Biblical Hebrew also has more then one word for Love.

I've talked before about my issues with the fixation so many have on drawing a hard distinction between the different Greek words for Love.  My lost post on that topic focusing on making Comparison to Japanese since I am somewhat of a Weeb. 

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2024/03/agape-and-eros.html

But I've also noticed a trend among people who want to argue Jesus and the Apostles and Paul actually taught in Greek, that the New Testament's usage of more then one word for Love is further evidence of it's innate Greekness.

The New Testament doesn't even use all these Greek words for Love people obsess over, it only really uses three, Aqape, Philia and Xenia. But rather then seeing that as evidence that the New Testament is only using the Greek language to express fundamentally Semitic ideas, they insist Eros was excluded deliberately, which lies at the heart of why I dislike this obsession.  

Stroge's absence from the New Testament can't be explained so ideologically however, familial love is definitely a theme in The New Testament.  The only reason for none of these texts to use a word that specifically means that, is if they are regardless of what language they were first physically written down it at their core translating ideas first formed in a language without an equivalent single word. It appears as an element of some names, but so does Eros the word these puritanical Christians want to reject. 

Xenia is used in The New Testament seemingly only ever as a word for a place of Lodging rather then a word for the abstract concept of Hospitality. Hospitality is definitely a New Testament value as we see in Hebrews 13. and when Jesus agrees with Ezekiel 16 that Inhospitality was the Sin of Sodom. Hebrews 13 uses the compound word Xenophilia which is equivalent to the Hebrew term Hachnasat Orchim.

Biblical Hebrew meanwhile has more words for Love then Greek actually, meaning the New Testament's usage of only three of it's options shows the limits of Greek in expressing Hebrew ideas. 

Ahabah and Ahab and Ohab are in the LXX interchangeably translated as both Agape and Eros, and I note again how the Song of Songs uses Agape not Eros, meaning it absolutely was applicable to Romantic/Sexual love in the minds of Ancient Greek speaking Jews. 

Meanwhile there are also the words Hesed and Rachamim and Dodim.  Rachamim is derived from the Hebrew word for Womb implying it was first thought of as an inherently Maternal kind of Love, making it's use for God's Love of Humanity quite interesting.

And one Hebrew word that doesn't come up right away when you google this topic is Agab/Egeb. In fact when you try to Google Agab or Egeb specifically now the darn AI continually assumes I'm just mis spelling something else, though the less common variant Agabah shows up just fine  These words only seem to be used in negative contexts, as if they represent the more problematic meaning of Eros. But it is used positively in Ezekiel 33:31-32.  I would also argue Ezekiel 23:11 by specifying corrupt love is clearly implying Agabah is not inherently corrupt. 

If I wanted to propose a theory that Agape was actually a Semitic loan word into Greek via Phoenician influence, Agabah is the Semitic word I would pick.  There is other precedent for a B becoming a P during such processes.  But since the variations of this word only appear in Jeremiah and Ezekiel perhaps you could argue they are foreign loan words from Greek into Hebrew. 

Tabernacles should always happen in October (Or at least after the Fall Equinox).

I recently became aware that among Hebrew Roots type Christians there is a common opinion that the current official Rabbinic Jewish Calendar was doing everything a month late during 2024, or rather 5785.

I have expressed skepticism of the very concept of using a Lunar based Calendar.  But if we are going to use a Lunaisolar Calendar with a potential 29-30 day margin of error on when to start the year, there is good Biblical reason why airing on the side caution means starting it later rather then sooner.

Deuteronomy 16:13 is clear that The Feast of Tabernacles (The 15th-21st day of the Seventh Month) is held AFTER the harvesting of the Corn and Wine is done, not during, after, that's also why it's called Ingathering in it's two Exodus references.  This is also shown by Leviticus 23:39-40.  The Grape Harvest extents through the entirety of September even potentially into early October.

So those who say the Hebrew Calendar is an entire Lunar Month late this year would be having Tabernacles start in the middle of September when the Grape Harvest is far from over.

The completely non Lunar cycle based system I think should be used would be to begin the year the day after the Spring Equinox, which currently most often happens on March 20th but in antiquity often fell a bit later.  Starting the Torah year on March 21st presuming 30 Day minimum months with no Intercalary days in the first 7 months places the first day of Tabernacles on October 1st (and the Feast of Jeroboam on October 31st).

But perhaps even later then that is best to be safe. March 25th is the Feast of the Annunciation because ancient Greco-Roman Christians considered that day the Spring Equinox even if that wasn't usually astronomically correct.  That would begin the Seventh Month on the 21st of September and place Tabernacles on October 5th-11th with the Eighth day as October 12th.

I firmly believe that the origin of Michaelmas is in part early Christianization of one of the Seventh Month Holy Days, but which one is difficult to determine.

Michaelmas is currently officially September 29th, but there is evidence it was originally September 30th with the 29th being the Eve of Miachaelmas and thus a day a certain Church Building was consecrated in preparation for the Feast.

Michaelmas is largely viewed as a Feast Day in the strictest sense and linked to the Fall Harvest and thus would fit being Tabernacles.

But the traditional Scripture Readings for Miachaelmas include Revelation 12:7-12 the account of Satan being cast out of Heaven.  And I see logic in typologically associating that with Yom Kippur and the casting out of the Azazel Goat in Leviticus 16.  Plus the complicated relationship between September 30th and the 29th could parallel the complicated relationship between the 10th and 9th of the Seventh month in determining  Yom Kippur in Leviticus 23.

The Lords Day is The Sabbath not Sunday

First I want to make clear I'm not a Seventh Day Adventist or a member of any any other dogmatically Sabbath based sect (I am considering being Baptized as a Seventh Day Baptist but they are a denomination not interested in being Judgmental towards those who disagree with them).  

I do not support Legalism, Christians are not bound to observe any weekly service, at all. I'm writing this to refute the notion that The New Testament "Lords Day" is Sunday.

Not everyone who believes weekly Sunday worship is Biblical defines it as Sunday supplanting the Sabbath.  Some like Chris White  just define it as the New Testament ordaining weekly Sunday worship as a separate thing from The Sabbath.  

In The New Testament the term "The Lord's Day" occurs only once. Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet".

We're not told what day of the week this is, or if it's a weekly day at all. Sunday supporters just assume this phrase means something distinct from the Sabbath and therefore it backs up their other reasons for saying The New Testament calls for worship on the First Day of The Week.

But in Matthew 12:8 Jesus said He was the Lord of the Sabbath, and Isaiah 58:13-14 calls the Sabbath, "The LORD's Holy Day". So using Scripture to Interpret Scripture this can only mean the Sabbath.

As far as extra Biblical references go (which don't actually matter to me). The Didache (supposedly the oldest Extra-Biblical Christian writing) also does not say when "The Lord's Day" is, just refers to it. The one quote of Ignatius of Antioch often used in this debate says in the only surviving Greek text (which is the language he wrote in) "If, then, those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's life ...". Clearly not about when or if we should do a weekly observance at all, simply referring to us not being bound by The Law. Some later Latin texts add "The Lord's Day" to this, and some even make clear it's Sunday, but these are clearly latter corruptions.

It's not till the second half of the Second Century AD. that indisputable references to The Lord's Day being Sunday occur, in texts like the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, or Acts of Peter, or Acts of Paul, or Acts of John, or Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth in 170 AD. You might think that sounds sufficiently early, but they're after the Bar Kochba revolt which occurred around about a third of the way into the Second Century. That is when the Church started taking on Anti-Semitic tendencies in response to the persecution of Christians carried out under Bar Kochba. I feel this separation of Christian observance from the Sabbath was based solely on that agenda.

Now, for Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2.

The Corinthians reference is to me certainly not about weekly observance. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." One could argue that Paul expected his Epistle to be read to the Congregation on a Sabbath meeting, and that they should then begin saving up this money the very next day.

Acts 20:7 I don't really see as calling for anything. It just says they broke bread together, and then Paul preached.

I personally find the debating that goes own between Protestant and Evangelical denominations on when to observe the "Lord's Supper", should it be Weekly, Monthly or Yearly, and so on to be silly. Jesus told us when in the actual account of the Supper itself "when ye eat". It's not supposed to be an appointed ceremony, it's simply a matter of whenever we eat we remember that Jesus's Body was Broken and his Blood was Shed for us.

And I don't think Paul needed a special day to Preach on either, Preaching is simply what he did.

This being during the counting of the Omer means it involved Biblical Significance for the First Day of The Week already in The Torah in Leviticus 23.  The Resurrection and Pentecost were on Sundays because Leviticus 23 ordained them to be, those Sundays being important did not introduce anything new.

I keep hearing that ALL of Jesus post Resurrection appearances were on Sundays from the Evangelical Sunday supporting people.  However only the Doubting Thomas incident could be interpreted that way.  Besides that it's well known The Ascension was a Thursday being day 40 of the Omer (Acts 1:3). 

When you read through Acts, you'll see Sabbath observances are definitely still kept by Early Christians, even Paul. Even if the word Sabbath isn't used, if Paul is disputing with Jews in a Synagogue, you can infer that it is a Sabbath or a New Moon or a Holy Day. And for this reason it's clear that even the Mars' Hill Sermon was preached on a Sabbath not a Sunday, in Acts 17:16-19.

Ezekiel 45 clearly has the Sabbath still being observed in the Messianic Temple.  And I believe that is the New Heaven and New Earth not The Millennium.

So what day we do a weekly observance is not something to be Dogmatic on. Or even if we do a weekly observance at all.  I'm ultimately against the entire modern definition of what a "church" is, archaeology shows no church buildings were built till the Third Century. But the evidence both Biblical and Extra-Biblical shows that the first 2 or 3 generations of The Church met on the Jewish Sabbath, not Sunday.  And then the Nazarenes kept the Sabbath at least into the late Fourth Century.

The history even of the how Sunday replaced Saturday is more complicated then most people realize.  Even in the Nicene Era a lot of Christians were kind of just doing both.

The Eucharist has more Hebrew Bible precedent then just the Passover Seder, it is also connected to Melchizedek's Supper in Genesis 14 and the Shewbread.  The Shewbread was kept in the Holy Place on the Table of Shewbread all Week and then eaten by the Priests on The Sabbath.  Under the New Testament all Believers are the Priesthood, so that is Biblical Support for the Eucharist being part of what we do on the Weekly Sabbath.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-showbread-and-eucharist.html

Fast Days becoming Joyful Celebrations

Zechariah Chapter 8 starting in verse 18 is an interesting Prophecy.

And the word of YHWH of hosts came unto me, saying, "Thus saith YHWH of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace. Thus saith YHWH of hosts; It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities: and the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before YHWH, and to seek YHWH of hosts: I will go also.  Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek YHWH of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before YHWH.  Thus saith YHWH of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Judean, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you."

The Four Fast days alluded to here are the four tied in their origins to the Fall of Jerusalem who's dates are determined by Chronological statements in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  The fast of the Fourth Month is the 17th of Tammuz, the Fast of the Fifth Month if the 9th of Av, the Fast of the Seventh Month is Yom Gedaliah the 3rd of Tishri and the Fast of the Tenth Month is the 10th of Tevet.

The 10th of Tevet is perhaps the most obscure of these to Gentiles so let me direct you to the Exact Biblical support for The Tenth Month's Fast being the 10th Day of the Month.  2 Kings 25:1, Jeremiah 52:4 and Ezekiel 24:1-2.  

From a New Testament Christian Doctrinal perspective Jerusalem is no longer a single Earthly location but rather the Mishkan is anywhere multiple Believers gather together.

The main point is that the Fast Days are traditionally the Sad days of the Hebrew Calendar.  But YHWH is promising to make them Joyful Celebrations.

Perhaps the last of these listed is the first to be fulfilled?  Perhaps how that day becomes a Joyous Celebration is how The Gospel Narrative Begins? 

A lot of the arguments for Jesus being born around December 25th or January 6th are tied to seeing the Conception of Jesus, the Annunciation and Visitation in the Gospel Narratives, happening around the same time of year as The Crucifixion and Resurrection meaning near the Aviv/Nisan Holy Days.  For example it's believed that must be what Julius Africanus meant when he placed the Incarnation on March 25th, since at the Visitation in Luke 1:41-45 Jesus seems to be already incarnated in Mary's Womb.

Zola Levitt developed a theory about a correlation between the Gestation Cycle and The Torah Holy Days.

https://www.god1st.org/content.cfm?id=151&blog_id=91

I am a little skeptical of parts of it, but the significance of the 14th Day of the First Month seems to hold up.

Gestation is typically 280 days or 9 Month and 10 Days.  So if the First Month of Mary's cycle happened to line up with the first month of the Biblical calendar, the day those days would be completed in Luke 2:6 would be the Tenth Day of The Tenth Month, the 10th of Tevet Fast Day.  And on that day an Angel appeared to the Shepherds in verse 10 to bring tidings of Great Joy.

I've already argued that The Torah Calendar should be Solar not Lunar.

Right now the Spring Equinox most often falls on March 20th, so if we decide to equate the first of Aviv with the day after, which would be March 21st, that would make the 10th of Tevet December 25th since five 31st days occur in between. 

A January 6th Nativity would then put the start of Aviv on April 2nd, while happening to have December 25th fall during Hanukkah.

Now Ezekiel 33:21 does provide a small justification for alternatively considering the Fifth Day the Fast Day of the Tenth Month, which if that was synchronized to December 25th would make either of the last two days of Hanukkah the Winter Solstice.  And would counting backwards make the Fifth of November the Feast of Jeroboam and Halloween the day the Flood started.

My argument that Biblical Days are Sunrise to Sunrise not Sunset based actually impacts the timing of Christmas.  You see the concept of Christmas Eve came from the Biblical days begin at Sunset assumption, and Luke 2 clearly has Jesus born during the Nighttime Hours.  So it's the night that begins at Sunset December 24th through Sunrise December 25th that is most directly being tied to when Jesus was Born by this tradition.  So if the Fifth of Tevet is synchronized to December 24th then counting backwards Tom Kippur is September 30th making sunset of September 29th the start of the evening of the 9th day of the Seventh Month.  Which would mean Michaelmas could have it's origins in a Christianized Yom Kippur observance.  And it would make March 24th traditional Annunciation Day the first of Aviv, but makes April 7th the Coptic Annunciation day Aviv 14.

But going back to the Tenth of Tevet theory.  If the Day of the Tenth is December 24th then counting backwards that would make Yom Kippur the 25th of September and the first day of Tabernacles the 30th which can also be a theory for the origin of Michaelmas.  And it makes March 20th the first of Aviv.

These Fast Days have their origins in the destruction of the Old Jerusalem and Old Temple of the Old Covenant.  In The New Covenant The Body of Christ is the New Temple and New Jerusalem.

So there ya go, I made a Biblical Argument for celebrating The Birth of The Messiah on December 25th.  One that's flexible even.

Update May 2025: Joy is a key word in all this.  The Christmas song Joy to the World is partly based on Psalm 98.  Chuck Missler used to say singing that Psalm as a Christmas song is Amillennial, and well I have become sorta Amillennial.

Christmas and Hanukkah

The idea that Christmas is Pagan in origin is thoroughly debunked by people much better at that then I am, including YouTubers like ReligionForBreakfast and InspiringPhilosophy.  

The Pagan Holidays that were observed around the Winter Solstice in the BC Era were not Birthdays but if anything usually that pagan god's equivalent to Easter being when The Sun kinda dies and rises again.  Osiris and Horus had birthdays in September and Apollo's was in May.

And none including Sol Invictus were tied to December 25th specifically till 354 AD by which time Christmas being observed then was firmly established.  The Donatists also observing it on December 25th proves that association has Pre-Nicene Origins.

I'm not invested in trying to prove this time of year is in fact accurate.  I consider some of the arguments against it silly and weak, but The Bible didn't tell us exactly when Jesus was born (at least not directly) therefore it's not something we need to know.

What I do believe is that way more early Christian practices had their origins in evolving from continued Jewish practices filtered through certain New Testament concepts then most people realize.  I'll try to talk more about that in future posts next year.  For now though I do think there is logic to seeing Christmas and Hanukkah happening around the same time of year as not mere coincidence.

Jesus observed Hanukkah in John 10:22 so logic dictates early Christians who included that book in their Canon would have done the same.  I suspect the mysterious origins of Michaelmas similarly have their roots in Christian observances of one of the Tishri Holidays possibly via John 7.

Hanukkah is the only prior precedent for any Late Fall/Early Winter religious observance being on the 25th day of the month.  And if when translating customs from a Jewish Calendar to a Roman Calendar you decide to equate Nisan/Aviv with April the first full month of Spring and the month in which the Romans observed their own Barley Harvest festival the Cerealia.  That makes December the Ninth Month.

Maybe Christians celebrating Hanukkah in a Christian way didn't originally identify it with Jesus's Birthday but decided that should be the basis for the Holiday once it's Jewish Roots were partly forgotten?  And/Or maybe they felt there were good thematic/symbolic reasons to associate the Nativity Narratives with Hanukkah?

Hanukkah means Dedication referring to the rededication of The Temple after the Hasmonean Revolt succeeded.  In John 2:19-21 Jesus refers to His Body as "This Temple", so the Nativity events recorded in Luke 2 and Matthew 2 could be viewed as the Dedication of that Temple.  Herod could even be viewed as a new Antiochus Epiphanes in that context.

Christians would have also noticed that if Jesus was born on the first day of Hanukkah then his Circumcision would have been on the last day since it's an Eight Day Festival bringing us down to verse 21 of Luke 2.

Now we know from cross checking with Leviticus 12 that what Luke 2:22-39 records wouldn't have happened till 33 days later.  But since Luke doesn't directly state that timeframe the way he does the Circumcision timeframe, some early Christians could have felt justified in associating all of this with still being the Eight Day at least thematically.  Maybe someone at some point might have gotten what law Luke was referencing wrong and looked at Leviticus 15:29 instead?  It is notable that Candles became associated with the Mass commemorating this passage, which of course is no February 2nrd Candlemas.

Hanukkah is called The Festival of Lights and Jesus is called The Light of The World at many points in The Fourth Gospel (1:4-9, 3:19-21, 5:35-36, 8:12, 9:5, 11:9-10, 12:35-46) and the Epistle known as 1 John (1:5-7 and 2:8-10), and the Light-Bringer (Day Star in the KJV) in 2 Peter 1:19, and it's even in Simeon's Prophecy in Luke 2:32.  It's called the Festival of Lights because it's tied to The Menorah(Candlestick) which is mentioned or alluded to in The New Testament in Matthew 5:15, Mark 4:21, Luke 8:16, 11:33, Hebrews 9:2 and Revelation chapters 1, 2 and 11 where the last reference connects to Zechariah 4 which is itself often associated with Hanukkah along with Haggai 2:10-23 which becomes Christmas Eve in this model. 

In Leviticus 24 Frankincense (and possibly indirectly Myrrh) are linked to the Menorah and the Shewbread.  Leviticus 23 was all about Holy Days and then chapter 25 returns to Calendar related concerns, so Leviticus 24 naturally could have become thematically linked to Hanukkah.  And of course the Menorah and the Table of Shewbread were made of Gold.  

It's also important to remember that a lot of the specifics of how we think of Hanukkah today are post Diaspora developments (just as a lot of the finer details of the modern Passover Seder are), even the Miracle of the Oil story doesn't show up till the Talmud.  It seems like Second Temple Judaism's Hanukkah was largely just a sort of second Tabernacles, principally it was a time for feasting.  There were no Dreidels yet or giving a gift on each day, and maybe not even yet the custom of lighting one additional candle every day.

Same is true with Christmas of course, most of how we think about it today even as a religious Holy Day wasn't always there.  It's main function originally was as a Feast Day.

Looking at the history and details of Christmastide aka The Twelve Days of Christmas I notice that Epiphany is the only day after the Circumcision that has any special observance to it, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th days of January just have readings that don't even feel very Christmas related.  The oldest reference to Epiphany we have is post Nicaea in AD 361 by Ammianus Marcelinus and it doesn't clarify the exact day just saying it's at the start of January, almsot like it was another name for the Feast of the Circumcision.  Epiphany also gets associated with Jesus's Baptism in some early references, and I feel it's worth noting here that Gentile Christianity by this time was already developing the false doctrine that Baptism replaced Circumcision to justify their false practice of Infant Baptism.

Epiphanius of Salamis said that Epiphany is the same day as the Nativity, but he represents the more obscure to the west tradition of making Christmas January 6th.

Maybe Christmastide was expanded from 8 days to 12 specifically to obscure the Hanukkah connection during this Romanizing era?

Debates about when to celebrate "Easter".

 First, a reminder that "Easter" is a word used only in English and sometimes other Germanic languages.  All of the Greek and Latin speaking ancients I'm about to talk about actually said "Pascha" everywhere modern English discussions/translations of them like Wikipedia say "Easter".

Also, by the First Century the word Peshach/Pascha was being used for all the Nisan Holy Days together and not just the 14th, but this looser application is anticipated by Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45 21-24.  That's why in Acts 12 it's still Pascha after the Days of Unleavened Bread have started.

First I want to discuss how the Quartodecimanism debate that went on in the Second Century was not the same thing as the arguments modern Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant Christians have with mainstream Western Christianity, or even the same thing as the debate that was had at the Council of Nicaea.

Both sides of the original Quartodeciman controversy were using the same calendar, and it seems like it was a lunar Calendar, if it was exactly the same Calendar the Jews of the time were using or not I don't know for sure but I think it probably was.  The debate was about whether the main celebration (Feast being the word used) should be on the 14th of Nisan (the position of the Quartodecimans) or the following Sunday which seems to be what most Christians were doing. The Sunday observers fasted through the 14th till Sunday morning.

It wasn't a debate between two entirely different methods of when to calculate anything, but a debate about whether the day Jesus was Crucified, or the Day He Rose from the Dead should be the day of the Feast.  Or in the context of Leviticus 23, Exodus 12 and Numbers 28, the day the Passover Lamb is killed or First Fruits, which is always on the morning after the Sabbath hence Sunday.

Modern Torah observant Christians often assume the Quartodecimans were the ones on their side of the dispute, and anyone who wanted to do anything but hide under their beds on a Sunday must have been closet Pagan sun worshipers.

The truth is both sides of the dispute were adding to the Torah by seeing a full Fast as being required at all.  But if you read Leviticus 23 more closely, specifically verses 9 through 14 which are about First Fruits.  Verse 14 says.

"And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for this age throughout your generations in all your dwellings."

So, it sounds like a fast of sorts ends on First Fruits.  It's also interesting that Esther's fast was at the time when Passover would normally be celebrated, but it lasted three days trough the 14th and 15th days of the month, leading to her final victory on the 17th.

Melito of Sardis' Passover teaching clearly teaches the Torah being done away with, so no the Quartodecimans were not the Hebrew Roots people of their time.

To Christians the two most important events in history are the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I would argue that the Resurrection is more important, in the Sermon on Mar's Hill in Acts 17 Paul's presentation of The Gospel to a gentile audience does not directly refer to the Death of Jesus at all, but the climax is definitely The Resurrection.  In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul refers to both the Crucifixion and the Resurrection at the beginning, but the rest of the chapter is primarily about the Resurrection.

Crucifixion Day is a day to mourn (which is often an appropriate time to Fast in Jewish thought), The Resurrection is what we celebrate.

Polycrates_of_Ephesus defended the Quartodeciman position by citing the long established traditions of the Churches in Asia.  But I've already talked about how The Bible itself gives us reasons to suspect that region was where things first started going wrong.

The debate about Easter at the Council of Nicaea is also highly misunderstood.  This debate was only about first if Christians should use the same Lunar Calendar as the Jews, and then if all Churches should use the same calendar.  There was not even any disagreement that it should be a Lunisolar Calendar.

The Council's final decision was that it should be determined independent of the Jewish calendar, and that there should be a universal agreement.  But what that final calendar was took a long time to form.

And it wasn't till centuries later that the Roman Church started making a deliberate effort to make sure Christian Passover never lines up with Jewish Passover, doing that is arguably just as much in violation of Nicaea's decision as adopting the Jewish reckoning would be, since that's not a truly independent decision.

Nicaea was addressing a disagreement that began in the late 3rd Century, so it predated Constantine's influence but was still a century after the Quartodeciman controversy.

One of the arguments against the Jewish Reckoning made at this time was that it sometimes had Passover happening before the Spring Equinox.  Now that makes it seem to me like a form of the modern Rabbinic Jewish calendar is what they were breaking with here, and indeed it seems to have developed at the same time this Christian disagreement started.  The modern Kariate reckoning has if anything the opposite problem, a tendency to happen maybe a little too long after the Equinox.  

Did the Church's developing Anti-Semitism play some factor in why this happened?  Possibly, but just as Anti-Semites criticizing Israel doesn't make criticism of the Israeli Government inherently Anti-Semitic, there is likewise disagreement even among Jews on if the Rabbinic calendar is correct.

I'm not a legalist, I don't think it's a big deal if we're technically observing things on the wrong day.  But I wanted to clarify how neither of these disputes were an Ancient Hebraic Christian practice being suppressed by a Solar Calendar using organized Church.  The origin of the current method the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches use is much longer and more complicated.

I have come to think we should abandon the Lunar Calendar assumption altogether, but that's not something any of these Early Christians are known to have considered.

I'm now thinking the Biblical Day does begin at Sunrise

I wrote my post arguing agaisnt the Lunar Calendar assuming Biblical days begin and end at Sunset, but I'm now addressing that question.

I discovered some websites like these.

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/daystarts.html

https://www.bibletimemarkers.com/a-day-begins-at-sunrise

I am not at this time endorsing anything else on those sites.  But the first one I notice does support a Rapture view similar to what mine was when I was a Futurist in being at the 7th Trumpet and before the Bowls.  That site however is still assuming a Lunar Calendar for determining the Months, which I am now highly skeptical of.  I also probably do not agree with their Passion Week chronology.

Both argue that during the Creation Week, the Day is when God does the work, and at the end of each day it describes the times of Sunset and Sunrise (evening and morning) following.  The first act of Creation is the creation of Light, which thematically supports the day beginning at Sunrise.  Then in Genesis 1:5, 15-16 and 18 the Day is listed before the Night.  Like many other times later on when referring to "forty days and forty nights" or "three days and three nights", in fact almost any time you see "nights" plural, and there are 27 verses that refer to "day and night".  Also the Sun is always listed before the moon in verses like Genesis 37:9, Deuteronomy 4:19. 17:3 and 33:14.  And in Numbers 28 the daily sacrifices are listed as morning first then evening.

In Leviticus 23 a few things make more sense when you remove the Sunset to Sunset based assumptions.  And this is the most important chapter to understanding the Torah Calendar.

What's said about the 14th of Nisan and Passover when compared to Exodus 12 and other Passover passages is a lot less confusing if the days begin and end at sunrise, since then the evening is the middle of the day.  

But the Yom Kippur instructions are what's really revealing.  The Day of Atonement is the Tenth day of the Seventh Month, that was determined already back in chapter 16.  But in verse 32 the Ninth Day is mentioned for some reason.  What the verse seems to be saying is this 24 hour period that functions like a Sabbath begins at the Sunset of the 9th and ends the next Sunset.  The emphasis on that here clearly implying that's not when actual calendar days begin and end, doing it that way here is a special occasion.

I have argued in the past against viewing Yom Kippur as a Fast day.  But this understanding of verse 32 can negate my main argument, since it can allow the Fast to be from Sunset of the 9th to the Sunset of the 10th so that in the Evening of the 10th you eat the meat of Sacrificed Animals, similar to how the 14th as Passover works in this model.

Likewise is Exodus 12:18, everywhere else the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread are 15-21 of the First Month, but in this passage it includes the Evening of the 14th making it consist of 8 evenings.  

This also explains how confused the Rabbinic Jewish observance of Passover is.  While Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45 provide Hebrew Bible precedent for expanding the use of the word Passover to cover the entire seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread, the change to a Sunset based observance causing the Evening of the 14th to become the Evening of the 15th explains why Rabbinic observance basically forgets that the 14th is Passover.  

Rabbinic tradition does call the 14th the Fast of the Firstborn.  Originally that was clearly tied to the 14th being the day the Egyptian First Born were killed and Israel's spared, but that is supposed to be happening during the Seder so the Sunset based reckoning now has that happening on the 15th so why the 14th is called the Fast of the Firstborn is something the Rabbis struggle to explain.

Speaking of Rabbinic tradition, Fasts are still traditionally supposed to begin at Sunrise, so that sounds like a carry over from the original reckoning.

1 Samuel 30:17 also arguably makes more sense on a Sunrise to Sunrise calendar.

It also mirrors the Torah year better.  Biblically the year begins in Spring, and Dawn is essentially the Spring of the day, hence Sunrise sometimes being refereed to as "dayspring".

Malachi says Jesus is the Sun of Righteousness, and the Fourth Gospel says He is the Light, and Peter calls Him the Lightbearer, there is also the Womb of the Morning reference in Psalm 110.  Revelation says Jesus is the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega.  So the day beginning and ending with Sunrise fits that typological pattern.

Which then leads to overlooked details of the Passion narrative.  Matthew 27:57 and Mark 15:42 depict the evening following the Crucifixion as still the day before The Sabbath.  And John 20:19 depicts the Evening following when Jesus had Risen and been seen Risen as still the First Day of The Week.

The KJV translation of Matthew 28:1 says the Sabbath ends at Sunrise, the Young's Literal Translation and the Peshitta agree.  But modern translations will try to say "after the Sabbath" to force it to still fit the Sunset based calendar assumptions.

Maybe the Torah's Calendar was never a Lunar or Lunisolar Calendar?

First some terminology clarification.  The traditional Rabbinic Hebrew Calendar we're used to calling a Lunar Calendar is strictly speaking a Lunisolar Calendar, the phases of the Moon come first but synchronization is done with a Solar year so the seasons don't drift out of place.  The same is true of the popular variants like the Samaritan Calendar, the Kariate method and the proposed Lunar Sabbath model.  A strictly Lunar Calendar would be something like the Islamic Calendar which makes no attempt to reconcile and so Ramadan has fallen all over the Gregorian Calendar.

But I've lately been questioning the traditional assumption that the Torah's Calendar is Lunar at all.

Let's start with the fact that Genesis 1 on the Fourth Day defines the Moon as ruling the Night not Months.  The positions of the Stars are what helps us keep track of what time of year it is.

The Torah has completely different words for Month and Moon, that is not what I'd expect from an ancient strictly Lunar month based culture.  Month is Chodesh/Hodesh (Strongs Number 2320) while Moon is Jerah/Yerach (3394).  There are a few places where the latter word is used of a passage of time, but that's because even without a lunar calendar the concept of a month is still tied poetically to the Moon somewhat as it's phases come at least close.

Japan for example had a Lunar Calendar until 1873, and that's why their language uses the same word for both Month and Moon, Tsuki.  That's why in the English version of episode 6 of my favorite Anime, Noir, it sounds weird when Mireille says "so many Months and Years have passed", in a language where all the word "month" means is a fraction of a year my mind goes "why even include months in that expression?".  But I'm pretty sure in the Japanese she's saying "so many Tsuki and Hi", (Hi being an alternate word for both Sun and Year and sometimes Day).  So a more poetic yet equally literal translation would be "so many Moons and Suns have passed" which sounds more right poetically even if technically equally as redundant.

The phrase "Rosh Chodesh" gets translated "New Moon" sometimes because of our traditional assumptions, but Rosh means the beginning or head of something not "New".  Colossians 2:16 is the one New Testament reference to the Jewish concept of the "Rosh Chodesh", and it again uses a Greek word for Month, not Selene the word for the Moon.

Because we think of it as the Crescent New Moon so much talk about Rosh Chodesh is spent on saying we don't know for certain exactly when it is till it happens.  With Dispensationalists saying it typologically fits the Pre-Trib Rapture and "no man knowth the day or the hour" verses.  But there is one clear Biblical reference to people knowing for certain the next day is a Rosh Chodesh, 1 Samuel 20:5.

The Torah never talks about the Full Moon, even in regards to the Holy Days that should happen about then on a Lunar or Lunisolar calendar.  Two verses elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible are often translated as referring to the Full Moon, but those are highly disputable.  For Psalm 81 I don't know how to translate it but my hunch is it's about the Jubilee Yom Kippur sounded Shofar.  The word for "feast" used here is sometimes used of Sacrificial animals like Exodus 23:18, Psalm 118:27 and Isaiah 29:1, so that could be the Yom Kippur Sin Offering in this verse.  The root of the word thought to refer to the Full Moon appears in Leviticus 16:13 where it's translated "cover".

And then there is all the evidence that The Bible clearly thinks of a Month as being 30 days not 29 and a half.  It's there when you do the math of the Flood chronology of Genesis 7 and 8 with 5 months being exactly 150 days beginning on the 17th of the second month and ending on the 17th of the seventh month.  And it's also in Revelation with 42 Months, 1,260 days and three and a half years being treated as synonymous time periods.  

Genesis 1:14-19 discuses the Sun (greater light), Moon (lesser light) and stars being made for signs and for seasons and for days and for years.  But you'll notice in verse 16 the Sun is made and talked about first, it has priority.  And months are seemingly missing from the discussion.

Psalm 104:19 is an obscure unspecific verse, it doesn't prove anything especially not against the wait of all this counter evidence.

It is well known that the  modern Hebrew Calendar was influenced by the Babylonian Calendar during the Captivity, the names we're now used to calling the Hebrew months come from Babylon for one thing.  Well the thing is Babylon had a Lunisolar Calendar, so even that aspect of it could be Babylonian in origin.

Lunar Calendars were more popular with the ancient Pagans then you might expect given the modern popular narrative that ancient Paganism always started with Sun worship.  In fact the most prominent not at all Lunar Calendar used by Pagans in classical antiquity was the Civil Egyptian calendar, but even they originally had a Lunar one which they kept using for ceremonial purposes.  Even in Greece the Attic Lunar Calendar's main purpose was for how they observed Pagan festivals.

Now as much as Christians often love to see all things Egyptian as bad, it wasn't the Egyptians much of the Torah is telling the Israelites not to be like, it was the Canaanites, (When Jerusalem is derogatorily called "Sodom and Egypt" it's about them being inhospitable to strangers not any particular customs.).  One of the Canaanite tribes was the Amorites, Babylon first became a major player in Mesopotamia under it's Amorite dynasty, so that Babylonian calendar could be Canaanite in origin.

There is one indisputable difference between the Torah Calendar and the Civil Egyptian Calendar, and that is when to start it.  Exodus 13:4 and 23:15 proclaims Aviv (the time of the Barley Harvest, early Spring) to be the first month while the Egyptian Calendar starts near the Autumnal Equinox.

It is a common traditional conjecture that before Exodus 12 the first season was Fall rather then Spring, and that in at The Exodus YHWH is swapping the First and Seventh months.  I'd been thinking of making a post on how we can't entirely prove that using Scripture alone and so shouldn't build so many theories on it.  But since they were in Egypt for several generations it's very possible the Egyptian Calendar was their starting point and what month to make the first month was the only change YHWH is making in Exodus 12.  Though different agricultural and climate circumstances in Canaan probably brought further differences over time, the Egyptian Calendar was organized around 3 seasons rather then 4 because of how much they were ruled by the flooding of the Nile.

In a hypothetical Torah based Solar Calendar the Intercalary month of five or six days (if that was the method used for synchronization) would go between Adar and Nisan rather then in September.  (BTW, those 5 days were when the Egyptians observed the birthdays of Osiris and Horus, not anywhere near Christmas.  And the Egyptian new year was September 11th on our calendar coincidentally enough.)  Or maybe you could try to put them before the Seventh Month to keep Yom Teruah close to the Fall Equinox.  

Genesis 1:14 is possibly using Signs in place of Months, I have over the years gone back and forth on the Mazzaroth/Gospel in the Stars theory.  Maybe fellow Mazzaroth proponents should consider that the Star Signs can be an alternative to the Moon for how to determine the months of the year.  Josephus did refer to Nisan as being when the Sun is in Aries, in the first century the Sun entered Aries around the Spring Equinox, and that month is indeed when the Barley Harvest happens.  The Romans had a Seven Day Barley Festival similar to Unleavened Bread that was the 12-18th of April, but due to the awkwardness of Caesar's revisions that may be off from when in the Sun's journey it was originally supposed to be.

It is popular to theorize that Revelation 12:1 is describing some astronomical alignment involving the Moon. If it is it could be an exception and not proof the months are usually defined by the Moon.  But I'm skeptical of that altogether, I think it's probably a purely supernatural vision and not something predictable using Stelarrium.

Now I do believe the Passover through Pentecost of Christ's Passion, Resurrection and sending of the Holy Spirit was likely based on what the Jews of the time were doing regardless of if it was still accurate.  But it may be it happened to be a year when they did line up, or at least close enough that First Fruits was the right Sunday.  

But maybe not all the Jews were already using the Babylonian Calendar in Christ's time?  Maybe it was originally mainly the Pharisees, who became the only sect to survive the 70 AD war?  It was the Sadducees who actually controlled the Priesthood and The Temple, and according to Josephus they were a Torah only sect.  But that's all conjecture.

The Qumran Community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls also rejected the Lunar Calendar, the Temple Scroll is our main source on their Calendar but it's discussed in other scrolls too.  I don't think that Calendar is right either, like the Lunar Sabbath model it wants to synchronize the monthly and yearly cycle to the weekly cycle by giving every 3rd month an extra day creating a 364 day year.  They make the first day of the year a Wednesday because that was the day the Sun and Moon were created.  But at least they correctly placed First Fruits and Pentecost on Sundays.  Weeks are not even remotely mentioned in the Genesis 1 account of the fourth day, so they aren't connected to the sun, moon or stars.

The Book of Jubilees was popular with them because it too rejected the Lunar Calendar (Chapter 6 verses 32-37, this Calendar also seems to be endorsed by Enoch 72-82).  But indeed Jubilees has the same problem as the Temple Scroll system.  In fact it's criticism of the lunar system is a little hypocritical since it doesn't line up perfectly with the seasons either, being one day short of a solar year will inevitably create the same issue even if it'd take longer.

The Hebrew Roots movement has a lot of irrational fear of Sun Worship wrapped up into it.  Obviously actually worshiping the actual Sun or Moon or any other inanimate object is wrong.  But Malachi does call Jesus the Sun(Shamash) of Righteousness, there is no equivalent title making the Moon a symbol of Jesus.  So I have no problem believing Jesus Rose from The Grave at Sunrise on a Sunday Morning, or that he was born on or soon after the Winter Solstice.  I'd rather base my calendar on the astronomical object that is explicitly a symbol of Jesus then one that is not.

You might ask "are you gonna also question if Biblical days begin and end with Sunset?"  Well I did originally write this assuming the stranded Sunset based structure, that issue will have to be considered in a separate post.

But I'm not just disagreeing with the current Hebrew Roots movement here.  This may shock you to learn but the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and other mainstream Christian Churches do use the Moon to calculate "Easter".  It's just that explaining why it doesn't always line up with Rabbinic Passover is complicated.  In most Languages "Easter" is just called Pascha.  If Catholic "Easter" was just a Christianized Spring Solstice festival as many allege it would consistently happen in the 20s of March.

Also remember that as a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist I do believe originally the Solar and Lunar cycles were in sync and there was no need to choose between them.  I think that was the case at least until the Flood but maybe also till the time of Joshua or even Hezekiah.

Update February 2025:  I've learned about the Gezer Calendar.

This Calendar clearly is Lunar since it uses Yereh for Month instead of Chodesh. And it also starts with Fall rather then Spring.

Gezer has an awkward role in Biblical History.  In Judges 1 it's territory allotted to Ephraim but that they failed to drive the Canaanites out of.  Then sometime during the reign of Solomon the Pharaoh King of Egypt who's Daughter Solomon married destroyed Gezer and gave it to Solomon who then fortified it and some other cities.

Archeologists date this Gezer Calendar to the 10th Century BC.  One of the disputes in Biblical Chronology is whether the reign of Solomon is during the 10th Century, or the 11th Century or straddles both.

The fact that it starts in Fall is unambiguously not the intended Torah Calendar, there is no Biblical support for having Tishri based Civil years alongside the "Ceremonial" Spring based years.

An incomplete name is attached to the list, all we can read is ABY.  The first assumption of scholars tends to be the name Abijah but Abijam could just easily fit.  Abijam's name references the Hebrew word for the Sea that was also used by Canaanites.

It's possible even after Solomon's rebuilding the city still had some Canaanites using their Calendar, or Israelites departing from the Torah Calendar.

Circumcision is Good Actually

Anti-Circumcision rhetoric can be found all over the political spectrum, but I shall in the secular part of this post mainly be thinking of Left Wing opposition to the practice since I am Left Wing and consider Conservatives and "Libertarians" people who's opinions on such matters shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.

The first problem to complicate the perception of Circumcision is how Female Genital Mutilation is often incorrectly called Female Circumcision.  FGM is both in terms of what it does and why it's done not in any way similar to Circumcision, it should be called Female Castration because that is far more parrel to what's actually being done.  

There is I suspect a direct connection to that barbaric practice being wrongly equated with Circumcision and the way many people decided to start describing Circumcision as "cutting part of your dick off".  The Forsaken is part of the dick in the same way hair is part of your head or fingernails part of your hand.  But the best comparison is actually the ambilocal cord, both serve a function while in the Womb but are obsolete as soon as the infant is born.

It angers me to see so many of the same people chanting "Believe the Science" when the Science seems to be contradicting something religious people believe in, will then ignore the endless scientific studies that have proven the health benefits of Infant Circumcision.  There are many health benefits to Circumcision in general but what's most directly relevant to Infant Circumcision is Urinary Tract Infection, Uncircumcised AMAB children have a significantly increased risk of developing UTI before they even turn 2 years old.  It is absurdly hypocritical how some of the same people who support mandatory vaccinations of children even when the parents are uncomfortable with it to also then turn around and try to ban allowing parents to circumcise their children.

The Science has shown that the benefits of Circumcision far outweigh the hypothetical risks. In addition to the UTI issues it also reduces risk of STDs and HPV and cervical cancer  Now I've seen people seek to respond to all these health arguments with a weird little slogan of "wash your dick", thinking it's that simple is clear evidence of having the privilege of being Cut your whole life.  

Science has also debunked the notion that Circumcision effects male sexual enjoyment one way or the other.

The only Anti-Circumcision claim that has any statistical validity at all is the claim that it has a negative psychological effect and even that is inconclusive.  But the thing is even if that is true that is Socially Constructed.  We live in a society that conditions people of every gender but especially Cis-Males to place much of their self worth in their sex organs, and then idiots start telling Circumcised people that they had part of their dick cut off when they were a baby.  Putting all that value on a piece of vestigial skin because it can technically be considered "part of the dick" is pure Toxic Masculinity.

There is also an obvious overlap between anti-Infant Circumcision arguments and the arguments of TERFs and other Transphobes, this idea that anything related to the natural state of a child's reproductive system is sacrosanct and shouldn't be allowed to be altered until they are unambiguously an adult.  Puberty Blockers weren't even originally created for Trans People but for the rare condition of young girls starting puberty way too early.  The foreskin being technically "natural" doesn't make it not harmful.

But the real bigotry behind Anti-Circumcision rhetoric is Anti-Semitism.  It fascinates me how many things are considered Anti-Semitic dog whistles online simply for being something also believed by some past Anti-Semites.  But all this demonizing of a ritual custom that has been foundational to Jewish cultural identity since the first book of The Bible is apparently fine.  But it's not just Jews, it's also part of the cultures of a number of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia and other places.

I still remember the first Anti-Circumcision webpage I ever stumbled upon.  I was reading it genuinely sympathetic to the author's concerns, but then they just casually inserted an unsourced claim that "Rabbis lick the blood off the circumcised Baby's penis" and my jaw just dropped, that's literally an allusion to the Blood Libel and they just dropped it in there and moved on like it was nothing.

But if you really want to see just how insanely conspiratorial Anti-Circumcision people can get, watch this video on the Silent Hill Wiki.

That's the secular arguments, now I shall get to specifically Christian attitudes towards Circumcision.

Everything Paul says that sounds Anti-Circumcision is in the context of his opposing those who want to make it mandatory for Adult Gentile Converts.  But those I call Reverse-Legalists abuse these passages to claim Circumcision and other Jewish Customs are outright sinful for Christians to engage in.  

Paul also talks about how the true Circumcision is spiritual, but he does the same with Baptism often in the same passages and no one argues that the physical Water Baptism ritual is abolished by those verses [correction there are sects like The Quakers that do basically argue that, but they're outliers].  

In Acts 16 Paul helps Timothy get Circumcised, so he was clearly not entirely agaisnt doing it even for adult gentile converts.  

First Century Christians were still a sect of Judaism, and Jewish Paulian Christians like the Nazarenes continued practicing it at least into the late Fourth Century.

As a Credo-Baptist I believe the false Doctrine that Baptism has replaced Circumcisions is partly to blame for the origin of Infant Baptism.

Passion Week Chronology Completely Rethought

Some alternate Torah calendars have become popular online lately, in particular I’ve been skeptical of those that try to synchronize the weeks to the months or at least year, like the Lunar Sabbath Calendar or the Jubilees Calendar.

Neither of those actually make the first day of the first month the first day of the week, they come up with excuses for starting the year on the same day of the week every year yet not choosing the first day.

Christians of course aren’t inclined to support a calendar that does always start Aviv on a Sunday because then the 14th of Aviv would always fall on the Sabbath, and placing the Crucifixion on the Sabbath seems virtually the most impossible model. 

But I have been rethinking some things.

For starters I am making this theory in the context of my prior arguing against the Torah using a Lunar Calendar as well as for starting the day at Sunrise rather than Sunset. So my mind is presuming that as I think about all this, but it could still be compatible with more traditional assumptions about those two issues.

I’ve been thinking about the flexibility of the usage of the name Peshach/Pascha.  (Commonly translated Passover but I've seen some Hebrew scholars say it really means Protection or Protector.)  Christians debating Friday, Thursday or Wednesday Crucifixion models are often focusing mostly on the rather strict use of the term in Exodus 12, Leviticus 23 and some other passages for the 14th.  But by NT times common Jewish usage was treating it as synonymous with the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread which is largely how modern Rabbinic Jews still use the word.  Acts 12 clearly has it still Pascha during Unleavened Bread.  

The Hebrew Bible itself actually started that expansion of Peshach’s application in Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45:21-24.  Of the Five Books in the Pentateuch Jesus quoted Deuteronomy more than any other, the same is true of the New Testament as a whole, so maybe their definitions for Pascha are based on that book more so than Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers?

So if we study Leviticus 23 under the assumption that for the first month the days numbered a multiple of seven are the Sabbaths.  That would make two of the days that are important observances of that month fall on the weekly Sabbath, the 14th which is YHWH’s Peshach, and the 21st which is the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread.  

For Unleavened Bread both the first and seventh days are defined as a Holy Convocation in which no servile work shall be done, obviously they both can’t be the actual weekly Sabbath at the same time, and neither is directly called a Sabbath the way the Holy Convocation days of the 7th month are later, but the last day of Unleavened Bread is defined in the text by it’s Seventhness rather then it’s Lastness which I think can be seen as implying it.  And Deuteronomy 16:8 places special emphasis on the Seventh Day of the Feast as a day of rest repeating the Sabbath like characteristics only for it not the 15th.

Leviticus 23:9-15 describes the first day of the Omer.  Which is commonly called by Christians interested in this stuff "First Fruits", however that can be confusing because in English Bibles that term is also associated with Pentecost, but the Hebrew words are different and at least the one used in this section isn’t in it’s etymology referencing fruit.  I like to call it Aparche, the equivalent Greek word which is used for The Resurrection of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15, it rolls off the tongue easier then the Hebrew.  The Aparche is NOT part of Numbers 28, the word for Firstfruits there is the one used in Leviticus 23 of Pentecost.

The timing of the Aparche is defined as the day after the Sabbath, in context the Sabbath that follows Peshach is implicit.  I in the past and others opposing Sabbath synchronized calendars have argued it being described this way instead of simply the 16th or some other date shows that day won’t always be the same day of the month. However the Seventh day of Unleavened Bread isn’t defined as the 21st in Leviticus 23 either.  The Spring Holy Days are directly connected to each other more so then the Fall Holy Days.  The context of this section following the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread being a Holy Convocation in which no servile work is to be done I now feel reasonably implies that day is the Sabbath being referred to in verse 11.  So in the model I'm proposing the Aparche offering is the 22nd of the first month.

And then in verse 14 we are told that bread, parched corn and green ears are things we are to not eat until this Aparche offering is made. During Unleavened Bread you absolutely are supposed to be eating Matzah (unleavened bread), some argue Lehem always means specifically leavened bread, I’m unsure on that as a general rule but in context it certainly does here.  So verse 14 basically defined this day as the day we return to eating what we were restricted from eating during Unleavened Bread in Exodus 12:20.

Leviticus 23:13 is also the only time the word "wine" appears in the KJV of this chapter.  The Hebrew is Yayin which of the Hebrew words translated Wine is definitely one that refers specifically to fermented Wine.  In Exodus 12:20 the word the KJV translated "leavened" the Young's Literal Translation renders "fermented", some Karaites believe this refers to more then just Unleavened Bread, my interpretation of the Aparche here agrees with that.  Also Yeast is used in Fermenting Wine which I didn't even originally know.  Numbers 28:24 confirms that Drink Offerings are part of the days of Unleavened Bread, so "fruit of the vine" can be drank during those days, just not fermented Wine.  

Deuteronomy 16:9 identified the first day of the counting of the Omer as the day they first put the Sickle to the Corn.  In the context of that Chapter that can only be after the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread are over because those days are a pilgrimage festival, everyone is gathered together at the Tabernacle and are not attending their Farms.

In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him because He hasn’t ascended to The Father yet, since later in the same day the disciples are allowed to touch him, that implies some brief ascension happened, and people studying the Feast Days have argued this was him as our High Priest making the Aparche offering. Leviticus 23:12 refers to a Lamb being offered at this time, but doesn’t say the Lamb was killed that day.  Now don’t get me wrong I’m sure literal Lambs offered that day were probably killed that morning, but the wording here gives us room to typologically view this Lamb as the Risen Jesus presenting Himself to The Father.  1 Peter 1:19 could have a lot of Torah Scriptures in mind, but in the KJV wording it’s arguably most directly quoting Leviticus 23:12 "lamb without blemish".  

In Deuteronomy 16 it is contextually Peshach as a name for Unleavened Bread that is required to be observed in Jerusalem with animals killed in The Tabernacle/Temple, probably the same Sacrifices as Numbers 28:17-25, because the establishment of the Pilgrimage Festivals in Exodus 23:14-17 includes Unleavened Bread but not Peshach.  The 14th of Aviv Peshach was a family matter not a Levitical Sacrifice, it did not have to be in the same city as The Mishkan and was killed by the head of the Household not a Kohen.  I think that is the Supper being eaten in Bethany at the start of John 12, and then the 15th is the Day of the Triumphal Entry aka Palm Sunday.

“How does the 10th of Aviv’s significance from Exodus 12 fit in then?” You may ask. Well that is not one of the ordained to be repeated observances of Leviticus 23, there are only two other references in all of The Hebrew Bible to the 10th day of the first month being a day where something happened.  Ezekiel 40:1 where that is the date of the day Ezekiel had the vision the rest of that book is describing.  And Joshua 4:19 where it’s the day The Israelites encamped at Gilgal.  Gilgal could be related to the place called Ephraim in John 11, but speaking of John 11 it’s clear in John 11-12 that the raising of Lazarus really spiked Jesus’s popularity, in a very real sense that is the day He was chosen by the people.

But going back to my point about Deuteronomy 16.  I think even if Pascha is always used in a singular form, it’s still a meal that is eaten every evening during this week.  That’s how The Last Supper could be a Pascha Meal but there was also a Pascha being prepared while Jesus was on The Cross in John 19:14.

In Matthew 26 I believe the first five verses should be the end of chapter 25, they tell us when the Olivet Discourse happened not anything in the following verses.  Regardless, two days before the Pascha sounds like there is one specific Pascha in mind, as does John 12:1.  It could be that the narrative voice of The Gospels is sometimes using Pascha specifically of the day of the Crucifixion and/or The Last Supper in timing statements like these.  

However for John 12:1 the Peshita reads "before the Six Days of Peshka" which sounds like a direct reference to Deuteronomy 16:8.  

Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 are all chronologically jumping backwards when they talk about Jesus being anointed for burial and the argument with Judas then Judas deciding to betray Jesus over it which we know from John 12 all happened the day prior to the Triumphal entry.  And so likewise the following part about making the arrangements for the Upper Room and Pascha may have also been done that same day or the day of the Triumphal Entry, then it transitions back to the present for the Last Supper.  Meaning Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:1 and Luke 22:1 could be referring to two days before the Triumphal Entry.

Now I know the main objection some are going to have is that this weakens the Typology of Jesus as The Lamb which we’ve usually thought of as the Exodus 12 Peshach Lamb first and foremost.  But that Lamb isn’t a Sin Offering as The Lamb of God is clearly defined as being in both John 1 and when Paul says Jesus was made Sin for us in 2 Corinthians 5:21..  No Sin Offering is ordained for the 14th anywhere in The Torah, but Numbers 28 and Ezekiel 45 do have Sin Offerings happening during the Seven Day Festival.  Jesus ultimately fulfills all the Sacrifices not just one.

This also forces me to become a supporter of a Friday Crucifixion model, since now every reference to a Preparation day in The Gospels would have to be Friday, the preparation for The Sabbath.  In the past I’d always been bothered by the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread having no significance to The Gospel narrative, but in this model that day can be identified with the Sabbath being referred to in those passages and called a High Day in John 19:31.  

Friday is the day Adam was created, The Last Adam goes into the Earth the same day the first Adam was formed out of it.  The Torah constantly counts days Inclusively, like how the time for Circumcision is always determined.  The "Three days and three nights" statement is said only once and in the context of referencing Jonah, exactly how long it would be was not the actual point.

That makes the Crucifixion the 20th day of the First Month, that day is never singled out anywhere in The Hebrew Bible.  But I think that’s good actually, I don’t like how often Western Christians make the Crucifixion equal to or even more important then The Resurrection.  The Resurrection is what the Point of all this was, so that being the day the Aviv Holy Days are all building up to is perfect.

The 22nd of The First Month being the first day of the counting of the Omer makes day 40 the first day of the Third Month.  Having Ascension Day by the third Rosh Chodesh of the year could be relevant because of Exodus 19:1, but also 2 Chronicles 15:10 and 31:7.

The rest of this post is more speculative and not vital to the main argument.

The Three Types of The Hebrew Roots Movement

The Hebrew Roots Movement can be divided into three different types.  However it is a very diverse movement where on each of these levels there can be a variety of disagreements on interpretations of various Scriptures and Bible Prophecy and related issues like the Sacred Name Movement and which version of The Hebrew calendar to use ect.

Type 1 would be people like the late Chuck Missler who believe Christians should study the Torah and Hebrew customs to help understand The New Testament's cultural context and symbolism.  But they still believe in the basic Christian Doctrine that we are not under The Law anymore, they believe it can be good to do things like observe The Holy Days of Leviticus 23, but they should never be made obligatory.

Now maybe someone reading this has had some very limited and specific experience with American Evangelicalism that makes them think there are none who aren't at least Type 1.  However there are Independent Baptists like the Pastor I do not like to name who engage in what I call Reverse-Legalism considering it sinful to do any "Jewish Customs", and to some extent that problem goes all the way back to Ignatius of Antioch..  And related to that is the belief of hyper KJV Onlyists that you should never even check the original Hebrew Text or even the Greek for that matter.

But even among people who aren't Reverse-Legalists there is still a common lack of interest in studying The "Old Testament" beyond what we absolutely need to know, or will quote a Torah Law only when it suits their Conservative Politics.  Being even a Type 1 Hebrew Roots person requires more then just a willingness to check the Hebrew when you're unsure what a Verse is saying, or the basic understanding of how Passover works required to even have an opinion on Easter chronology.  

Type 1 is what I consider myself, though to what extent I externally act like it may depend on my mood.

Type 2 are those who reject the basic Christian Doctrine that we are no longer under The Law, but while still keeping Paul just reinterpreting him.  

Type 2 has become the most well known form even though back in the 2000s people like Chuck Missler were more common.  Type 2 has became what you're assumed to be if you engage in Hebrew stuff at all.  Though a lot of Type 2s don't like to be called Hebrew Roots because they don't want to be associated with Type 3 and will prefer to be called Torah Observant.

Type 3 are those who reject Paul as a False Apostle.  Though not all Anti-Paulians are even doing Hebrew Roots stuff, some Anti-Semites think even Paul was too Jewish (like Alfred Rosenberg), some Anti-Paul people blame what they see as wrong with him on the Pharisees rather then the Greeks, kind of shows the duality of Paul when you think about it.

As I said there are disagreements even within each type, and among Paul rejecters the disagreements include whether or not to add Hebrews and Luke-Acts to what texts they condemn as Heretical.

The Reverse Legalists probably feel the existence of Type 2 and especially Type 3 vindicates their condemning even Type 1s like me, they will insist it's a gateway drug that inevitably leads to the more full blown heresies.  

However I have been a Type 1 Hebrew Roots Believer since long before any of this was as popular as it's become, since long before I started these blogs, and the ways I've changed have gone in the opposite direction, I've become even more of an Anarchist, even more Antinomian.

The Showbread and The Eucharist

So a few years ago I did a post on the Biblical Hebrew Precedent for The last Supper, and said the Bread representing the body was the one piece of the puzzle I didn't have.  Well I think I have a handle on that now.

I mentioned how Christians tend to view the beginning of the Bread and Wine theme as Genesis 14, but I had ignored the significance people like Chuck Missler saw in Genesis 40.  Where the two fellow prisoners Joseph interprets dreams for are Pharaoh's "Butler"(winebibber) and Baker.  The Baker winds up "Hung on a Tree".  So here Bread is associated with a body dying the same basic kind of death Jesus will.

But I shall go deeper then that and say the Showbread/Shewbread also prefigures the Bread of the Eucharist.  What appears in English Bibles as a single word is actually the Hebrew phrase "lechem haPānīm" which means "bread of the presence" or "bread of the faces" or "bread of The Face" or even "Face-Bread".  This Bread was not eaten while it was kept in the Holy Place, every Sabbath it was replaced with new fresh Bread and then what had just been removed could be eaten as happens in 1 Samuel 21:6.  And there were 12 Loaves of the Showbread, representing the Tribes of Israel.

This Bread was the most significant piece of Organic Matter kept in the Holy Place, it makes sense to me to speculate it was always meant to represent the physical incarnation of YHWH whether that was understood at the time or not.  Christians at some point started doing on Sunday what was originally for The Sabbath, so connecting the Showbread to the Eucharist makes a lot of sense.  In the Torah usually only the Priests could eat the recently removed Showbread (David and his men were a special case) but the New Testament has the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.

Also the word translated "cakes" in Leviticus 24 can also mean "punctured" or "pierced", being a form of the word for "wounded" in Isaiah 53:5.

The Table of the Showbread had at least four kinds of vessels kept on it according to Exodus 25:29-30, 37:16 and Numbers 4:7-8.  The KJV calls them "dishes", "spoons", "bowls" and "covers".  Why four types of vessels when only one kind of food was kept on it?  

"Spoons" is the most probably inaccurate translation, this Hebrew word is often used of types of Perfume jars, they were probably for containing the Frankincense Leviticus 24 says to put on the Showbread and/or Incense for the Altar of Incense.  The word for "covers" means something for pouring and "covering" or "cover withal" means pouring and in it's other uses is mostly associated with drink offerings of wine, though also sometimes of pouring Oil as well, which could also apply to the Oil for the Menorah.  The Strongs describes the word for "bowls" here as a container for carrying Blood, meaning this may refer to what The High Priest used to carry the Blood of the Sin offering into The Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur as instructed in Leviticus 16, the word is not the same as that chapter but seems like it could come from the same root as the word for the bowls used in Exodus 24:6.

The Mosaic Table and it's Vessels like the Mosaic Menorah and Altar of Incense were never in Solomon's Temple, Solomon created new versions of them according to 2 Kings 7:48 and 2 Chronicles 4:19.  Only The Ark in Solomon's Temple had also been in the Tabernacle of Moses.  The last we hear of the Tabernacle of Moses it was at Gibeon in the early chapters of 2 Chronicles which has been associated with Nob, both locations in Benjamin.  

Shishak King of Mizraim never took anything in the Holy Place, Rehoboam's willing submission to him was to prevent something that bad from happening.  And everything taken out by Nebuchadnezzar was returned by Cyrus, so at first the Second Temple had (minus maybe the Ark) the same Sacred Relics as Solomon's Temple.  In the Apocrypha 1 Maccabees 1:21-24 (also II Maccabees 5 but less specifics of what was taken) we are told they were taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes to his homeland, probably referring to Antioch.  I'm suprised there isn't more speculation on what happened to these relics taken to Antioch?  Could they still be seen there during the events Acts and Galatians tell us happened at Antioch?

1 Maccabees 4:47-49 tells us Judas Maccabeus had a new Altar and Menorah and Table of Showbread made.  These were probably still the ones in the Holy Place when Pompey entered it and all through the New Testament's history, and were then taken away by Titus after he captured Jerusalem and destroyed The Temple in 70 AD to be carried in his Triumph in Rome in 71 AD after which they were placed in the Temple of Peace (Pax in Latin).  The Arch of Titus erected by Domitian to commemorate Titus's deification in 81 AD depicts the Menorah and the Table of Showbread and some fire-pans and the Silver Trumpets, but the Altar of Incense appears to be missing, maybe there just wasn't enough space.  What fascinates me is when you look close at the depiction on the Arch, specifically at the Table, it has a Bowl of some kind on it, could that be the Bowl that carried the Blood of the Sin Offering? or the Showbread itself?

They remained in the Temple of Peace until 455 AD when the Vandals "sacked" Rome under Gaiseric who then carried them back to North Africa.  Decades later when Balisarius conquered the Vandal Kingdom for Justinian he takes these relics from a ship attempting to carry them off.  They were paraded in Belisarius's Triumph in Constantinople in 534 AD.  Meanwhile in 531 Justinian had began some major construction projects in Jerusalem following the end of the Bar Sabar revolt, the most significant of which was the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos which Porcopius clearly described as being meant to echo Solomon's Temple.  So Justinian had these relics of the Second Temple returned to Jerusalem where I suspect they eventually wound up in the Nea which was completed in 543 AD.

What's interesting here is that the early 530s AD is contemporary with the traditional time-frame of King Arthur.  The Annals Cambraie placed Badon in 516 and Camlan in 537, but later Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Brute Tyslo would date Arthur's demise to 542.  In Chretien de Troyes Percival the first appearance of the Grail in literature, it is not yet specifically the Cup, it is thematically associated with the Eucharist but with the Communion Wafer rather then the Wine, and there is no claim it was actually used at the original Last Supper.  And I've theorized before that this part of Percival is modeled after David during the reign of Saul with the Fisher King as Ahimelech and the Communion Wafer in mind here the Showbread, a Candelabra was also in the procession which could have been inspired by the Menorah.  That would also make the Grail Sword the Sword of Goliath, and the Grail Spear perhaps the Spear of Goliath.  However in the Sixth Century there was also a claimed Spear of Longinus in Jerusalem.

What happened to these Second Temple relics following all the events of the Seventh Century is uncertain.

Update 4/4/2020: Since I first wrote this I've done some more research on the Showbread issue, and it's Table.

What's really interesting is how I decided to watch some YouTube videos on how to make homemade flatbread.  I was suprised how simple it was, I watched a few different recipes.  And what I noticed is how it starts with flower which has a consistency kind of like dirt, and then becomes dough which is a lot like clay.  So it's a good symbolic representation of how God made Adam's flesh in Genesis 2, which I view as also echoed in how Jesus heals the blind man in John 9, essentially creating new eyes from clay.  So the logic of Bread representing the Body now makes perfect sense.

[Note: after trying it myself it's not as easy as they made it look.]

The common statement I repeated above and in the past that in Chretien the Grail is the plate with the Communion Wafer is a mistake, the Grail and the plate are separate objects borne by separate Maidens.  All we know about the Grail in Chertien is that it's called the Grail, or Graal originally.  It's not even called Holy.  [Update 2022: Another correction, Chertien does call the Grail "A Holy Thing" I was simply looking for the exact two word phrasing of "Holy Grail".]

Graal is a French word believed to come from Grazel which comes from Gresal.  It's believed to originate from the Medieval Latin Gradalis or Gradale which comes from the Ancient Latin Crater or Cratus which in turn comes from the Greek Krater.

In the Greek New Testament Crater is not used of the Cup of the Last Supper, instead it's Porterion which is also used of the Cub referenced in Genesis 40:11 in the Septuagint.  In the Latin Vulgate this Cup is a Chalice.  However the Vulgate does use Crater of one of the vessels on the Table of Showbread in Numbers 4:7.  It is also used of the bowls containing the Oxen blood in Exodus 24:6.  And it's the word for "Goblet" used in Song of Songs 7:2.

It's also maybe interesting that in Numbers 4:7-8 the Table itself is instructed to be covered with a Blue cloth but the vessels on it to be covered with a Scarlet cloth.

The Trinity in The Hebrew Bible

Inspiring Philosophy did a video on The Trinity in The Old Testament.

Where he says there are additional arguments one could make.  He also then did a Video about Jewish Sources recognizing these facts.

At any-rate the first of these two videos impressed me so much that I think it more so then any New Testament arguments are what are keeping me Trinitarian.  You see what a lot of modern attempts to refute Arianism ignore is that at least modern Arians tend to identify YHWH with Jesus not The Father, supported by IP's own observation that in the New Testament Kurios/Lord usually refers to Jesus.  So this video building a Trinity Doctrine just from the references to YHWH is actually the best refutation of Arianism.  And then this blog post about the Fatherhood of YHWH in the Old Testament.

I've touched on some of these subjects before, in Greek words commonly viewed as Gnostic and Arguing for the Divinity of the Messiah from The Hebrew Bible.

Here I want to list some additional arguments I find interesting, but they aren't as compelling as the above video, they're merely interesting observations to back up that argument.

First is that a Triune Nature of God is possibly hinted at in The Holy Name itself.  It is commonly called the Tetragramaton because it's four letters, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh, but there are two Hehs meaning the name is really constructed from just three letters.  The Heh has been associated with The Holy Spirit before. 

Some like to view Psalm 2 as a Trialouge between The Trinity, but I've become more hesitant to endorse that given how my views on the Davidic Psalms have developed.

Genesis 48:15-16

And he blessed Joseph, and said, "God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.?

That sounds an awful lot like a Trinitarian Formula.

But perhaps The Trinity is hinted at in one of the most popular titles of The Jewish God.  The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.  Which appears in some form Twelve times in The Bible, Seven of them in The Hebrew Bible, Four of those in The Pentateuch.  Exodus 3:6, 15, 16, 4:5, 1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chronicles 29:18, 2 Chronicles 30:6, Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 and 7:32.

Q: Why stop at Jacob/Israel?  Joseph was a main protagonist for a lot more of Genesis then Isaac was?

A: Because it's identifying the Patriarchs all Twelve Tribes share.

Well then why did it take three generations for God to stop narrowing it down?  The Issues that broke apart Abraham and Isaac's descendants could have just as easily done the same to Jacob's.

Abraham means "Father of a Multitude" and Abram meant "High-Father", Paul in Romans 4:11 calls Abraham "The Father of All them that Believe".  Christians see Abraham as playing the role of The Father typologically in Genesis 22&24.

Isaac was the Promised Seed of Abraham, who plays the role of The Son typologically in Genesis 22&24.

Jacob aka Israel is the one who's names become synonymous with God's People.  And it's in God's People that His Spirit dwells.

Update December 7th 2019:

Here is another YouTube video on the subject from a Paul Humber.  Watching this video I noticed how the Hebrew word for "One" is spelled with three letters, E-CH-D.  Interestingly the Greek word often used to translate that in New Testament quotes is similarly a three letter word.  As is "One" in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlrLueWXDTs

Early Jewish-Christian groups.

The different early Jewish-Christian groups mentioned in Early Church writings are often confused with each other, some of that confusion may begin with the Greek and Latin fathers themselves not always treating them as different.  Nazarenes, Ebonites and Hebrews are three names that get thrown around.

The Nazarenes according to most references were not guilty of any major Heresies, they had the entire New Testament, they viewed Jesus as the Son of God and The Messiah, and believed in The Virgin Birth, and they did not reject Paul.  They were viewed as outside of Orthodox Christianity only because they kept Torah.

The Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was Divine in any way, used only an altered version of Matthew, and rejected Paul. (It seems most also rejected the Virgin Birth but there were exceptions.)

The name Nazarenes is Biblically used of Believers in Acts 24:5, but it is of outside origin just as much as the name Christian was.  Contrary to how some people present it, I feel the origin of the name Christians in Acts 11 at Antioch is presented positively.

A website called NazareneJudaism.Com claims the Nazarene sect were the True Church and seek to identify themselves as the heirs to that group.  They have a lot of good information, but I also have to disagree with them in many areas.  Mainly they think the fact that the Nazarenes kept the Law means they must have disagreed with "Christianity" that we're not under it anymore.

Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho distinguished between Jewish-Christians who keep the law but don't teach it's obligatory, and those who teach it is obligatory.  I believe the former were the Nazarenes and the later the Ebonites, or this could be a disagreement among Nazarenes since Justin didn't allude to anyone rejecting Paul.  My own position is that keeping the Law can be beneficial, but we are not obligated to keep it.

The Nazarenes as I said used the proper New Testament, but they did have the original Hebrew version of Matthew.  Confusion seems to come in via that the altered Matthew the Ebonites used was called the Gospel According the Hebrews and sometimes of the Nazarenes.  In Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures of Christianity book, everything he puts under either the Nazarenes or the Ebonites I view as being from the Ebonite Gospel, and I think the Egyptian Gospel of the Hebrews may be the same as the Gospel of the Egyptians.

The Nazarenes viewed Jesus as the Son of God, but it's difficult to verify if they held a true Trinitarian doctrine.  What's said of their Christology could be interpreted as consistent with Arianism, or a view that Jesus had no pre-existence before being conceived in Mary's Womb (which is sometimes an aspect of Modalism).  It's difficult to know one way or the other.  However that the Arian Emperors engaged in a lot of Antisemitism makes me think them and the Nazarenes wouldn't have seen eye to eye.

According to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/antioch the Gentile Christians of Antioch at least originally weren't that Antisemitic, but often joined the Jews in Synagogues.  But after the Church married Rome the establishment started trying to fight this.  It may not be a coincidence that the key adversaries of Nestorius (Cyril of Alexandria and the Sister of Theodosius II) were also highly Antisemitic.

In Antioch, various means were used to counteract the great influence which the Jews had upon the local Christians. The synod of Antioch (341) forbade the Christians to celebrate Easter when the Jews were observing Passover, and John Chrysostom of Antioch, in his six sermons (c. 366–387), vituperatively denounced those Christians in Antioch who attended synagogues and resorted to the Jewish law courts.

When Christianity became the state religion, the position of the Jews of Antioch deteriorated. The Jews of Imnestar were accused of having crucified a Christian boy on the feast of Purim, and the Antiochian Christians destroyed the synagogue (423 C.E.). When the emperor Theodosius II restored it, he was rebuked by Simon Stylites and refrained from defending the Jews. In the brawls between the sport factions known as the "blues" and the "greens," many Jews were killed.

So that may make interesting background for my Nestorians and the Church of The East post.  Epiphanius of Salamis associates the Nazarenes with Boreas (Aleppo) and Basanitis (Bashan), thus placing them near Antioch.

Some commentators view the Gospel reaching Damascus as fulfilling the Syria part of the Great Commission, but that's because of Old Testament Aram being misleadingly translated as Syria.  Antioch was the capital of the Roman Province of Syria, so the Church being established in Antioch by the end of Acts 11 is what I view as fulfilling the Syria part of the Great Commission.