1:1 Literally, "saying", or "speaking". The root is אמר "say", which forms the participle with addition of מ to be מאמר, and then in Aramaic it takes the typical alef ending to form מאמרא.  The Peshitta, however does not have memra! It has מלתא which is from Hebrew מלה, meaning  "word, speech, utterance" (BDB). The Greek word λογος likewise means "word, saying" or a "speech" or "matter, affair, thing". A closer Hebrew word to λογος is דבר, which means "speech, word".

John's usage here is metaphorical, because later in the passage the "word" turns out to be a person. So to understand John we have to get at the meaning of the metaphor beyond the literal sense of "word". To do this we set up a comparsion. When a person speaks no one sees (or directly perceives) the spirit of the man inside him, but what he says manifests what he is like.  In this sense no one has ever "seen" the spirit in a man, but has only seen that which manifests the spirit of the man, i.e. his facial expression, and his speaking.  The word "expression" is a near synonym of "saying", "speech" or "word", and it is used in John 1:18, "No man has seen the Almighty at any time; the only begotten Almighty, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has expressed Him."

Therefore, Yeshua, who is Ben Elohim (=son of Almighty, or Almighty Son) is that part of the Almighty who "expresses" or "manifests" Yahweh. This is why we see the מלאך יהוה (messenger of Yahweh) identified with Yahweh in the Torah and Prophets. The son is Yahweh, or the part of Yahweh's Spirit, which is His "complement" πληρωμα (Col. 1:19; 2:9). The complement of something is the part that completes it or makes it full, and the word should not be translated "fulness" but "complement" (cf. BDAG, 3rd, "that which makes some. full/complete, supplement, complement", pg. 829).

The Spirit of Yahweh is thus differentiated into the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of the Son, and the Spirit generally, (which is neither the Father or the Son, and takes a seven fold differentiation, classified by attributive specialty: cf. Isaiah 11:1-2). It is the Son, however, who manifests Yahweh in physical form.  The Spirit of the Son is in the bosom of the Father's Spirit, and knows Him, and therefore he represents the Father to all creation.  The whole of the Spirit of YHWH, or the differentiated parts of him are all identified as YHWH, including the Son who is Yahweh's interface with creation.  We must also consider that Yahweh commanded us not to make an image of him, but Yahweh himself makes his own image, which correctly shows him without corruption. And this image is Yeshua.

Thus, the use of "Word" as a metaphor for Yeshua describes his function to "express" the Almighty, because he is the Almighty who is with the Almighty, and knows him, and does express him.  No one sees the Spirit of the Almighty, but the part of Yahweh's Spirit that is Yeshua, this one expresses him to us. No one sees Yeshua's Spirit (the Spirit complement of Yahweh's Spirit) either, for that matter, but in this case, as on Mt. Sinai, when the image of Yahweh is correctly portrayed by Yahweh, then we must worship through the image, as did the seventy on Mt. Sinai when they "saw Elohim" (Exodus 24:9-11), just as the Malakh Yahweh, who is Yahweh, received worship from man and woman (cf. Judges 13:18-23).

So, in a technical sense, it would be incorrect to say we worship the finger of Yahweh, or his foot, or his eye, but we must worship Yahweh in Spirit through Yeshua.  When an idolator worships through a false image, one's of man's own making, then the reality it portrays is a lie, and so the worship is ascribed to the image in Yahweh's sight, and is therefore abominable.  But when we worship the Son, who is provided by Yahweh himself, and who is not of our own making, then the worship is ascribed to Elohim.

The Jewish doctrine of the memera separates the manifested attributes of Yahweh from being identified with Yahweh, because on philosophical principle intellectual Jews of Hellenistic period rejected the notion that Yahweh would manifest himself in a physical form.  They, therefore, reinterpreted the scriptures about the Malakh Yahweh, and his appearances to Israel . Remember that when Yeshua uses the physical side of his nature to express joy, love, instruction, peace, anger, displeasure, mercy, etc., then we are perceiving the thought of the Spirit of Yahweh through him.  The Jewish theologians, on the other hand, wanted to distance Elohim, and make his transcendence incapable of expression in a physical form. But the scriptures do not support this.  They came to it for two reasons, 1) Greek Philosophy of the Hellenistic Period, and 2) rejection of Yeshua.

Now I should say a word about the "Trinity" doctrine, or as they put it "three" and "unity"/"one". Firstly, "three" is not used in scripture, but neither is "one".  The Shema is, "Hear O Israel , Yahweh is our Almighty, Yahweh alone" (Deut. 6:4).  That is, Yahweh is the only Elohim, as opposed to all other "gods". The text says not what Yahweh himself is in his internal nature. (The word echad is used adverbially, "alone", "only").  It says that Yahweh "only" is Elohim.  Only = one + ly, and alone = al + one, i.e. by himself with no one else there.  The Jews err by saying Yahweh is absolutely "one" in the internal nature, and so does the Church!  We see this in the misinterpretation of Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 as "fulness of the Deity" instead of "complement" (see above).  This is why trinitarians want to say that Yeshua is all of God. What they have done is involve themselves in contradiction.  That is wrong. The Father is greater than the Son.  The Son is equal in rank (He is Yahweh to be worshipped), but not equal because he is differentiated in the Spirit of Yahweh.   Further, the trinitarians want to say that Elohim is three.  Maybe so, and maybe not.  Maybe when Yahweh chooses a time and place to be three, but probably he is dynamic, taking the differentiation he wishes, thus to say that Yahweh is forever "three" is a speculation that Yahweh is static and unchangeable in differentiation.  The scripture does not teach that.  It only teaches that his moral nature is unchangeable.

6:51 I am the living bread; Yeshua starts out with a metaphor, which is meant to teach the lesson that He is the source of life.   Yeshua Himself is the source of all life, as he has ultimate life in Himself.  His life does not degrade or decay as the principle of entropy would declare of created things after the fall, and even before the fall, created things had to find their renewal of life through Him.   Yeshua says "I am the living bread".  He is not speaking of ordinary bread, which can only keep a man alive for a day, and which is actually not "living" since it has been baked.  He is speaking of "living" bread.   His words are not hard to understand, and the reason that some took offense at them is that they did not want to commit to Him that he was Yahweh manifest in human form.   Yet they wanted him to be the Messiah, and be something less than the Almighty at the same time.  Therefore, they took offense at the implication that he is the source of ultimate life, which leads automatically to the conclusion that He is Almighty!   Their offense took the form of perverting the metaphor and missing its point on purpose.

6:51 bread also ... is My flesh; Yeshua adds an additional thought here and uses bread as a symbol for his flesh, which only makes sense if he is to lay down his life as a substitute for our sin.  This is the point he was trying to get across, only in a parable form, so to speak.  Those who rejected the idea that Messiah would lay down His life rejected the message.   Even some of the twelve objected to this, but they did not cease in their commitment to Him as a result.

6:53 eat ... drink;  Yeshua is not advocating cannibalism.  That would indeed be the most literal interpretation of these words.  Yet, the Torah commands us not to eat human flesh or drink blood, so Messiah's sense must be different than the literal level.   So the word "eat the flesh" and "drink the blood" refer to applying the sacrifice of Messiah to oneself in payment of the penalty of transgressions, and also refer to receiving His resurrection life and divine transforming power after applying the payment for sin on a personal level.

6:55 true food ... true drink; Part of the Hebrew teaching method is to make a shock statement to get the audiences' rapt attention.  Remember that Yeshua also said that if you hand causes you to sin, then cut it off, or if your eye makes you stumble, then pluck it out.   These words here are no more to be taken literally than the instructions to "cut off" the offending "hand".   Yeshua explains later that the words "represent spirit" (6:63).  Notice, he says the "words" "represent" spirit;  He uses a metaphor/symbolism to explain his metaphor/symbolism, and he means that "the words represent Spirit".   On the use of the word εστιν "is" to mean represents see 1Cor. 11:25.  

Yeshua is comparing Himself as the source of true spiritual life to real food and real drink.  We must literally take the Spirit of the Almighty (Yeshua) into our being to be transformed and have eternal life.   This partaking of the Spirit happens according to our commitment to Him and love for him in keeping his commandments.  In vs. 56 Yeshua says "abides in Me" a phrase explained in John 15:10, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love".   John also links knowing Yeshua to keeping his commandments in 1John 2:3.  We come to know Him because we partake of the teaching of the Spirit, which is the divine life that we consume.

Messiah Yeshua says nothing in this passage about bread and wine at the last supper, and John entirely omits the episode from his account of the last supper.  This is because John was written at the end of the first century when apostasy was entering the faith.  John reports also that not even the elders of Ephesus would receive him.  What was happening was that the mystery religion of Mithraism was getting married with Gnostic Christianity, and they were redefining the last super cup into an idol ritual.  John's purpose in reporting this teaching in John 6 is to refute the idea that cup and bread were a literal consumption of deity, something the mystery religions were teaching, and that entered the proto-Catholic Church.   The key words are "the words ... represent spirit".

"Words" can only be Spirit if they are divine teachings  Man shall live by everything that comes out of the mouth of Yahweh.  So the life comes from the words and teaching of the Almighty.  If we consume his words, then the teaching will enter into us and give us life.   The divine Spirit, the divine life, is therefore, present in His Word in a special way.  We partake of Yeshua by partaking of His word.  This is how sanctification and divine grace is received.

Many of the disciples were offended, not because they did not understand this principle, but because they were unwilling to think that the Almighty would become a man to make Himself known.  That had rejected essential words from the Almighty concerning the identity of the Messiah.  They had not consumed those words, and instead has believed philosophy on what the Almighty could not be, or could not do, and they were not careful to check their philosophy against the Scripture.   They believed that life must come from the word of YHWH, but they did not practice it enough to recognize who the word was pointing to, and that Yeshua was the source of life.  It was hearing it in the human guise of Yeshua that offended them.   This was an offense that is evident in the changes of the Sopherim, who altered the divine name when they thought the text to forward, i.e. where Abraham says, "My Yahwheh", or too anthropomorphistic. It is also evidenced in modern Judaism, when they claim concerning the Scripture that Israel saw the Almighty, that they only saw a mass vision, and did not really see Him.

Now it is necessary to address the doctrine of "consubstantiation" or the so called "real presence" more directly.  Lutherans teach that Messiah is spiritually present in the communion bread and wine, and that the divine grace is bestowed by participation in the ritual.   The reason they teach this is a leftover from the Church of Rome, which teaches that divine grace and divine life comes through the ritual.  This is no different than the false teaching that circumcision saves a Gentile, or that baptism saves an infant.  Such ritual's do not impart divine life.  Life can only be obtained by consuming the divine word; and the divine Spirit is sooner present in Yeshua's teaching in John 15:10 than He ever was in bread and wine, whose value as the "word" is only in the "word" that they represent, i.e. the remembrance of Yeshua's death as taught by the prophetic word.

The ten words speak of Yahweh showing mercy to thousands that keep His commandments.  Therefore divine grace and love come our way when we heed his word.  The notion that the bread and wine of the Eucharist, or communion, are the central point of consumption of the Spirit of Yeshua is therefore a grave deception drawing the eyes of the faithful off of the need to obey the commandments to receive the divine grace, and back onto a ritual.  One will sooner consume of the Word of the Almighty by obeying Him than ever by any ritual.   Therefore to exalt the ritual as dispensing anything beyond reminding us of Yeshua's Death for our transgressions is to cause the worshipper to place false hope in the wrong place.  He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies.

6:63 the words ... represent spirit;  Yeshua explains himself in terms of who He is, the Almighty in human form.   To believe that Messiah is somehow present in a special way in physical objects causes people to pay too much respect to the object instead of what the object symbolizes. To think that it is necessary to hold to the doctrine of the real presence in order to receive the benefits of Yeshua's life (juice symbolizing his life) or his atonement (symbolized by bread broken) is a big mistake. We do not receive forgiveness or transforming power of Messiah through the medium of bread and wine. We get it by listening to his Holy Spirit, obeying his commandments, and receiving his life and forgiveness at all times that we need it. And the symbols only remind us of that important truth. Forgiveness and Yeshua's spiritual life are available at all times.   We are partaking (consuming from him) at all times.

The reason for being of the consubstantiation doctrine causes people to miss this point by localizing the benefits only as present in the elements. And I have seen that they are not only localizing the benefits of Yeshua in the elements, but they are shutting out those who do not agree that the benefits are localized there.

Because, the Lutheran doctrine pays too much attention to God in a physical object, I also consider this doctrine perilously close to the idolatry of those idolaters who claim they do not worship the physical object, but only the spirit of their god in the object. The Almighty does not want us imitating their reasoning or ascribing him to be in a physical object.

I can hear the reasoning now. When Rome was confronted with its worship of the Eucharist, Rome did not repent, but some of them decided that if they said that they only worshipped the god present the object, and not the object, that the objections would be satisfied, and that they could then go on treating the objects as the instrument through which the divine grace flows. We call that modification Lutheranism, a sort of reformation like Jehu where he got rid of the priest of Baal, but neither did he remove the golden calves.

6:64 commit; they would not commit to him as Abraham committed to Yahweh, because they would not accept him as LORD.   This is the reason that they stumbled at His words, and did not understand the parable.

     Now I have given you the interpretation of the passage, and the reason for the Jewish misunderstanding of it.   There is a further Roman Catholic misunderstanding to be mentioned (and then a Lutheran one), and that is this is one of the passages that they base the teaching of transubstantiation on.  This is the doctrine that the bread and wine offered in the mass is the actual blood and actual body of Christ, though with the illusion of plain bread, and common wine.   I would not try to reason a Catholic out of this belief with the present passage.  The Catholic problem is that they do not accept the Torah's forbidding of idolatry.  For the Church actually teaches the worship of the Eucharist, believing that God is contained in a physical object.   The Lutheran's, while not worshiping the Eucharist,  still believe that Christ is "present" in the Eucharist in a way that he is not present elsewhere.  Therefore, they pay more respect to the created objects than is proper.   Pagan idolaters, of course, have always thought that their deities were contained in physical objects.  This is why they bow down to them.   And it would be a huge mistake to think that the Scripture condemns only the worship of the physical object and not the use of the physical object said to contain the deity, as if it is all right to worship with an image so long as you only believe the image contains the deity, and is not the deity.  In Deuteronomy 12:30-32 the Almighty declares that he does not want pagan methods to be used in His worship, and using an image said to contain the Almighty is a pagan method.   And the scripture is clear that manmade objects are forbidden in worship.   This does not forbid the Almighty from making His own image.  And he did in Yeshua.

8:17 The NAS falsely reads "your law" here.  That is not what the Greek says.  It says "the law incumbent on you" or "the law applicable for you".  The words are Και εν τω νομω δε τω υμετερω = and in the instruction yet that is for you.  BDAG, 3rd edition, "belonging to or incumbent upon you...J[ohn] 8:17" (pg. 1027).  The meaning as Yeshua uses it, though, is not "belonging to".  It is "incumbent upon you";  The lexicon is reluctant to straight out provide justification for calling the translation "your law" false.   This reluctance is easily exposed because the word υμετερω is in the dative case, which is the "to", "for" or "with respect to", or "in connection to" inflection.  All we have to do us translate a straight dative, "for you" and then modernize the word "incumbent" to "applicable", i.e. "applicable for you".

The rule for two witnesses was written especially for the human Judges of Israel , and Yeshua was talking to them right then.  Because one witness could more likely error in a human court, the Almighty required two or three.  This rule, of course, does not bind the Almighty Himself, who knows all things.  And Yeshua makes this very point in vs. 14.  Therefore, Yeshua said, "in the law applicable to you";   Further, he is not using the word "law" in a general sense here, but only in a specific statutory sense, i.e. only about the rule of the witnesses.

Once again, I must mention that Gnostic Christianity loves to take this text out of context to make their point that Yeshua was not the giver of the Torah.   One might as well claim He is not the Yahweh Elohim as to say that, and indeed, that is what the Gnostics claimed.  If you are a Gnostic rejecting the Torah with this sort of argument, then you should seriously worry about Yeshua's words in Matthew 7:23.

10:34 The NAS read your law; The word your is lacking in P45 (III cent), א*, D Γ Θ pc it sys; Cyp.  My favorite MSS, "D" Codex Bezae does not support the reading your.  What makes this all the more compelling is that John 15:25 lacks the same suspicious addition in P66 with respect to the word "their", and John 8:17 is still widely mistranslated down the same lines.  Once again Yeshua is quoting from the Psalms, and the additional arguments discussed at John 15:25 apply here also.

15:25 other MSS: their law.  The word "their" is lacking in P66, one of the earliest and most important MSS from ca. AD 200.  See also John 10:34 and John 8:17.

Gnostic Christianity would claim, that the word "their" law means that Yeshua is not the giver of the Torah.  Gnostics rejected the Almighty of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  They equated the Name with a creature they called the demiurge, an evil angelic demi-god of the Jews.  Perhaps they did not realize it, but by making this argument Gnostic Christianity denies the deity of Yeshua.  For if Yeshua is not Almighty Yahweh, then he cannot be the Almighty, because only Yahweh is our Almighty!

This argument is improper, especially considering that the word "their" is missing in the earliest MSS.   The additional problem with this view is that Yeshua speaks of Psalms here (Psalm 35:19; 69:5) written by King David.   So if the word "their" is to be included, then the translation should be "their instruction", using the broader and more generic meaning of "torah".   The Torah is divided up into "Torah", "Prophets," and "Writings".   What sets the writings off from the Torah and Prophets is that they started out as human compositions and were not primary revelations.   So without questioning the eventual acceptance of the Writings in the Canon or denying that their authors spoke by the Spirit, it could be reasoned that Yeshua could call it "their instruction" without disparaging it, simply to offset it from the direct revelation in the Prophets and revelation of the five books.   So some books are more "their instruction", but this is only to contrast it with words written by the very finger of Yahweh our Redeemer, who is made manifest to us in Yeshua, who is one with the Almighty and is Almighty, or words given in vision to the Prophets, or words that the Almighty ordered the Prophets to write down.    Also to say "their instruction" would have to be purely from Yeshua's point of view as the Son of the Almighty recognizing the difference between words He spoke directly and words he only led men to write.  We who are grafted into Israel cannot speak from such perspective because we have adopted it as "our teaching".  I only say this to show that their is no compelling formal logic by which the Gnostics can compel us to believe what they say about the words "their law" here.

20:1 first of the Sabbaths. μια των σαββατων/אַחַת הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת According to Lev. 23:15, this is the first weekly sabbath after the Passover rest day.   Yeshua died on Wednesday, the fourth day of the week. The annual feast of unleavened bread Rest, which is the great Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31 started at sunset (cf. Exodus 12:15).  The women bought the spices between this annual Sabbath (Mark 16:1) and the first weekly Sabbath afterward (Mark 16:2).   Yeshua was raised at dawn on the weekly Sabbath (Hosea 6:3).

The mistranslation "first day of the week" cannot be justified.   The word used in the Greek texts is the plural σαββατων, an ordinary word meaning "sabbaths".  All citations of this word meaning "week" are citations created by the Apostate Church in the first place, or citations from post-first century Judaism equally motivated to destroy the true Messianic faith of Yeshua.  They amount to no more than circular reasoning using sources created by the Roman Church to begin with.  This includes the LXX passages in Lev. 23, and Psalm titles in the LXX.  The existing MSS cannot be shown to be more ancient than the Catholic Scribes who edited them.  It also includes Rashi's attempt to explain Lev. 23:15 with the translation "week", and the Syriac Peshitta.   Possibly, second century Jews employed an idiom in the Mishnah to count days with respect to the Sabbath.  Contrary to modern belief, this idiom does not indicate that Sabbath means "week".  The word Shabbat still means "Sabbath" in the phrase "one with the Sabbath" (אחד בשבת), and its earliest use is found in Seder Olam (ca. AD 140).  The Luke 18:12 passage is disputed.  This possible Jewish usage, however, does not prove or even indicate that "first of the Sabbaths" as found in the gospels has anything to do with it.   It would only show another usage that would translate into Greek differently than μια των σαββατων, which represents a different Hebrew phrase, namely אחת השבתות.

This passage is not unique in the annals of Scripture corruption.  The Church has deliberately corrupted EVERY important theological or chronological word that they needed to in order to create a rebellious anti-Torah religion that in no way resembles the faith of the Law and Prophets.   This is a religion that is disproved by the contradictory chronology and historical mess that results.  On the other hand, the truth has an objective and exactly verifiable basis, as all the history and chronology fits.

Yeshua said he would fight against them with the word of his mouth in the last days.  Rest assured that it was He who let Judaism and Christianity fall into greater apostasy because of sin and pride, and it is only he who can deliver Israel by additional redemptive activity through his Holy Spirit.  I say this because Christians follow their 18 century old traditions, not realizing that the Church has drifted farther and farther away from the truth, and continues to grow worse.  They live under the illusion of having the whole truth during this time of exile for Israel , during the  time of the Gentiles.   Little do they realize that they are in need of deliverance, and like the Pharisees of old, they cling to their tradition as the final authority.

20:17 Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.  Why would Yeshua not want Mary to cling to him for the reason stated?  Also we have to consider that a little later Matthew 28:9 records that they "took hold of His feet and worshiped Him." Clearly, he allowed them to touch him later.  This suggests that Yeshua appeared before the throne between the first appearance to Mary and the second appearance to the group of women.  The directive to Mary the first time not to cling to Yeshua can only be for one reason.  Even after the resurrection Yeshua was still concerned for the Torah, both in ritual law, and for fulfillment of Messianic types.  The power of the resurrection granted Him a state of ritual purity through the power of the Almighty, and he wanted to preserve that state of ritual purity for his first ascension to the Father.  Therefore, he did not let Mary cling to him, so there would be no question about his ritual purity before the throne of heaven.   He accomplished this appearance between the time he appeared first to Mary and the second time he appeared to the group of women.

The time of Yeshua's first appearance to Mary was before sunrise, "while it was still dark" (John 20:1), "on the first of the Sabbaths," which was the first weekly Sabbath after Passover.   There is a moment of dawn, which is the earliest dawn, in which the first reddish light may be detected in the east of the approaching dawn, but it is still night everywhere else.  This earliest dawn would be Astronomical twilight, then Nautical twilight, and then Civil Twilight.  The time after Civil Twilight begins cannot be considered "while still dark".  Between Civil Twilight and Sunrise would have been 25 minutes.  Mary's encounter with Yeshua would have happened before Civil Twilight, and then His encounter with the women leaving the tomb would have happened at least 25 or more minutes later after sunrise.

This timing is highly significant, because Yeshua is the prophetic type of the wave sheaf offering in the Temple, which was offered "in the day after the Resting" (Lev. 23:11), otherwise known as the annual Passover Sabbath.  This year, it fell between Wednesday sunset and Thursday sunset (Sabbaths are calculated from sunset to sunset).   Days for sacrificial offerings, like the wave sheaf, on the other hand, were counted from sunrise to sunrise (cf. Lev. 7:15).   Thus, the wave sheaf day would be considered from sunrise on Friday to sunrise on the Sabbath that year.

For the purposes of making a typological connection with the resurrection, it should be sufficient that the resurrection of Yeshua was within the legal limit of the wave sheaf day. Paul makes the connection in 1 Cor. 15:20.  Yeshua ascended to the Father, and presented himself before His throne before the legal end of the wave sheaf day.

However, any chronological aspects of typology should be a conclusion based on definite chronological statements, and not chronological assumptions connected to typology.  Typology should not be used to determine chronological facts.   Indeed, a chronological connection is not necessary to make a typological connection, and there are cases where assuming a chronological connection will be misleading.  For example, Yeshua is called a "peace" offering in Ephesians 2:14.  Does this then mean that he must have died on Shavuot when a peace offering is commanded (cf. Lev. 23:19).   The fact is that a typological connection with Yeshua's offering may be seen in all of the offerings in the Torah, yet most of these connections are made without presuming that they determine a chronological grid for Messiah's first coming.  Where possible, therefore, it is interesting that some typology is matched with chronology by the Almighty, but we should never presume to assume a match, without other proving evidence, and then try to construct an unsupported chronology out of it.  Paul's statement that Yeshua is the "first fruits" would be just as true, with or without the interesting chronological connection mentioned above.   After all the "blood of Yeshua, His Son, cleanses us from all sins" (1John 1:7).  Does this then mean that the life from Yeshua must cleanse us from all sins on Yom Kippur? (cf. Lev. 16:30).

This is in fact exactly what the Church does in defense of its errant chronology.  After their mistranslations and errant chronology of Passion week are pointed out, in desperation they resort to the use of typology to try to "prove" it correct after the rest of the chronology is shown to be without foundation.  They argue that a Sunday resurrection is compelling because Sunday is the day after the Sabbath, and they assume Sunday is the day of the wave sheaf.  They then consider the necessity of a chronological match with the wave sheaf and Sunday as "proof" on the basis of Paul's statement.  This is nothing but massive circular reasoning based on human traditions.  The fact is, there is no necessity of a match between the "wave sheaf" chronology, and the exact time of the resurrection.  Symbolic connections do not have to be chronological connections.   Any scientifically and hermeneutically sound approach would discount any such assumption as a valid dictum.

The chronology given above is based on the outcome of definite chronological statements of scripture, and not typology.  One may wonder why I beat this point to death.  The reason is that when a false idea gets into the heart, and is supported by tradition, then it becomes emotionally entrenched in the heart, and is very difficult to remove, even when the facts show it must be.   It takes a mountain of evidence to undo it with the redemptive help of Yeshua through the Holy Spirit, which is going to be presented in this translation and commentary.   However, one must remember that proof before one's eyes does not guarantee commitment to Yeshua.   It's like the story of the atheists who went up Mt. Ararat and saw the ark.  They did not believe.  They just flew into a rage.

20:23a αφιημι. BDAG, "let, let go, allow, tolerate"; Yeshua gave this authority to his emissaries (apostles) who take the good news to the nations.  It is my opinion that this authority was given to the prophets before them.  For example consider Elijah's blessing on Namaan the Syrian who asked for permission to help the Assyrian King kneel before his idol.  Knowing Namaan's circumstances, Elijah did not forbid it.  Such authority is also likely meant for missionaries after the twelve emissaries of Yeshua, particularly in the case where the good news reaches new tribes where the people have a backward culture and cannot be expected to keep all the biblical commands, or where the good news reaches a place of severe persecution just to affirm the name of Yeshua.

The permitting of uncircumcision to the nations, while exiled from Israel is a case of permitting or tolerating, and the forbidding of eating an idol sacrifice is a case of forbidding.   As implied however, what is permitted is still a sin, but recognized as a sin of circumstance that is not easily changed.  The line is drawn by the missionary with the help of the Spirit in new situations.  What is forbidden is forbidden.

The Roman Catholic Church  has reinterpreted the meaning of Yeshua's words to mean that their priests are the sole mediators of divine forgiveness which must be obtained through the confessional.  The Church takes this text for their own priests to absolve all sins.   However, Yeshua was not talking about all sins.  He was talking about sins of ignorance or sins of circumstance.  And he is not saying the emissaries could forgive the guilt.  He is only saying that such sin would not be held against those for whom it is tolerated in respect to ultimate salvation.   So the emissaries forgave no sin at all in the sense that the Catholic's claim sin was forgiven.   Only the Almighty forgives in view of the proper atoning offering which is now the historical sacrifice of Yeshua on the cross, and not the sacrifice of a graven image, called the host, in the ceremony of the mass.  Participation in this was forbidden by the emissaries in Acts 15, because a physical object is being called God, and is being treated and adored as such.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, par. 1378, “1378 Worship of the Eucharist.  In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during the Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.””  As such, the Catholic Church practices Baalism and the sin of Balaam, a sin so serious, that it spiritually blinds those who practice it, and makes them deaf to the Word of the Almighty.