Genesis 1:1-5RECKONING A DAY IN TIME |
Debunking Rabbinical Jews idealogy of a "morning to morning" day reckoning.Written
and personal study by Felicia A. Trecek
In Rabbinical literature, some Rabbis claim reckoning a day in time was from morning to morning during the second temple time period; at least for the sacrificial system. Historically, the house of Judah might have observed a morning to morning day reckoning. Although, whether their observance was right or wrong, the actual morning to morning observance in history will remain in question. But, is there biblical precedence for a morning to morning day reckoning? This question is posed because a morning to morning day reckoning is in conflict with the belief of an evening to evening day reckoning as most seventh day Sabbatarians observe.
Why should we, today, be concerned about Rabbinical day reckoning? Because there are many seventh day Sabbatarians today who harken to the Jews as their religious authority and historical records, namely their oral law. Since this is so, the morning to morning day reckoning supposition has crept into salvational doctrines within seventh day Sabbath observer groups. One of the doctrines that is affected is: the only sign Messiah gave for His true identity - the three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. A growing number of Christian believers are using Jewish ideology to support a Sunday sunrise resurrection which is the morning to morning day reckoning And, in doing so, the full three days and three nights is altered to mean: one and a half days regardless of what Messiah actually said. The reason for this can be likened to the domino effect. When one domino is pushed over, the rest follow. When one scripture is misconstrued, then other scriptures must also be misconstrued. Ironically, when scriptures are misconstrued or misunderstood, then there are inevitably holes in the contrived belief, but not necessarily readily apparent.
Any bible reader can read all the gosple accounts of when Mary and the other women visited Messiah's tomb early on the first day of the week and see that Messiah was already gone. If bible students want to be honest, there are no scriptures that support a Sunday morning resurrection. Just because the women visited the tomb on a early Sunday morning, does not mean Messiah rose on that very Sunday morning.
This faulty morning to morning day reckoning supposition is only one reason of several why the three days and three nights in which Messiah was in the grave is altered. There are other arguments for altering the three days and three nights; however, this study will only address the morning to morning day reckoning argument.
Firstly, this study will express and explain the morning to morning day reckoning supposition; where and how it is derived . Secondly, this study will expound Genesis 1:1-5 where YHWH establishes a day in time. Thirdly, I will provide and explain additional scriptures outside of Genesis to which the Rabbinical Jews, as like others, use to support their premise; the morning to morning day reckoning.
THE MORNING TO MORNING DAY RECKONING SUPPOSITIONThe following quoted information is from RABBINICAL ESSAYS BY JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH HEBREW UNION COLLEGE PRESS CINCINNATI 1951 (From page 446 - 451 with notes):
Beginning of quote...>>>
<<< End of quote.
There is one serious flaw in Jacob Z. Lauterbach's supposition "morning to morning" day reckoning. I will explain his major flaw which is actually a missing part to this equation. Its a missing parameter. But, first I will rephrase Jacob Z. Lauterbach's argument so its clearly understood.
JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH'S SUPPOSITION EXPOUNDEDThe reasoning Jacob Z. Lauterbach uses for his "morning to morning" day reckoning supposition is the following: creation statements appear to be in sequential order. I will use the second day of creation for an example. Genesis 1:6-8 reads, (v:6) "And Elohim said, 'Let an expanse come to be in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." (v:7) "And Elohim made the expanse, and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it came to be so." (v:8) "And Elohim called the expanse, 'heavens'. And there CAME TO BE EVENING AND THERE CAME TO BE MORNING, THE SECOND DAY."
For this example, in Genesis 1:6-8, the sequential order of occurance appears to be:
Jacob Z. Lauterbach assumes daylight occurred first in the rotation because the creation of the elements appear to precede the evening to morning statement.
Jacob Z. Lauterbach's supposition appears logical; however, he missed one very important aspect in the Geneses equation which is found in Genesis 1:2. Darkness preceded the light. Darkness was first. Although, Jacob Z. Lauterbach believes the light was first in the equation of reckoning a day. Therefore, Jacob Z. Lauterbach has a misunderstanding of Genesis, a day reckoning.
I will elaborate and explain the first part of Genesis to present a fuller understanding of the true day reckoning reality YHWH established at the time of Genesis. All of the day and night parameters in Genesis need to be accounted for in order to establish a correct day reckoning premise.
EXPLANATION OF GENESIS 1:1-5Firstly, a reading of Genesis 1:1-5.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, Elohim AZ created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth came to be formless and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim was moving gently on the face of the waters."
Genesis 1:3 "And Elohim said, 'Let light come to be,' and light came to be."
Genesis 1:4 "And Elohim saw the light, that it was good. And Elohim separated the light from the darkness."
Genesis 1:5 "And Elohim called the light day (#3117) and the darkness He called night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day (#3117)."
Now, secondly, an explanation and expounding of these scriptures.
In Genesis 1:5, "...Elohim called the 'LIGHT' day." Singly based upon the first part of the sentence in verse 5, Elohim defined the light portion of time as a "day."
Genesis 1:5 also states: "...and the darkness He called night." Thus, Elohim pronounced a distinction between the light hours verses the dark hours. There is a division between light and dark.
In Genesis 1:2-4, we are informed that darkness already existed, but the light was authorized and admitted within the darkness. The exact phrase from Jay P. Green Sr. Interlinear Bible is: "'Let be light,' and was light." And, the light was pronounced good, but the darkness did not received any such pronouncement.
Genesis 1:5 also states: "...And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day." This second "DAY" word used in this verse, verse 5, is the same Hebrew word stated in Strong's Concordance #3117 as the first "DAY" word used in this same verse. Again, the first "DAY" word was defined as the "light" period of time only. And, since the second "DAY" word is the same Hebrew word, it also only means light. Most people have always assumed the second "DAY" word was given an extended meaning, or rather possessed another meaning other than "light". Does the second "DAY" word possess an extended meaning defining a full evening, night, morning and light rotation? The answer to this question is one of the key factors in the day reckoning mode.
The second "DAY" word located in verse 5, is definitely not a new definition separate from the light. The reason why "evening until morning" singly and soley is not also defined as "DAY" is because in Genesis 1:5 Elohim already defined the dark period of time as NIGHT. Elohim would not define light to be "day", define darkness to be "night", and then in the same thought redefine the dark period of time, evening until morning, also as a day. This would be a direct contradiction of terms and confusing. This piece of information is important to know because it demonstrates the phrase "there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day." to be a summary statement of elapsed time.
I will rephrase my statement and pose a question to insure a clear understanding. As a repeat, the second part of verse 5 reads, "...And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day." Question: is the last three words in verse 5 which are; "the first day", a time continuation from the said creation, or is it an elapsed time summary statement of the said creation? Jacob Z. Lauterbach only views the last three words of verse 5; "the first day", an elapsed time summary statement of the said creation; thus, a morning to morning day reckoning. However, this presentation will demonstrate the second part of verse 5 is BOTH an elapsed time summary statement of the said creation, and a time continuation from the said creation. And, in doing so, this presentation will demonstrate an evening to evening day reckoning.
WHAT WAS THE "LIGHT" FROM DAY ONE TO DAY THREE OF CREATION?The sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day. Reference Genesis 1:14-19, the fourth day of creation. Therefore, the light that shown upon the face of the earth during creation days one through three was not generated by the sun (s-u-n). The light source was generated from Elohim, by some unexplainable Spiritual means. When Elohim moved upon the face of the waters in verse two of Genesis chapter one, there was a bit of light illumination. I say a bit of light illumination because, #1) Elohim is light (reference James 1:17). And, #2) we were informed in Genesis 1:2 that the Spirit of Elohim was moving upon the face of the waters in the darkened world. His own light source did not shine throughout the entire world until He spoke and said, "Let be light".
We are informed in Genesis one, verses two through four, #1) darkness existed when creation began, #2) that light came to be, #3) and the light was called good in contrast to darkness which was NOT pronounced good. Darkness preceded the light; hence, evening/darkness begins a day, not morning/daybreak.
Rephrased; on DAY ONE of creation, darkness existed and was not created within and at the time of Genesis. Darkness pre-existed before Genesis 1:2, then light entered during Genesis 1:2. Darkness preceded the light in Genesis 1:2.
Genesis 1:3 reads from Jay P. Green Sr. Interlinear Bible, "And then said Elohim, 'Let be light,' and was light." The words "LET BE" were translated from the Hebrew word, hayah {haw-yaw} a primitive root word and Strong's On-line Concordance #1933 meaning: "to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, occur, appear, to be instituted, be established."
The direct implication of Genesis 1:3 is: Elohim commanded light to occur or be established within or against the darkness. It's doubtful that this light source from Elohim which shown forth was literally created on day one since verse one of Genesis informs us that Elohim created the heavens and earth, not His own Spiritual light source. Rephrased, the beginning of Genesis was a recording about the physical creation: heavens and earth, not the creation of any Spiritual essence. As a repeat, the physical heavenly light source, the sun occurred on day four.
Whether or not this light source from Elohim implies the establishment of the Word of Truth for mankind, and/or rather certain boundary laws placed upon Spiritual darkness, ie. the demonic world, is yet another subject. But, it is interesting to take notice of: the establishment of light within the total darkened and void world is the only occurrence within the first day of creation in Genesis. Some great establishment or institution occurred on day one that embodies light.
WHAT DOES THE PHRASE: "THERE CAME TO BE EVENING AND THERE CAME TO BE MORNING, THE SAID DAY" ACTUALLY DEFINE?Firstly, the Hebrew meaning of the word, "morning." The Hebrew word translated in English as "morning" is "bo'ker" and is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance #1242 which means: "properly dawn (as the break of day), generally morning:-- (+) day, early, morning, or morrow." This Hebrew word, "bo'ker" #1242 is derived from another Hebrew word "ber-ak' ", Strong's #1289 which means: "bless or kneel." Hence, the direct implication and connotative meaning is to kneel and bless God. Therefore, the breaking of day, the daylight period of time is a blessing and kneels to God. In contrast, the night portion of time, does not kneel to or bless God.
Throughout the bible, scripture is explicitly clear. Light represents YHWH and His way of life. And, darkness represents Satan and his way of life. For a few examples out of numerous, read Rev 22:5, Matt 4:16-17, 1Cor 4:5, 2Cor 4:4, Acts 12:7, Acts 13:47, Acts 22:8, and Eph 5:8. Satan and his demons do not kneel to or give YHWH a blessing.
Secondly, what "morning" reveals. During the first day in Genesis, it is probable to suggest that the establishment of light which shined through or against the darkness included boundary limits upon Satan and his demons. Evilness completely reigned upon the earth in Genesis 1:2 because earth CAME TO BE formless and void. (The phrase, "came to be" implies a different situation existed before the void and darkness occured.) But, in Genesis 1:3, light imposed upon the darkness. In the literal sense, and also possibly in the figurative sense, darkness was given a boundary.
The literal meaning of the Hebrew word for "morning", referring back to Strong's Concordance #1242 is: "dawn, or the break of day. This break of day does not imply a break in light, but rather a literal break from the night, the dark period of time. "Morning" is a set boundary between darkness and light, night and day. Morning is not an end of light, but the beginning of light. Therefore, morning can be rightly defined as a break from darkness. And, the phrase, "there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day" can be rightly rephrased as like: "there came to be evening and there came to be a break from darkness, the first day." This is a fact and it is imperative to know.
The time period between morning until evening; the daylight portion, is not detachable from the word "morning" in the statement, "...And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day.". Again, morning is the beginning of light, not the end of light, or a separate light entity of it's own. Morning is the boundary placed upon the darkness. It is the break from darkness.
Elohim's statement, "...And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day." and as like the subsequent days, demonstrate and reveal the boundary limits placed upon the darkness. Both evening and morning are transitions from and to light. An evening is an egression out of light, but the morning enters the light. The focus is placed upon the light rather than the dark in Elohim's explicit statements: evening and morning. The reason why the focus is undoubtfully placed upon the light rather than the darkness is because Elohim could have easily said for example; "And there came to be darkness and there came to be a break in the darkness, the first day." Again, the "evening and morning" statement demonstrate the literal and physical boundary limits placed upon the darkness by the light and it emphasizes the light. So, the second "DAY" word in the ending phrase, "the first day" within the sentence, "...And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day." directly refers to the daylight portion of time. I will elaborate further.
Thirdly, the literal DAY and number is a part of the evening and morning statement. Again, as an important repeat, the first part of Genesis 1:5 reads, "And Elohim called the light day and the darkness He called night...." Elohim unequivocally defined the light period of time as DAY. This is the most important fact to understand and know during this quest of learning the truth about a day measurement.
With this fact firmly in mind, consider once again this following statement: "there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day." The phrase, "the first day" directly refers to the light portion. Day was explicitly defined to mean the light portion in Genesis 1:5. So, within the sentence, "there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day" there is: 1) evening, 2) morning, and 3) day, which equates to the entire light portion. These three divisions constitute a full recurring cycle, respectively.
Fourthly, I will show the difference between the incorrect and correct way of interpreting a day of creation. Jay P. Green Sr.'s Interlinear Bible directly translates the second half of Genesis 1:5 as follows: "...and was evening, and was morning day one." The word, "ONE" by itself refers to both: 1) the complete first cycle; evening, darkness, morning and light, and 2) the day, meaning light only. Jacob Z. Lauterbach and Rabbi Samuel b. Meir believe the word "DAY", attached to the said number, soley and singly defines the complete cycle; evening, darkness, morning, and light. Although, they don't believe the time periods are in that order.
Elohim defined "light" as DAY. Therefore, light equals day. The two words; "light" and "day" are interchangeable. Because of this fact, I can rightly rephrase the evening to morning, the said day statement as like, "...And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first light."
I will now combined this rephrased light/day statement with my previous morning rephrased statement so as to demonstrate the literal and factual meaning. Rightly rephrased, "...And there came to be evening and there came to be a break from darkness, the first light." My rephrased statement of Genesis 1:5, is not conjured from assumptions. It is founded upon facts that I have already presented.
I will reread Genesis 1:6-8, the second day of creation, so that there is a firm understanding of what has been discovered thus far. But, in doing so, I will rephrase the last sentence according to the Hebrew word definitions as like I have already done. Genesis 1:6-8 reads, (v:6) "And Elohim said, 'Let an expanse come to be in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." (v:7) "And Elohim made the expanse, and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it came to be so." (v:8) "And Elohim called the expanse, 'heavens'. And there came to be evening and there came to be a break from darkness, the second light."
The last sentence of each said creation day is but like a summary of the elapsed time with a sequential number attributed to it. Because the said number of each recurring time rotation can refer to both the full recurring cycle or just the daylight portion, the word day is loosly used. I will elaborate more about the loosly used "DAY" word subsequently with additional scriptures.
SUMMARY REGARDNING THE NIGHT PERIOD OF TIME Why doesn't the word, NIGHT appear within the recurring cycle statement: evening and morning day? As a repeat, LIGHT imposed upon the darkness. And, this light's imposition placed boundaries upon the darkness. So, this statement: evening and morning, places emphasis on the light and defines the boundaries of darkness.
Elohim called LIGHT good, but did not make this same pronouncement about darkness. Darkness was a part of the void and emptiness in Genesis 1:2. In Genesis, Elohim DID NOT create darkness. Darkness previously existed. Therefore, darkness truly preceded the light in Genesis. But, when Elohim created physical elements within the void and emptiness, it occured within the LIGHT and because of the LIGHT, ie., Elohim.
Hypothetically, if light preceded the darkness as like Jacob Z. Lauterbach proposed, then Elohim would have had to create darkness after the light because it would have been in the order of sequence to the creation. But, as I have already demonstrated, darkness was NOT CREATED at the time of the physical genesis. Darkness existed prior to the physical genesis and unequivocally preceded the light. This is the error in Jacob Z. Lauterbach supposition which is: morning ends and begins a new day.
The first day of creation can be rightly rephrased as: "And there came to be evening and there came to be a break from darkness, the first light." And, know: creation occurred during the light portion of time. Hence, an evening to evening day reckoning is correct.
DOES THE "DAY" WORD POSSESS AN EXTENDED MEANING?The word DAY in Genesis 1:5 is the explicit definition of the word LIGHT. Genesis 1:5 reads, "And Elohim called the light day..." Although, sometimes the word DAY is loosely used to refer to the full recurring cycle: evening, morning, and light, repectively.
I will demonstrate an example of the word DAY used to refer to the full recurring cycle: evening, morning, and light, repectively. Exodus 12:19 is an ideal example. Exodus 12:19 reads, "For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, that same being shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether sojourner or native of the land."
Hypothetically, if the DAY word definition is exclusively restricted to the light portion of time between morning and evening, then technically one could possess bread and eat it within their house during the night portion of time, between the seven day light periods during the days of unleavened bread. This thought is obviously incorrect. The intended meaning for Exodus 12:19 is to rid your house of leavening and refrain from eating bread for seven full dark and light recurring time cycles.
Evening and morning cycles are not detachable from a recurring full daylight portion of time. All of the evenings, mornings, and daylight times are accounted for within the numbering system in Genesis. Evenings and mornings are spaces of time connected to a day light space of time. An evening is an egression out of light, and the morning enters the light. They are the boundaries of darkness; therefore, part of the light.
There are two ways of viewing and understanding what a DAY is. A day has been explicitly defined to be light in Genesis 1:5. However, within the creation day/week numbering system, the boundary time cycles of evening, night, morning/light are grouped together and numbered according to the times of rotation. Hence, the rotation of; evening, night, morning/light equate to one whole number. For example: evening, night, morning/light compose the first day of creation - day one in the numbering system; evening, night, morning/light compose the second day of creation - day two in the numbering system and so-forth. There is no gap in the cycle. We cannot omit the daylight portion of the cycle and single it as a separate entity. It rotates as like the evening and morning. If the light period of time is unaccounted for, then evenings or mornings would not exist either.
WHERE DOES JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH FAULTY DEFINITION OF THE WORD DAY IN GENESIS LEAD?It leads into additional erroneous beliefs. Any beliefs founded upon an erroneous premise automatically becomes erroneous too.
The following is a second quote from RABBINICAL ESSAYS BY JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH HEBREW UNION COLLEGE PRESS CINCINNATI 1951 (From page 446 - 451 with notes):
Beginning of quote...>>>
<<< End of quote.
The incorrect and erroneous premise is used to interpret the law of consuming a thanksgiving offering. (Reference Leviticus 7:15) As I have already demonstrated as a fact, the word DAY can define either the light portion of time or a full evening, night, morning.light rotation of time. So, in rebuttal to Jacob Z. Lauterbach; when a sacrifice was slaughtered during a light space in time, the consumption of that very sacrifice must occur during the very same light portion of time, not a subsequent recurring light portion of time such as the following recurring morning. In this instance, Jacob Z. Lauterbach has ignored the definition of a day located in Genesis 1:5.
The mandated phrase for a thanksgiving peace offering,"ye shall leave none of it till the morning", merely indicates what day-light space of time the sacrifice must be consumed. And, it mandates that the sacrifice must be consumed during daylight hours.
Moreover, the mandate for a thanksgiving peace offering located in Leviticus 7:15 does not define day boundaries as like Genesis chapter one.
There are many biblical examples that believers of the morning to morning day reckoning use to justify their belief. I will now quote Samuele Bacchiocchi from his book, THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION. I use this example to demonstrate how straining and insidious their self-justification becomes.
BOOK: THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University Chapter 5 THE RECKONING OF THE DAY IN BIBLE TIMES II. SUNRISE TO SUNRISE
Beginning of quote...>>>
<<< End of quote.
Firstly, most all of the morning to morning day reckoning believers use scriptures that they say "SUGGEST" a morning to morning day reckoning. The word "SUGGEST" is not absolute, but a mere proposal and not a fact. Suggestions are not a solid foundation to base doctrines. True doctrines are based on FACTS.
Secondly, and moreover, Samuele Bacchiocchi specifically left out the middle of the verse he quoted. This is deception! The Scriptures Bible from the Institute For Scripture Research translated Judges 19:9 as, "And the man arose to go, he and his concubine and his servant. But his father-in-law, the young woman's father, said to him, 'See, the day is now drawing toward evening. Please spend the night. See the day is coming to an end. Stay here, and let your heart be glad. And you shall rise early tomorrow for your journey, and you shall go to your tent.' "
The King James Bible renders the part of the verse that Samuele Bacchiocchi conveniently left out as: "Behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here..." This statement is in direct reference to the previous statement, "See, the day is now drawing toward evening."
As a repeat, Judges 19:9 reads, "And the man arose to go, he and his concubine and his servant. But his father-in-law, the young woman's father, said to him, 'See, the day is now drawing toward evening. Please spend the night. See the day is coming to an end. Stay here, and let your heart be glad. And you shall rise early tomorrow for your journey, and you shall go to your tent.' "
Judges 19:9, the very verse Samuele Bacchiocchi uses for his attempt to show a morning to morning day reckoning is actually a witness against him and others with his same mind-set. Although, Samuele Bacchiocchi clearly and insidiously made an attempt to deceive his readers by purposely omitting the middle of the verse that contradicts his SUGGESTION.
Judges 19:9 demonstrates a day ends at evening time. Consequently, a new cycle begins at evening. Where there is an end, there is a beginning. This evening to evening day reckoning concurs with the Genesis creation week as like when Elohim said, "...And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day." Evening is stated first. Evening begins and ends a darkness and light rotation.
The following is a third quote from RABBINICAL ESSAYS BY JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH HEBREW UNION COLLEGE PRESS CINCINNATI 1951 (From page 446 - 451 with notes):
Beginning of quote...>>>
<<< End of quote.
The law for the day of atonement is located in Leviticus 23:27 and 32. The day of atonement is unequivocally upon the tenth day of the seventh month. And, on the day of atonement, there is a mandated fast. But, in verse 32 of Leviticus 23, the fast is extended to the preceding day, the ninth day beginning at evening time and lasting until the next evening on the tenth day. Leviticus 23:32 clearly reads, "...from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath."
How Jacob Z. Lauterbach contrives a morning to morning day reckoning out of the mandate for atonement is questionable, especially when a morning isn't mentioned at all.
There are serious errors in his supposition. Some of those errors, I have already explained. It appears he molds his theory in different fashions to make scriptures fit his contrived idea. I will explain my statement.
The first part of Leviticus 23:27 reads, "On the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement." The mandate is clear, stating the tenth day. It does NOT say, on part of this day you shall observe atonement, or any such like statement indicating a division in the day. Consequently, the mandate denotes the entire tenth day of the seventh month is atonement.
Hypothetically, using Jacob Z. Lauterbach theory, his time for atonement on the tenth day is cut short at evening since he believes a day continues until the following morning. Although, as a repeat, Leviticus 23:32 clearly reads, "...from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath."
In Jacob Z. Lauterbach's confusion, he is not consistent with his own belief. In his confusion, he unknowningly is adding words to scripture that simply don't exist. There is no division in the tenth day of atonement.
If he is insistant upon a morning to morning day reckoning belief, then why does he base his suppositions on scriptures that state either evening to evening, or evening to morning? "Evening to evening" and "evening to morning" are not the same as "morning to morning". And, in the case of Leviticus 23:32 regarding the day of atonement, Leviticus 23:32 clearly reads, "...from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath."
If Jacob Z. Lauterbach wanted to stay consistant with his reasoning, then he should have started fasting from the evening on the ninth day until (what I deem to be) the morning of the eleventh day. Consequently, his fast would last two night periods of time plus one daylight period of time. It would be equivalent to 1-1/2 days. But, as we know, Leviticus 23:32 informs us the fast only should last until evening.
Jacob Z. Lauterbach has serious inconsistencies in his contrived morning to morning day reckoning.
WHAT JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH DOESN'T REALIZE TWO EVENINGS IN ONE DAYJacob Z. Lauterbach doesn't realize is: there are two evenings within one day. The first evening of a whole recurring day cycle is when the sun has set past and below the horizon, but before complete darkness has occurred. And, the second evening for the same whole recurring day cycle is when the sun is setting just above the horizon. In other words, the sun's position is either very close to the horizon, or touching the horizon. The sun is not below the horizon. There is an evening that begins a day, and an evening that ends a day.
Between the evenings is when the sun is between the horizon. Half of the sun is above the horizon; thus, visible. And, half of the sun is below the horizon; thus, not visible.These few minutes of time technically belongs to two day recurring time cycles because half of the sun is visible and the other half of the sun is not.
The mandate for the day of atonement is a perfect example of these beginning and ending evenings. Leviticus 23:27-28 clearly delineates the tenth day as the day of atonement. And, upon this day, we are to afflict our souls (which means fast). But, verse 32, reads, "It is a Sabbath of rest for you, and you shall afflict your beings. On the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you observe your Sabbath." The ninth day is introduced within the mandate for the tenth day.
The following are facts concerning the day of atonement:
Since there is only one day that is set for atoning, the tenth day of the seventh month, the evening of the ninth day must be the ending evening, not the beginning evening. The direct indication is that the fast begins at the end of the ninth day to insure no food consumption on the tenth day.
FURTHER PROOF OF TWO EVENINGS IN ONE DAYThere are many proofs that can be used to delineate two evenings in one day, but I will only supply one which I believe will suffice for this presentation.
In Exodus 30:7-8, Aaron was commanded to light the lamps within the tabernacle between the evenings. The Hebrew text explicitly reads, "between the evenings." It does not seem likely that Aaron would be wasting precious oil by lighting the lamps at 12:00 noon, or at 3:00 pm, or at 5:00 pm during daylight hours. The rabbinical Jews, as like some other people and groups, believe the afternoon is the first evening within the phrase, "between the evenings." Although, in Leviticus 24:2-4, Aaron was mandated to burn the lamps continually from evening until morning. This is evidence that "between the evenings" does NOT include the late afternoon, during daylight hours. Why would Aaron enter the tabernacle at high-noon or at 3 pm to light the lamps that were mandated to burn from evening until morning? In Leviticus 24:3, the lamps were mandated to burn from evening till morning. And Aaron was mandated to "dress" the lamps every morning and "light" them "between the evenings." Hypothetically, if Aaron lit the lamps during the afternoon, it would violate the mandate to burn the lamps from evening to morning. The lamps would actually start burning in the afternoon until morning. This is superfluous and is a direct contridiction of the mandate to burn the lamps from evening until morning.
Again, the phrase, "between the evenings" directly indicates a beginning and ending evening within one day recurring cycle.
I will rephrase my previous statements concerning Aaron and the tabernacle lamp to solidify my point.
FACTS:
Fact #1) Aaron was mandated to burn the lamps from evening until morning. The time period between evening and morning is darkness as I demonstrated in the explanation of Genesis - the days of creation. Therefore, Aaron was mandated to burn the lamps during and through the night.
Fact #2) Aaron was mandated to light the lamps "between the evenings".
Since the lamp burning occurred during and through the night, from evening to morning, the time to which the candles were lit certainly did not occur during full sun daylight hours. The lamps were lit at evening, and specifically, between the two evenings. (Know: scripture does not include the word two; although, the implication is there based upon the plurality of the word, evenings.) Aaron lit the lamps when the sun was setting upon the horizon. Thus, there are two evenings in one day. One evening at the beginning of the day and one evening at the end of the day.
WHAT JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH SAYS ABOUT HISTORYBeginning of quote...>>>
<<< End of quote.
The Talmud (which is one book of several of the oral law) undoubtedly recorded a morning to morning day reckoning observance. And, thus the Jews might have followed such a practice during the second temple period of time. Although, just because the observance of a morning to morning day reckoning for the sacrifical system might have been practiced during the second temple period, didn't make the practice correct. Rephrased: just because the Jews did something a certain way, don't assume it was the correct way.
WHAT JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH and OTHERS WITH THE SAME BELIEFS AND MIND-SET SHOULD KNOWIn Lamentations, the writer recorded the time when the house of Judah (the Jews) were exiled to Babylon. This event in time ended the first temple period. Because of the treacherous sins of the house of Judah, there was a curse placed upon them. Lamentations 3:65 reads, "Give them a veiled heart, Your curse upon them!" In 2 Corinthians 3:14 Paul knew of the veil curse. Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:14, "But their minds were hardened, FOR TO THIS DAY, when the old covenant is being read, that same veil remains, NOT LIFTED, because in Messiah it is taken away."
The house of Judah possessed the veil during the entire second temple time period, and remain so today. When they heard or read today the old covenant, also known as the old testament, they didn't/don't understand the terms of that covenant. It's confusing to them even unto this very day. It's no wonder Jacob Z. Lauterbach and the past Talmudic rabbis during the second temple period were confused in their understanding and teachings.
The prophets, Nehemiah and Ezra stand as a testimony against the house of Judah. Nehemiah recorded their immediate violations of the law when the remnant of the house of Judah returned to establish the second temple. Nehemiah made an eye-opening recording in chapter 13, verse 25. He was so angry at the remnant people, the house of Judah, that he contended with them, he cursed them, and also he pulled out their hair! Nehemiah realized how blind they were and his last sentence plea recorded was: "Remember me, O my Elohim, for good!"
Unless, you are a Messiah believer and are in Messiah, which the Jews are not, you will be just as confused as they were and are. Although, if you believe Messiah came in the flesh, you can become confusd if you think or believe the Jews were and are correct in their practices of the law.
WHY SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT JEWISH RABBINICAL TEACHINGS?From the first century, the rabbinical Jews idealogies flowed-over into true Christianity. And, today, their idealogies continue to creep into the mind-sets of Christians who practice and observe a seventh day Sabbath from evening to evening. |