1. The Historical Controversy: Who Fixed the Calendar?

Traditional narrative attributes the creation of the calculated calendar to Hillel II (4th century). Nevertheless, contemporary experts, such as Dr. Rachel Elior of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argue that this system was not fully consolidated until the 10th century with Hayyim Gaon.

It is striking that the Talmud contains no clear record of this reform by Hillel II. On the contrary, the Talmud meticulously describes how the Sanhedrin received eyewitnesses of the new moon (Rosh Chodesh) to declare the beginning of the month. The current rabbinic calendar—based on a 19-year cycle with fixed intercalary months (3, 6, 8, 11, etc.)—ignores fundamental biblical variables such as the ripening of the barley (Aviv).

2. The Problem of Authority and Semikhah

For the believer in the Messiah, the underlying question is not merely technical, but one of authority: Who constituted these rabbis as “judges” over Israel to alter the appointed times (Moadim)? The principle of authority in the Torah requires judges to have a direct chain of transmission from Moses, known as Semikhah. However, rabbinic Judaism itself admits that this chain was broken following the Roman persecutions and the destruction of the Second Temple.

Rabbinic Acknowledgment (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:11):

“It appears to me that if all the wise men in the Land of Israel were to agree to appoint judges and grant them Semikhah, they would have Semikhah… However, the original chain of Semikhah that began with Moses our teacher was interrupted… and today we do not possess judges with original Semikhah.”

Analysis of Interrupted Authority:

• Generations without Semikhah: The Talmud (Sanhedrin 13b-14a) details the desperate efforts of Rabbi Yehuda ben Baba to preserve Semikhah under Hadrian’s persecution but acknowledges that the structure of the Sanhedrin as a court with biblical authority expired. Subsequent rabbis called themselves “sages,” but they lost the capacity to legislate changes affecting Torah commandments permanently.

• The Paradox of Halakhah d’Rabanan: While the implementation of rabbinic laws serves an organizational function, Halakhah establishes that a law of the sages cannot invalidate a law of the Torah (Devarim). The calendar, being an explicit commandment to determine the Feasts of the Eternal, enters into direct conflict when based on human calculations that ignore biblical observation.

• The Authority of the Messiah as Aleph-Tav: For us, this historical interruption confirms the need for a higher authority. While modern Hebrew roots often “demote” the Messiah to a mere rabbi, we recognize that His authority as the Aleph-Tav changes the entire legal landscape. He not only confirmed the first-century calendar but possesses the inherent authority to restore what men, by necessity or error, altered.

3. The Jewish Perspective: A “Temporary” Change

We must understand, without an inquisitive spirit, why rabbinic Judaism made these changes. In the absence of the Temple and the impossibility of convening the Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel to receive witnesses, the calculated calendar was the only option to maintain unity in the Diaspora.

The fascinating part is that Jewish thought itself admits these changes are transitory. They are not considered a “new revelation,” but an emergency measure meant to be revoked.

Acknowledgment of Transience (Maimonides, Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 153):

“This [fixing the calendar by calculation] is a law that we only practice in the Diaspora due to the destruction of the Temple and the absence of a Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel… But when the Messiah comes and the Temple is rebuilt, we will necessarily return to the system of direct observation and the testimony of witnesses, for that is the eternal law of the Torah.”

Analysis of the Expected Restoration:

• The Messiah as Restorer: From a rabbinic perspective, this “necessary change” has no eternal repercussion; they expect that when the Messiah comes, He will “fix” these details and put the original calendar into practice. In other words, even traditional Judaism believes the Messiah will restore the calendar!

• The Paradox of the Follower of Yeshua: Here lies our greatest certainty: if the Messiah has already come (Yeshua) and He already confirmed the observation calendar of the first century, why should we follow a calendar that is supposed to be “temporary” until He arrives?

• Return to the Land: The rabbinic calendar was designed to survive in dispersion. However, for those of us reached by the Messiah’s redemption and returning to the roots of the faith, the logical path is to live under the restored calendar He already validated, anticipating the fullness of the Kingdom.

4. Epiphanius’ Testimony and the 4th-Century Context

Epiphanius of Salamis is often cited to validate the current rabbinic calendar, but an analysis of the original text reveals that Epiphanius was describing a crisis of unity, not an established norm. He refers to the calendar of the first-century Pharisees, which—according to his testimony—the Jews of his time were beginning to lose.

The Quote from Epiphanius (Panarion 70.10.2):

“The apostles decreed nothing regarding this [the day of Passover], but said: ‘We do not care when you celebrate it, as long as you do not commit errors.’ But when the Jews were in a state of disorder and had lost the correct reckoning, the apostles said: ‘Even if they err, do not worry… celebrate it when they do.'”

Technical Analysis of the Text:

• Apostolic Rule vs. Innovation: Epiphanius mentions a prior “apostolic rule.” If the text he cites existed, it predates the Hillel II reform. Therefore, the apostles referred to the observation calendar of the Second Temple, not the mathematical system that emerged centuries later.

• The Roman Church and Nicaea: Epiphanius openly admits that the Roman Church, which he represented, changed this rule after the Council of Nicaea to separate from Jewish practice. As researchers, we understand this Roman change lacks biblical basis, as does the subsequent rabbinic shift.

• The “Jewish Disorder”: The phrase “when the Jews… had lost the correct reckoning” is key. It confirms that in the 4th century, the system was in crisis. This indicates the calendar change began as an emergency measure in the academies of Sura and Pumbedita and was exported through the Diaspora until being fixed in the era of the Geonim.

Conclusion

When reading Epiphanius in context, it is clear that the modern calculated calendar is not what he is defending; he is documenting how the 4th-century Jewish world was losing the precision of the Messiah’s original calendar. If we are followers of Messiah (Mashiach), our compass should not be the “disorder” of the 4th century, but the originality of the first century that the Messiah Himself validated with His presence and fulfillment of the Feasts.

It is important to persevere in excellence, yet we must not “drown in a glass of water” over these legal debates. As believers, our justification rests upon the redemptive work of the Messiah. However, if we seek the originality of our faith, it is most logical to follow the model our Master accepted and confirmed.

The modern rabbinic calendar was a human solution for a people in exile without a Temple or Messiah. But for those who have found the Messiah, the restoration has already begun. By seeking biblical observation, we are not inventing something new; we are returning to what the Eternal entrusted to His people from the beginning and what Yeshua, the Final Authority, validated with His life.

“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons (Moadim), and for days and years.'” — Genesis 1:14

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar

FROM THE CRUCIFIXION TO THE BEGINNING OF THE JEWISH REVOLT IN 66 AD

For all those interested in history and who view the present as consequences of the past, when we focus on Jesus’ followers, we face a colossal challenge: The history of Christianity as we know it, studied in most universities and seminaries, is “the history of Catholic Christianity and the results of its reform.” In these articles, I aim to approach the poorly told and little-understood history of Christianity among Jews.

We know that the early church was entirely composed of Jews. However, it’s important to understand that when we say “Jews,” neither we nor the biblical text specifically refers to those born within the tribe of Judah. Instead, it encompasses various concepts that unfortunately are often overlooked in biblical study due to semantic limitations in Spanish. For instance, someone living in Judea is a Jew, as is someone specifically belonging to the tribe of Judah, or someone practicing the religion even if living elsewhere on the planet. All these terms reflect different uses from outside the nation, while within the cultural vocabulary, those who dedicated themselves to a specific religious life of the Pharisees, often referred to as true Jews.

To clarify these distinctions, though challenging in a normal Bible translation due to semantic issues in Spanish, those of us delving into these topics often use neologisms derived from Koine Greek of the New Testament to better express in Spanish what the author originally intended. Thus, here we will use some of these neologisms:

• Judean for one who lives in Judea.
• Judaita for one who is inserted into the tribe through conversion.
• Judaite for one from Israel.
• Judaist for one who practices rabbinic perspective.
• Judaizing for one who sees the rabbinic perspective as the true religion.
• Judaic for one who teaches the rabbinic perspective.

For example, the non-“Jewish” Paul was a Benjamite, not a “Judean” because he was born in Tarsus. Yet, he was a “Judaist” from a “Judaic” household, and upon moving to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel, he became more “Judaic,” earning the position to serve in the temple as a “Judaizer.” Thus, he had to become a resident “Judean.” Once these terms are clear, we can better understand Jesus’ followers until the beginning of the Judean revolt against Rome, as detailed in the Apostolic Writings.

Jesus preached in Judea, Samaria, Decapolis, and Galilee, with his primary audience being Jews from these regions. During various pilgrimage festivals at the Jerusalem temple, he interacted with Jews from the diaspora, coming from distant regions like Cyprus, Asia Province, and Alexandria, some of them Judaists and others simply Jews. It’s worth noting that even Judeans could be Essenes, Sadducees, or unaffiliated with any sect. Similarly, the diaspora was not a unified group and could be influenced by Judaizers or Greek philosophy.

Following Pentecost, the disciples’ group began to grow significantly, as this pilgrimage festival led many converts to remain. They came from farther regions like Syria and Asia, living alongside Judeans from Jerusalem and those from nearby areas like Galilee. Initially, Jesus’ disciples were predominantly Judean, but after Pentecost, in a single day, the group became more global (Judaic). Hence, there was a need to establish a body of deacons to better serve this diverse and complex new community. Imagine, they were all Jews, but among them were Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees, and even those who believed more in Greek philosophy, both local and from the diaspora, all learning from the apostles and experiencing life as the body of Christ. However, the situation was highly complex.

Due to the extremism of non-convert Judaizers, their unfamiliarity with creed, and their vision of this new group, persecution began against them in Jerusalem, resulting in several victims. This led many to flee Judea to nearby regions like Samaria and Syria. In Samaria, specifically in the city of Joppa, Peter, through a vision from God, was allowed to preach the gospel to a Roman military officer influenced by Judaizers in Caesarea. This officer prayed and fasted to the God of Israel, a practice uncommon among Gentiles, and he converted, similar to Peter’s own experience with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Thus, God showed the apostle that the gospel was for all humanity, not just Jews. However, since this was not a common occurrence, the church did not actively pursue reaching other Gentiles, as not all synagogues in Judea were filled with Gentiles, and there was an imperial edict preventing Jews from teaching Gentiles unless requested. Therefore, each Gentile who approached the gospel did so by personal decision, although later some took more risks, subtly and carefully planned, as Paul did in Athens.

Jesus’ disciples gathered every Sabbath in synagogues, posing a challenge for Judaics, Judaists, and Judaizers in those regions. These synagogues not only involved directed worship but also study, as is still done today, debating biblical topics in pairs. Hence, Judaists attending these synagogues (since not all Jews attended) began to complain to their Pharisee leaders in Jerusalem, and persecution extended beyond Judea to other regions. Thankfully, amidst this persecution beyond Jerusalem’s walls, their executive leader (Paul) encountered Jesus on the road to Syria and became one of the Messiah’s most fervent followers. Three years later, having grown in faith through direct discipleship under Jesus’ own revelation, he was invited to Antioch in Syria, the same region where he had previously gone to persecute disciples. There, the number of believers was so large that he, along with other servants of God, began to serve, witnessing further growth of the church.

Something started to happen in that congregation: Gentiles, previously attracted to Judaist teachings, also began to convert. This led Judaizers from other synagogues in the city and region to label them Christians, using the Greek substitute for the Hebrew word Messiah, as a way of saying, “You believe in a Greek doctrine and not in the true Messiah.”

During this time, the Holy Spirit separated Barnabas and Paul to go to Jews in dispersion, applying the same experience they had in Antioch. In their first journey, they also preached to Gentiles influenced by Judaizers and others who were able to hear, even if not influenced by Judaizers. They established congregations, majority Jewish with a minority Gentile, led by Judaists. Remember, they couldn’t leave it to just any Judean, as not all knew the entire Scripture well enough to teach, especially not to Gentiles.

Upon their return, a conflict arose between these convert Judaizers and Paul, also a Judaizing convert but of Hillel’s school versus Shammai’s Pharisee school. The Jerusalem church, encouraged by apostles Peter and James, recognized Paul’s perspective as correct and wrote to the Gentiles, advising them not to concern themselves with Judaic practices imposed by non-convert Judaizers. Even as these converts adjusted their teachings to those established by the Messiah, Judaic teachings included both good and antiquated and harmful practices. They were to continue meeting in synagogues and gradually learn from them, as all synagogues were Judaist institutions. Until the apostles and Spirit-sent teachers could instruct them in the details taught by the Messiah.

Paul’s journeys continued, and the church among Gentiles continued to grow. Meanwhile, the church among Jews also grew, equal to or even greater than the Gentile part, encompassing both the diaspora and Judea. When Paul returned to Jerusalem, Peter and other apostles informed him of the significant growth among them. However, with Paul’s visit, they faced a problem: Non-convert Judaizers spread false stories about Paul, claiming he taught all Jews to abandon God’s law given to Moses and the entire Old Testament. This included the only place in the world where these teachings occurred, the synagogues. This falsehood has persisted through history, affecting the majority of Christianity.

While Paul completed the days of his vow, non-convert Judaizers agitated Jews visiting the temple, nearly killing him and putting him on trial. As a Judaic and Roman citizen, Paul escaped and requested to be taken to Rome to present his case before the emperor and have him judge it.

Thus, in the regions of Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Syria, Perea, and Decapolis, a community of converting Jews to Jesus and a minority of Gentiles grew. This mixed group considered themselves the true Israel, often becoming the majority in many synagogues in these regions. This will be explored further in subsequent articles in this series. However, tranquility in these regions ended as Judeans, anti-Roman extremists, and poorly managed imperial leaders created crisis conditions. This led to massacres of Gentiles by Jews, the emergence of Jewish thieves everywhere, and some cities being overtaken by Judaist rebels. Ultimately, the emperor’s order resolved this instability in Judea and Galilee.

To be continued…

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar.

.

Unfortunately, whether due to the influence of Hellenism or the spiritual blindness that existed in Israel, several sects appeared by the 1st century: the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Zealots, each with their own peculiarities and differing opinions regarding the Messiah and his coming. Many expected Him to deliver them from their enemies, others expected Him to demonstrate the character and power of the God of Israel, and still others awaited a Messiah capable of leading a rebellion against the Romans.

However, there were also aspects they were not expecting, such as a liberator who would shame and infuriate a large number of their religious leaders, or who would show them how badly they misunderstood their God and how misdirected their attitudes towards moral law were.

In many ways, the people who saw Jesus witnessed what their nation should have been expecting in the Messiah. Throughout antiquity, many prophets spoke clearly to the people about God’s salvation, his character, and his power; and the Jesus that the people saw demonstrated that truth and power in such an irrefutable way that they marveled at what he did and said. What they saw and heard should have made them think about what they should expect from their Messiah.

So, if Jesus showed them what they were looking for, why did they not recognize him? Was it because he told them he could not deliver them from Rome’s imperial oppression? Was it because he said he had to suffer and die for their sins? Or was it truly due to their blindness as a nation on such an important issue? The people of Israel had received enough information to be prepared for the Messiah’s arrival. Why did they not see Jesus’ messiahship clearly?

The problem was not simply one of perspective but of presuppositions. The reality was that there were prejudices in Jewish thought that limited their vision. Clearly, this problem had a significant impact on the ability of 1st-century religious leaders to recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Despite the teachings of Moses and the prophets, they had added an oral tradition to what the Scriptures actually said. Many of these additions to the law seemed, at first glance, to honor the Scriptures, but often the changes focused more on external aspects than on the spiritual formation of the heart in light of the spirit of the law.

The result was that Israel’s religious leaders found ways to excuse their own mistaken motives by focusing more on ritual than on the spiritual. Many gradually assumed they could be right with God on their own terms and by their own efforts.

When Christ came as the spiritual rescuer, they did not see the need for any kind of personal rescue. In fact, they were not seeking personal forgiveness from God or mercy for their widespread wrongdoing. They wanted a Messiah who would confirm and enforce the rules they mistakenly thought were divinely inspired. As a result, when Jesus presented the vision of God, it did not fit their expectations, and the leaders of the time concluded that he was not the authentic Messiah they were waiting for. Jesus presented a vision of the Father that was not what the Scriptures taught the Israelites to expect, and yet what they saw surprised them. It was a perspective that continually baffled the people because Jesus not only revealed the character and power of God but also revealed to the Jews the heart of God. He came to provide the perfect balance between grace and truth to a generation that mistakenly thought it could reinvent truth and manipulate God’s grace.

Author: Julio Hernández

During the lifetime of the apostles, beyond the first half of the 1st century, several groups appeared that did not harmonize with the doctrinal body of the Way. But this cannot be analyzed in a simplistic way under the presupposition of how the church lives today.

Firstly, there were no denominational buildings, nor defined groups with specific names or doctrines; everyone was mixed and began to identify themselves by a teacher whom they followed. For example, among the Way group among the Israelites, in very broad terms, we see that some found it difficult to shake off their sectarian nuances produced by the paradigm of the nomos. Others, within the Jews themselves, reinterpreted Messianic teaching in light of gnosis. These groups facilitated the reinterpretation by Gentiles, who were unfamiliar with the Scriptures, sometimes in an extremely free version of the entire gospel.

However, as a consequence of the various conflicts between Jews and the empire, and also the logical reality of an overwhelming majority of Gentiles from all nations compared to them, the group that grew fastest by the 2nd century was that of the Gentiles. Among them, reinterpretations associated with their pagan and philosophical backgrounds emerged. Although these latter are known as the Gnostics, we cannot understand them as a doctrinally defined group, but rather as a very mixed and pluralistic mass (including Menandrians, Valentinians, Marcionists, etc.). Some went to the extreme of considering the Creator God and legislator as a demon, while others saw the law as something outdated and replaceable by the tradition of some apostle, or simply assimilated Christianity and defended it as the mystical essence of knowledge and nothing more.

Many of these groups, with their own opinions, reinterpreted the teaching of the apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) as a complete departure from the Mosaic law. They failed to distinguish the opposition of the apostle, as was that of Jesus and the rest of the disciples, towards sectarian precepts and never towards God’s holy law. Nor did they distinguish in their opposition the “attitude” of some towards the law and not against its “nature”.

These groups viewed Grace and Holiness as the correct way of life, but not according to the divine standards that appeared in Scripture and under which Jesus had lived. For them, living well began to mean whatever their logic or some mystical revelation dictated to them.

Guided by this perspective, they discarded all traditions that came from the Jews, whether good (for being in harmony with Scripture) or not. But since one cannot live without the daily routine, they filled the void created with previously evaluated and redesigned pagan practices. Like the story in which the mother bathed her baby, they threw out the baby along with the dirty water.

Although we have mentioned several groups, we must understand that Christianity in general was receiving varied influences through perspectives, prejudices, and ways of projecting oneself personally and in community life. Amid the pressures of such harsh persecution against them, these varied influences became part of the daily life of many Christian groups that came to be organized into different patriarchates.

When the persecution ceased and the possibility arose to legalize the Way according to Roman imperial law, the final blow appeared that would transform the church into what we know today institutionally speaking. To legalize it, several things had to be defined that until then were varied: details of its creed, form of meetings, celebrations, etc. To define all this, a council was held in the year 325 AD in the city of Nicaea, with the Church of the capital city primarily as a reference. This is why we find that out of more than 1500 invited bishops, only about 250 attended.

However, and without intending to defend them, although there is a tendency among some historians and critics to view this as an arbitrary authority assumed by them, it must also be understood as a survival maneuver to shape the so dissimilar perspectives, seeking more options to fulfill the great commission given to them, which implied how to conquer the empire if they were so divided within.

Although 70% were absent from the council, where we can understand that not everyone agreed with that Roman supremacy, that beginning yielded long-term results and over time, unification was achieved and there was no other major schism until after the 11th century.

If we take an image of the church in the first two centuries and compare it with the church that emerged from Nicaea, we will see a very large contrast. Not only in terms of postulates and central points of their beliefs, but also in terms of the daily Way to follow.

When all traditions and interpretations that were quarries for the apostles and that Jesus himself approved in his life are eliminated, we must understand that the voids left behind must be filled by other traditions, that simple. These replacements will seek their anchor in Scripture, of course, so that all those who think differently can join biblically justified. That is why at that time many groups were convinced and added, although a few were forcibly added. This is how evangelism in the Middle Ages became one of the greatest aberrations in history.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar.

[1] Greek word referring to the law. There was a strong conception of this coming from Plato, where the law of God (natural laws) were invariable, while social laws were variable because they depended on the changing nature of humans. This concept was defining and combating against the Hebrew concept of law (Torah), which included social and natural laws described by Moses and interpreted by some sect.

[2] Greek word used by Christians to describe the “scientific” secular vision regarding God, the relationship with Him, and everything surrounding man.

To have clarity on this matter, we must contextualize our minds with what was happening in the first half of the 1st century regarding those followers of the Messiah Yeshua. In the first three years, all of them belonged to the lineage of Israel, coming from different official sects or simply none of them, but they all had in common a perfect understanding of the need to walk in their daily lives in light of the updates made by Jesus regarding the provisions within the law called in Hebrew “jukim” and the new spiritual capacity to fulfill the demands of divine holiness.

The official sects born from Israel’s religious heritage claimed for themselves the correct interpretation of the practice and obedience to the law. Thus, this brought a contrast between each of them and this new sect that called themselves the Way. Why were they called that? Well, because their way (the way of living God’s law) was new to the rest, and that gave them a new identity.

As we know, this Way began to be built with the Messianic ministry and on the day of Pentecost (Shavuot in Hebrew), after the salvific consummation, it also had its spiritual consummation in all those disciples he had. However, although all this was happening among Israelites, three years later it also had the consummation of the promise given to Abraham for the Gentiles (Gen 12:3; Acts 10).

It is good to understand that there were always Gentiles entering by conversion to Israel, such as Rahab and Ruth, but by the 1st century there was a phenomenon that had never appeared before, where one of the official sects (the Pharisees) took this seriously and developed a whole proselytizing strategy. This sometimes led the Roman Empire to prohibit this.

However, while this was happening, the reality is that the majority of Gentiles remained only on the outer circle of Israel’s practice, due to the excessive legalistic rigor of this sect, which kept adding more rules to pious life.

In the case of the Way, after that “Pentecost” for the Gentiles that occurred at Cornelius’ house, many began to join the new group. They were taught as a priority the Tanakh (Acts 15:19-21), which was the Bible of that time in light of the Messianic teaching that would come to them through oral tradition.

From that moment on, two key questions would arise for them: What would be the practice for the Gentiles? Which sect would have the privilege of teaching? However, to guide this new group of Gentiles, the Lord brought an apostle who had experienced sectarian fragmentation himself, to the extreme of becoming a murderer violating the very law he loved so much. He knew the law of Moses, the Midrash of the different sects, and the oral Mishnah of the Pharisees in great detail. But the seal of his election would be the training that the Messiah himself would give him, which began in a period of three years in the desert.

Thus, he fulfilled one of the apostolic requirements: having been with Yeshua since the baptism and being witnesses of his death and resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). And that is why he was accepted by the rest of the apostles when he could show them what he had learned under a special revelation from Jesus himself, including details that only the apostles knew (Gal 1:11-12; 1 Cor 11:23).

It is this apostle who will guide the rest in how the acceptance and instruction of the new disciples coming from the Gentile world should be. Of course, this also warranted the correction of those already saved from within Israel who needed to learn how to deal with the new brothers. They were not always subject to that reality just because they were neophytes in Scripture and on the whole path. So the task ahead was daunting: on the one hand, to continue spreading within and outside the Jews, and on the other, to disciple Gentiles from scratch.

As every challenge implied dangers:

1. The new disciples could interpret the entire new Way in the light of their personal paradigms, leading to distortion.
2. Gentiles had to learn so much that anyone could present themselves to them as a teacher when in reality they too were neophytes regarding the Way.
3. The new distortions could become visibly opposed groups within the church or simply grow within it, eating away at it from within.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar.