding of repentance, you are NOT redeemed or
reconciled back to YHVH. To put it more perfectly, as Sha’ul

would say, you are not saved.”11

By making his definition of “repentance” synonymous with a “return” to

keeping the Law of Moses, Scott is essentially saying that observance
of the Law of Moses is necessary to salvation.

Furthermore, he places all Christians who are not “Torah observant”

within the category of the “workers of iniquity” to whom Jesus
promised to answer, “depart from Me, I never knew you.” He equates
this with the “mystery of iniquity” which gives birth to the Antichrist.
Here it is in Brad Scott’s own words.
 “If you are curious to know who the workers of iniquity are in
Mattityahu 7:23, you can find them here. They are those who are
TORAHLESS, lawless ones. This is the translation of the King James
English, "workers of iniquity". It is also a description of their leader,
whether they know it or not, in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8. He is the
mystery of iniquity that already works and is called the wicked

one or the lawless one.”12

Scott’s claim that his perverted “repentance” (return to the Law of

Moses) is essential to salvation puts him and his movement in the same
camp as the ancient Judaizers who “troubled” and “unsettled” the
Gentile believers. Paul called that message “another gospel” and told
the Galatians that those who embraced it were “estranged from
Christ” and “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4).

We would do well to keep in mind the letter to the Gentiles, approved

by all the Apostles and elders of the Jerusalem congregation.

“The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles
in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings,

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with
words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law’ —
to whom we gave no such commandment — it seemed good to us, being
assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved
Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things
by word of mouth.

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden
than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from
blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves
from these, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:23-24).

NOTES:
1. Scott, Brad; Repentance Part I; [Link] Wild Branch Ministries
2. Scott, Brad; Repentance Part II; [Link]
3. Easton’s Bible Dictionary, article on “Repentance” (electronic version)
4. Unger’s Bible Dictionary, article on “Repentance” (electronic version)
5. Kittle; TDNT, Vol. IV, pp. 976-977
6. Scott, Brad; Repentance Part I; [Link]
7. Strong, Hebrew Lexicon of Old Testament Words, #7725 (electronic version)
8. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article on “Repentance” (electronic version)
9. ibid
10. Scott, Brad; Repentance Part II; [Link]
11. Scott, Brad; Repentance Part I; [Link]
12. Scott, Brad; Repentance Part III; [Link]