Shalom! My name is Adam Pastor

Welcome to ADONI MESSIAH which means
"My Lord Messiah" -
a fitting epithet to who Jesus (or Yeshua) is!

Here, I attempt to present the Apostolic Truths according to the Scriptures, that there is
One GOD, the Father, namely, YAHWEH,
and One Lord, GOD's only begotten Son,
Yeshua the Messiah.

And that one day YAHWEH will send His Son back to Earth to inaugurate the Everlasting Kingdom of GOD



Enjoy!


Monday, May 01, 2023

The Christian Hope: Life in the Land of the Promise Made to Abraham by Anthony Buzzard

In one of the most solemn declarations of all time the Almighty God promised to give to Abraham an entire country. On a mountain top somewhere between Bethel and Ai, in the land of Canaan, God commanded "the Father of the faithful" (Rom. 4:16) to "look from the place where you are, northward, southward, eastward and westward: For the entire land you are looking at I will give to you and to your descendants for ever" (Gen. 13:14, 15). As an additional assurance of God's gift to him, God then instructed Abraham to "arise, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I will give it to you" (v. 17).

Abraham's conception of the ultimate reward of faith was firmly linked to the earth. As he looked northward Abraham would have seen the hills of Judea marking the border with Samaria. Towards the south the view extended to Hebron where later the Patriarchs were to be buried in the only piece of the land ever owned by Abraham. To the east lay the mountains of Moab and to the west the Mediterranean sea.

The divine oath guaranteed to Abraham perpetual ownership of a large portion of the earth. Later the promise was repeated and made the basis of a solemn covenant. "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you in their generations as an everlasting covenant...and I will give to you and your descendants after you, the land in which you now reside as a foreigner-all the land of Canaan-as an everlasting possession" (Gen. 17:7, 8).

God's Promise

It would not seem possible that the terms of God's promise could be misunderstood. And yet, by a miracle of misinterpretation, "theology" has handled these innocent passages in a way which deprives Abraham of his inheritance and makes God a liar. Traditional Christian theology has almost no interest in the land promised to Abraham, as can be seen by inspecting the indexes of standard systematic theologies, Bible dictionaries and commentaries. And yet, as Gerhard von Rad says, in the first six books of the Bible "there is probably no more important idea than that expressed in terms of the land promised and later granted by Yahweh." [1] The promise is unique. "Among all the traditions of the world this is the only one that tells of a promise of land to a people." [2]

Because the land is promised on oath Davies suggests that it might more properly be called "The sworn Land." [3] So compelling was the promise of land to Abraham that it became "a living power in the life of Israel." [4] "The promise to Abraham becomes a ground for ultimate hope.... There is a gospel for Israel in the Abrahamic covenant." [5] (Cp. Paul's statement that "the [Christian] gospel was preached in advance to Abraham," Gal. 3:8) W.D. Davies points out that large sections of the law make "the divine promise to Abraham the bedrock on which all the subsequent history rests." [6] Von Rad maintains that "the whole of the Hexateuch [Genesis to Joshua] in all its vast complexity was governed by the theme of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in the settlement in Canaan." [7] We might add that the Abrahamic covenant permeates the whole of Scripture.

The land promised

That the patriarchs expected to inherit a portion of this planet is obvious not only from the divine promises made to them but also from their zeal to be buried in the land of Israel (Gen. 50:5). The land promise to Abraham and his offspring runs like a golden thread throughout the book of Genesis. The key words in the following passages are "land" "give," "possess," "heir," "covenant." (It is interesting to note the frequency of the word "land" in Bible indexes (concordances) and then to see how the same word is absent from the indexes of books claiming to explain the Bible.)

The Promise to Abraham

"Go to the land I will show you (Gen. 12:1).

All the land which you see I will give to you and your offspring forever (Gen. 13:17).

A son coming from your own body will be your heir (Gen. 15:4).

I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees to give you this land to take possession of it (Gen. 15:7).

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, to your descendants I give this land (Gen. 15:18).

I will make nations of you and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you and I will be their God (Gen. 17:6-8).

Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him... (Gen. 18:18, 19).

Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies (Gen. 22:17).

God promised me on oath, saying, 'to your offspring I will give this land' (Gen. 24:7).

[Abraham] is a prophet" (Gen.20:7).

Isaac

"I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.... My covenant I will establish with Isaac (Gen. 17:19,21).

Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned (Gen. 21:12).

To you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath which I swore to your father Abraham (Gen. 26:3).

Jacob

"May God give you and your descendants the blessing given to Abraham, so that you may take possession of the land where you now live as an alien, the land God gave to Abraham (Gen. 28:4).

I will give you the land on which you are lying....I will bring you back to this land (Gen. 28:13, 15). ...the land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you" (Gen. 35:12).

The Twelve Tribes

"God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land He promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (Gen. 50:24).

The promise to the nation of Israel received a primary fulfillment under Joshua's leadership (Josh. 21:45). Long after the death of the patriarchs, both the Law and the writings of the prophets of Israel express the conviction that Israel's settlement of the land under Joshua was only an incomplete fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham. It was clear that the patriarchs had never gained possession of the land. A further and final fulfillment was to be expected. The point is a simple one with momentous implications for New Testament Christians who become heirs to the Abrahamic covenant. Von Rad points out that

"Promises which have been fulfilled in history are not thereby exhausted of their content, but remain as promises on a different level...." [8]

"The tradition, however changed, continued to contain the hope of life in the land. Deuteronomy makes it clear that there is still a future to look forward to: the land has to achieve rest and peace.... The land looks forward to a future blessing." [9]

An ultimate and permanent settlement in the land

Thus in the Old Testament the hope of an ultimate and permanent settlement in the land, accompanied by peace, remains in view:

"My people shall live in peaceful dwelling places, in secure homes, in undisturbed places of rest" (Isa. 32:18).

"...descendants from Jacob and Judah...will possess My mountains [i.e., the land]; My chosen people will inherit them and there will My servants live" (Isa. 65:9).

"Then all your people will be righteous and they will inherit the land forever" (Isa. 60:21).

"[Israel] will possess a double portion in their land; everlasting joy will be theirs" (Isa. 61:7).

"Thus they shall inherit the land a second time, and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads" (Isa. 61:7, LXX).

"But the man who makes Me his refuge will inherit the land and possess My holy mountain" (Isa. 57:13).

"The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked will not inherit the land" (Prov. 10:30).

The meek will inherit the land

"Dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.... The meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace.... The inheritance of the blameless will endure forever.... Those the Lord blesses will inherit the land.... Turn from evil and do good, then you will dwell in the land forever.... The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.... God will exalt you to inherit the land; when the wicked are cut off you will see it....
[Note carefully that the righteous should not expect to inherit the land before the wicked are cut off. There is a caution for dominion and reconstructionist theologies here!]
There is a future for the man of peace" (Ps. 37:3, 11, 18, 22, 27, 29, 34, 37).

"The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess" (Jer. 30:3).

The promised land

The integrity of God's word is at stake in this question of the future of the promised land. It was obvious to all that Abraham had never received the fulfillment of the covenant promise that he would possess the land. Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land and Israel was eventually expelled from her homeland. Based on the Abrahamic covenant, however, the faithful in Israel clung with passionate tenacity to the expectation that the land of Israel would indeed become the scene of ultimate salvation. That hope remained as the beacon light not only of the prophets but also of the original Christian faith as preached by Jesus and the Apostles -until it was extinguished by the intrusion of a non-territorial hope-"heaven when you die."

A non-biblical view of the future, divorced from the land and the earth, was promoted by Gentiles unsympathetic to the heritage of Israel, for whom the promise of the land to Abraham was the foundation of the nations deepest aspirations. In direct contradiction of Jesus, Gentilized Christianity has substituted "heaven at death" for the biblical promise of life in the Land. The message of Jesus' famous beatitude, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the land" (Mat. 5:5) can no longer be heard above the din of endless funeral sermons announcing that the dead have gone to heaven! Gentile antipathy to the covenant made with Abraham has rendered large parts of the Old Testament meaningless to churchgoers.

Worse still, it has put the New Testament under a fog of confusion, since the New relies for its basic understanding of the Christian faith on the promises of God given to Israel through Abraham. All the major doctrines of the faith are adversely affected when the Abrahamic Covenant is disregarded or misinterpreted.

The suppression of the biblical hope

The "murder of the [Old Testament biblical] text" [10] by critical scholarship was later equally responsible for the suppression of the biblical hope of "life in the land" based on the promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, promises which according to Paul, Jesus came to "confirm" or "guarantee" (Rom. 15:7). [11] Fragmenting the Old Testament text in the interests of a theory of composition, scholarship lost sight of what James Dunn calls the Pauline presupposition about the authority of Scripture, "that a single mind and purpose (God's) inspired the several writings [the Scriptures]." [12] After nearly two thousand years of uncomprehending Gentile commentary, the promise to Abraham of progeny, blessing and land must be reinstated as the coherent and unifying theme of New Testament faith in God and Christ and the essential core of the Christian Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

The Gospel rests on the promise to Abraham that in Christ all the faithful will possess the land forever (Mat. 5:5, Rev. 5:10). Not only will they possess the land but that "future inhabited earth" will be under the authority of the Messiah and the saints (Heb. 2:5). This concept is what the writer to the Hebrews calls the "greatness" or "importance" of salvation which we ought not to neglect:

"How shall we escape if we disregard so great a salvation.... For God did not put the coming society on earth under the authority of angels but the Son of Man" (Heb. 2:5ff.)

An apparent contradiction

The results of the inexorable process of dismantling the divine Revelation to Abraham can be seen in the comments of the Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 13:14, 15. The problem for the commentator (who sees no relevance in the land promises for Christians) is to reconcile God's declaration, "I will give the land to you [Abraham]" with the assertion made by Stephen some two thousand years later that God "did not give Abraham any inheritance [in the land of Palestine] - not even a square foot of land, but he promised to give it to him as a possession [kataschesis; cp. LXX Gen. 17:8, 'everlasting possession'] and to his descendants with him."

How is the apparent contradiction to be resolved? The Pulpit Commentary offers two solutions. Firstly a retranslation so that the promise of Gen. 13:15 reads: "To you I will give the land, that is to say, to your descendants." In this way the failure of Abraham to receive the land personally will be explained: God promised it only to his descendants and they received it under Joshua. But this is no solution at all.

Throughout God's dealings with Abraham the promise of land to the Patriarch himself is repeatedly made. Gen. 13:17 reads: "Walk through the length and breadth of the land; to you I will give it." Abraham would have every right to complain, if this were to mean that he personally should not expect to inherit the promised land!

Another attempted solution

The commentary offers a second way round the difficulty. It maintains that the land did in fact belong to Abraham during his lifetime. "The land was really given to Abram as a nomadic chief, in the sense that he peacefully lived for many years, grew old, and died within its borders." [13] However, this is to contradict the emphatic biblical assertions that Abraham definitely did not possess the land. Gen. 17:8 specifically reports that God said to Abraham:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you in their generations to be a God to you and your seed after you. And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land in which you are a stranger-all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession" (Gen. 17: 7, 8).

The biblical premises

These, then, are the biblical premises: Abraham is to possess the land forever. He lived out his life as a stranger owning none of the land (except for a small piece of property bought from the Hittites as a burial site for Sarah, Gen. 23:3-20). Abraham himself confessed to the Hittite inhabitants of Canaan: "I am an alien and a stranger among you" (Gen. 23:4). As the New Testament witnesses: "God gave Abraham no inheritance here [in Palestine], not even a foot of ground. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land" (Acts 7:5, NIV).

How then is the covenant grant of land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be fulfilled? The answer to the problem throws a flood of light on the Christianity of the New Testament. There is only one way in which the Covenant can be realized-
by the future resurrection of Abraham, enabling him to inherit the promised land for ever. To Abraham and his descendants the land belongs for ever by covenant-oath. Abraham died. Abraham must therefore rise from the dead to receive the "land of the promise," which is Canaan, the land to which he ventured forth from Babylon and in which he lived as a foreigner.

The promise to Abraham will be fulfilled, as Jesus said, when:

"...many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God" (Mat. 8:11 and Luke 13:28, 29).

The necessity for resurrection

The absolute necessity for resurrection in the divine plan was the point of Jesus' important interchange with the Sadducees, who did not believe in any resurrection and thus denied the covenant hope of life in the land for the Patriarchs and all the faithful. Jesus' response to their inadequate understanding of eschatology and consequent failure to believe in the future resurrection of the faithful to inherit the land involved a stern rebuke that they had departed from God's revelation:

"You are in error because you do not know the Scripture or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to you: 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Mat. 22:29-32).

The logic of Jesus' argument was simply that, since Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were then dead, they must live again through resurrection in the future so that their relationship with the living God could be restored and they could receive what the covenant had guaranteed them.

Hebrews and the land

The Book of Hebrews expounds the drama of Abraham's faith in the great promises of God making a future resurrection the only solution to the mystery of Abraham's failure as yet ever to own the land.

"By faith Abraham when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance..." (Heb. 8:11).

So the story begins. Abraham's inheritance, we observe, is to be the "place to which he was called," i.e., the land of Canaan. This is exactly what the Genesis account describes. That very land Abraham was destined to receive "later," but how much later we are not yet told. The writer continues: "By faith Abraham made his home in the land of the promise like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents as did Isaac and Jacob who were heirs with him of the same promise" (Heb. 11:8, 9). Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and other heroes of faith "died in faith not having received the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance and admitted that they were aliens and strangers in the land (v. 13).

Note that the wrong idea is suggested by our versions when they translate "in the land" as "on the earth," giving the impression that the Patriarchs were expecting to go to heaven! However, the point is that people who say they are aliens in the land "show that they are looking for a country of their own" (Heb. 11:13, 14), i.e., the same land renewed under the promised government of the Messiah.

G. W. Buchanan

The important truth about the land promise has been rescued by George Wesley Buchanan:

"This promise-rest-inheritance was inextricably tied to the land of Canaan, which is the place where the Patriarchs wandered as sojourners (11:13). It was called the land of the promise (11:9) and the heavenly country (11:16).... This does not mean that it is not on earth any more than the sharers in the heavenly calling (3:1) who had tasted the heavenly gift (6:4) were not those who lived on earth. Indeed, it was the very land on which the patriarchs dwelt as 'strangers and wanderers' (11:13). ['Heavenly'] means that it is a divine land which God himself has promised." [14]

"Heaven" will be on earth

It is important to note the evasion by popular Christianity of the implications of Heb. 11:8, 9. In order to preserve the tradition that heaven is the reward of the faithful, it is argued that the geographical land of Canaan is a type of "heaven" to be gained at death. However, this New Testament passage specifically says that Abraham actually lived in the place designated as his future inheritance. "He made his home in the promised land" (Heb. 11:9, NIV) and this was on the earth! "Heaven," therefore, in the Bible is to be a place on this planet-our own earth renewed and restored. [15] The promised land in this New Testament comment on the Old is still the geographical Canaan and it is precisely that territory which Abraham died without receiving.

Resurrection in the future is the only path by which the Patriarch can achieve his goal and possess the land which he has never owned. Indeed, as Hebrews emphasizes, none of the distinguished faithful "received what had been promised"-the inheritance of the promised land (Heb. 11:13, 39). They died in faith fully expecting later to receive their promised possession of the land. This is a very far cry from the idea, which so many have accepted under the pressure of post-biblical tradition, that the Patriarchs have already gone to their reward in heaven. Such a theory invites the rebuke of Paul who complained that some had "wandered away from the truth" by saying that "the resurrection has taken place already" (II Tim. 2:18). The loss of faith in the future resurrection destroys the fabric of biblical faith.

Paul and Abraham

Paul treats the story of Abraham as the model of Christian faith with no hint that Abraham's inheritance is different from that of every Christian believer. In fact, the very opposite is true: Abraham is "the father of all who believe" (Rom. 4:11) Abraham demonstrated Christian faith by believing in God's plan to grant him land, progeny and blessing for ever. Abraham's faith was demonstrated in his willingness to respond to the divine initiative; to believe God's declaration of His plan to give Abraham and his descendants the land for ever. This is the essence of biblical faith. Justification means believing like Abraham in what God has promised to do (Rom. 4:3, 13). This entails more than the death and resurrection of Jesus. Apostolic faith requires belief in the ongoing divine plan in history, including the divinely revealed future.

Grasping what God is doing in world history enables a man to attune his life to God in Christ. A Christian according to Paul is one who "follows in the footsteps of the faith of our father Abraham" (Rom. 3:12). Abraham's faith "was characterized by (or based on) a hope which was determined solely by the promise of God.... Abraham's faith was firm confidence in God as the one who determines the future according to what he has promised." [16] So Jesus summons us to faith, first of all, in the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14, 15; cp. Acts 8:12) which is to be nothing less than the final fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and his (spiritual) offspring. Paul defines the promise. It was that Abraham should be "heir of the world" (Rom. 4:13).

James Dunn

As James Dunn says:

"The idea of 'inheritance' was a fundamental part of Jewish understanding of their covenant relationship with God, above all, indeed almost exclusively, in connection with the land-the land of Canaan theirs by right of inheritance as promised to Abraham.... [This is] one of the most emotive themes in Jewish national self-identity.... Central to Jewish self-understanding was the conviction that Israel was the Lord's inheritance.... Integral to the national faith was the conviction that God had given Israel the inheritance of Palestine, the promised land. It is this axiom, which Paul evokes and refers to the new Christian movement as a whole, Gentiles as well as Jews. They are the heirs of God. Israel's special relationship with God has been extended to all in Christ. And the promise of the land has been transformed into the promise of the Kingdom.... That inheritance of the Kingdom, full citizenship under the rule of God alone, is something still awaited by believers. [17]

Paul links the Christian faith directly to the promise made to Abraham. As Dunn says:

"The degree to which Paul's argument is determined by the current self-understanding of his own people is clearly indicated by his careful wording which picks up four key elements in that self-understanding: the covenant promise to Abraham and his seed, the inheritance of the land as its central element.... It had become almost a commonplace of Jewish teaching that the covenant promised that Abraham's seed would inherit the earth.... The promise thus interpreted was fundamental to Israel's self-consciousness as God's covenant people: It was the reason why God had chosen them in the first place from among all the nations of the earth, the justification for holding themselves distinct from other nations, and the comforting hope that made their current national humiliation endurable...." [18]

Dunn goes on to link the Abrahamic covenant with the New Testament:

"Paul's case...reveals the strong continuity he saw between his faith and the fundamental promise of his people's Scriptures.... Paul had no doubt that the Gospel he proclaimed was a continuation and fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham. But he was equally clear that the heirs of Abraham's promise were no longer to be identified in terms of the law. For Gen. 15:6 showed with sufficient clarity that the promise was given and accepted through faith, quite apart from the law in whole or in part." [19]

The content of the promise

The point to be grasped is that Paul does not question the content of the promise. How could he without overthrowing the whole revelation given by the Bible? The territorial promise was clearly and repeatedly spelled out in the Genesis account and was his people's most cherished national treasure: To faithful Israel, represented first by Abraham, God had given assurance that they would inherit the land. Paul introduces a revolutionary new fact- that this grand promise is open to all who believe in the Messiah as the seed of Abraham. For it was to Messiah, as Abraham's seed, that the promises were made, as well as to Abraham himself. But Gentile Christians, if they believe the promise in Christ, may claim full share in the same promised inheritance.

Paul reaches a triumphant moment in his argument when he declares that to his Gentile readers that "if you are a Christian then you count as Abraham's descendants and are heirs [of the world, Rom. 4:13] according to the promise [made to Abraham]" (Gal. 3:29).

The faith of Abraham

The promises, however, are certain only, as Paul says, to "those who are of the faith of Abraham" (Rom. 4:16), i.e., those whose faith is of the same type as his, resting on the same promises. Hence Paul speaks of the need for Christians to be "sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7), "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29, Rom. 4:16), and to reckon Abraham as their father (Rom. 4:11), to walk in his steps (Rom. 4:12) and consider him the model of Christian faith (Gal. 3:9), because the Gospel had been preached to him in advance (Gal. 3:8).

But how much do we now hear about the Christian Gospel as defined by the promises made to Abraham? The "blessing given to Abraham" (Gal. 3:14) which is now available to both Jews and Gentiles in Christ is described by Gen. 28:4.

It is to "take possession of the land, where you now live as an alien, the land God gave to Abraham." Speaking to Gentile Christians, Paul states that "the blessing given to Abraham" (exactly the phrase found in Gen. 28:4) has now come to the believers in Christ (Gal. 3:14).

God’s salvation plan

It is essential that we do not add alien material to Paul's exposition of God's salvation plan. The promise to Abraham and to his offspring is that he and they are to be "heir of the world" (Rom. 4:13). Paul has not abandoned the account in Genesis from which he quotes explicitly (Rom. 4:3, Gal. 3:6 from Gen. 15:9). Since the promised land of Canaan would be the center of the Messianic government it was obvious that inheritance of the land implied inheritance of the world. But the promise remains geographical and territorial corresponding exactly with Jesus' promise to the meek that they would "inherit the land/earth" (Mat. 5:5), His belief that Jerusalem would be the city of the Great King (Mat. 5:35), and that believers would administer a New World Order with Him
(Mat. 19:28; Luke 22:28-30; Rev. 2:26, 3:21, 5:10, 20:1-6).

The Christian Gospel

In short the promise of the land, which is fundamental to the Christian Gospel, is now the promise of the Kingdom of God-the renewed "inhabited earth of the future" (Heb. 2:5), which is not be subject to angels but to the Messiah and the saints, the "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) who are heirs of the covenant. Such a hope corresponds exactly with the hope of the Hebrew prophets. J. Skinner [20] observes that "the main point [of Jeremiah's hope for the future] is that in some sense a restoration of the Israelite nationality was the form in which he conceived the Kingdom of God." Paul in Romans 11:25, 26 expected a collective conversion of the nation of Israel at the Second Coming. The Church, however, in Paul's thinking, would be leaders in the Messianic Kingdom (I Cor. 6:2, II Tim. 2:12).

In this way the Abrahamic Covenant guarantees a part in the Messianic Kingdom for all who now believe the Gospel and it assures us that there will be a collective return to the Messiah on the part of a remnant of the nation of Israel (Rom. 11:25-27). This hope is seen clearly in Acts 1:6, where the Apostles (who had not had the benefit of a Calvinist training!) asked when the promised restoration of Israel might be expected. Since they were hoping to be kings in the Kingdom, and the holy spirit (v.5) was the special endowment of kings, they naturally expected an immediate advent of the Kingdom. In His mercy God has extended the period of repentance.

Worldwide Inheritance

It was common to Jewish thinking and Paul, as well as to the whole New Testament that the whole world was involved in the promise made to Abraham that he would inherit "the land of the promise." This is seen from biblical and extra-biblical texts:

Psalm 2:6 "I have installed my King on Zion.... Ask of Me [God] and I will make the nations your [Messiah's] inheritance and the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule then with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery"
(See Rev. 12:5 and 2:26, 27-the latter passage includes the Christians in the same promise).

Jubilees 22:14: "May [God] strengthen you, and may you inherit all the earth."

Jubilees 32:19: "And there will be kings from you [Jacob]. They will rule everywhere that the tracks of mankind have been trod. And I will give your seed all the land under heaven and they will rule in all nations as they have desired."

I Enoch 5:7: "But to the elect there shall be light, joy, and peace, and they shall inherit the earth."

4 Ezra 6:59: "If the world has indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance. How long will this be so?"

II Baruch 14:12, 13: "The righteous...are confident of the world which you have promised to them with an expectation full of joy."

II Baruch 51:3: "[The righteous] will receive the world which is promised to them."

Heir of the world

Paul's definition of the promise to Abraham that he "would be heir to the world" (Rom. 4:13) fits naturally into texts such as these and is implied by the covenant made with Abraham. Henry Alford comments on the connection between Paul's view of the future and Jewish hopes:

"The Rabbis already had seen, and Paul who had been brought up in their learning, held fast to the truth,- that much more was intended in the words 'in thee, or in they seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed,' than the mere possession of Canaan. They distinctly trace the gift of the world to this promise. The inheritance of the world...is that ultimate lordship over the whole world which Abraham, as the father of the faithful in all peoples, and Christ, as the Seed of promise, shall possess...." [21]

H.A.W. Meyer notes that to be "seed of Abraham" meant that one was destined to have "dominion over the world," based on Gen. 22:17ff: "Your descendants shall gain possession of the gates [i.e., towns] of their enemies." [22] With this promise in mind, Jesus envisages the faithful assuming authority over urban populations (Luke 19:17, 19).

The International Critical Commentary on Rom. 4:13 [23] speaks of the promise that Abraham's seed [in Christ] should "enjoy worldwide dominion," "the right to universal dominion which will belong to the Messiah and His people," and "the promise made to Abraham and his descendants of worldwide Messianic rule."

The fervor of Israel for the land

Something of the fervor of Israel for the land may be seen in the 14th and 18th Benedictions repeated in the Synagogue since AD 70:

"Be merciful, O Lord our God, in Thy great mercy towards Israel Thy people and towards Jerusalem, and towards Zion the abiding place of Thy glory, and towards Thy temple and Thy habitation, and towards the kingdom of the house of David, thy righteous anointed one. Blessed art Thou, O lord God of David, the builder of Jerusalem Thy city." "Bestow Thy peace upon Israel Thy people and upon Thy city and upon Thine inheritance, and bless us, all of us together. Blessed art Thou, O lord, who makest peace."

The land in the New Testament

Even where the land is not mentioned directly, the land is implied in the city and the Temple which became the quintessence of the hope for salvation. [24]
Exactly the same hope is reflected in the New Testament:

"The Lord God will give [Jesus] the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; His Kingdom will never end" (Luke 1:32)

"[God] has helped His servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as He said to our fathers" (Luke 1:55).

"[God] has raised up a horn [political dominion] in the house of his servant David...to show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath He swore to our father Abraham" (Luke 1:69, 72, 73).

"[Simeon] was waiting for the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:25).

"[Anna] gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem" (Luke 2:38).

"Blessed is the coming Kingdom of our father David" (Mark 11:10).

"Joseph of Arimathea [a disciple of Jesus i.e., a Christian, Mat. 27:57], a prominent member of the Council..., was himself waiting for the Kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43).

"We [disciples of Jesus, i.e. Christians] had hoped that [Jesus] was the one who was going to redeem Israel" (Luke 24:21).

The Apostles asked: "Is this the time that you are going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6.)

"It is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night" (Acts 26:6,7).

The great covenant

The Bible does not for a moment abandon or replace these hopes based on the great covenant made with Abraham. The disciples closest to Jesus, who were the products of His careful tuition over several years and for six weeks after the resurrection (Acts 1:3), obviously look forward the "restoration of the Kingdom to Israel" (Acts 1:6). It had not entered their heads to abandon the territorial hopes of the prophets. Paul insists that he is on trial "because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers. This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night" (Acts 26:6). The nature of this hope is expressed in a Rabbinical saying of the third century reflecting the ancient expectation of life in the land held in common with the New Testament:

"Why did the patriarchs long for burial in the land of Israel? Because the dead of the land of Israel will be the first to be resurrected in the days of Messiah and to enjoy the years of Messiah" (Gen. Rabbah, 96:5)

The apostolic Christian hope

Paul's statement in Acts 26:6,7 (above) expressly defines the Apostolic Christian hope as the same as the hope held by the ancient synagogue -- the prospect of worldwide dominion for the faithful in the Messiah's kingdom. New Testament Christianity confirms this interest in the unfulfilled promises to the patriarchs with its expectation of a restoration of the Kingdom to Israel. Jesus promises the land to the meek (Mat. 5:5) and locates the Kingdom of the future "on the earth" or perhaps "in the land" (Rev. 5:10). It makes little difference whether we render "epi tes gys" "in the land" or "on the earth," because the Kingdom is destined to extend to the "uttermost parts of the earth" (Ps. 2:8).

The promise to Abraham is to be fulfilled in the Messiah when the latter is invited to "Ask of me [God] and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession" (Ps. 2:7, 8). All these blessings are contained in Paul's phrase "inheritance of the world" (Rom. 4:13) which he sees as the essence of the promise made to Abraham-the promise to which Gentile believers should cling since in Christ they are equally entitled to it:

"If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29).

"Heaven"

References in the New Testament to "heaven" are limited to contexts in which the future reward of believers is said to be preserved now as treasure with God in heaven. "Heaven" as a place removed from the earth is, however, never the destination of the believer in the Bible-neither at death nor at the resurrection. Christians must now identify with their reward, at present stored up in heaven for them, so that they may receive it when Jesus brings it to the earth at His Second Coming (Col. 1:5, I Pet. 1;4, 5). That reward was made known to the converts when the Christian Gospel of the Kingdom of God was preached to them (Mat. 1:14, 15; Luke 4:43; Acts 8:12, 19:8, 20:25, 28:23,31).

Belief in the Gospel in Apostolic times was not confined to belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but included the whole invitation to prepare for a place in Messiah's worldwide dominion to be realized on earth. The situation is very different today when little or nothing is preached about inheriting the earth with Jesus. There is an urgent need for believers to heed Paul's warning not to be "moved away from the hope held out in the Gospel" (Col. 1:23). The loss of the Kingdom in the Gospel is symptomatic of the loss the roots of Christianity in the Old Testament.

Faith in God's World Plan

Nonsense is made of the New Testament scheme, and God's plan in world history, when it is proposed that the Christian destiny is to be enjoyed in a location removed from the earth. This destroys at a blow the promises made to Abraham and his descendants (i.e., Christ and the faithful) that that they are to inherit the land and the world. The substitution of "heaven" at death for the reward of inheriting the earth nullifies the covenant made with Abraham. That covenant is the foundation of New Testament faith.

The repeated offer of "heaven" in popular preaching renders meaningless the whole hope of the prophets (based on the Abrahamic promise) that the world is going to enjoy an unparalleled era of blessing and peace under the just rule of the Messiah and the resurrected faithful-those who believe in "the Kingdom of God and the name [i.e., the Messiahship and all that this entails] of Jesus," and who are baptized in response to that early creed in Acts 8:12:

"When they believed Philip as he proclaimed the Gospel about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized both men and women."

A model for evangelism

This text remains a model for evangelism and calls the contemporary church back to its roots in the Covenant made with "the father of the faithful" which can be fulfilled only in Messiah Jesus. For the fulfillment of that plan we are to pray, "Thy Kingdom come," and strive to conduct ourselves "worthy of God who is calling us into His Kingdom and glory" (I Thess. 2:12).

The truth about our Christian destiny will be reinstated when we return to the biblical language about "entering the Kingdom," "inheriting the earth" (Mat. 5:5), and ruling on earth (Rev. 5:10) and abandon our cherished hopes for "heaven."

The way will then be open for us to understand that Christianity is a call to Kingship and that a Saint is one appointed to rule on the earth in the coming Kingdom of the Messiah (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27).
Henry Alford’s comment is a much needed corrective, calling us back to belief in the hope contained in the Abrahamic covenant:

"Testimonies of Scripture, the general tenor of prophecy and the analogies of the divine dealings-all of these point unmistakably to this earth, purified and renewed, and not to the heavens, in any ordinary sense of the term, as the eternal habitation of the blessed." [25]

Alford’s keen insight echoes the unity of the Bible’s hope for the future:

"May God give you the blessing of Abraham my father, to you and to your seed with you-the inheritance of the land in which you now reside as a foreigner, the land which God gave to Abraham" (Jacob, Gen. 28:4).

"The blessing of Abraham [will come] to the Gentiles in Christ." (Paul, Gal. 3:14) [26]

Footnotes:

[1] The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966, p. 79, cited in W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land, U of C Press, 1974, p. 15. Back to text.

[2] M. Buber, Israel and Palestine, London, 1952, p. 19. Back to text.

[3] The Gospel and the Land, p. 15. Back to text.

[4] Ibid., p. 18. Back to text.

[5] Ibid., p. 21. Back to text.

[6] Ibid. Back to text.

[7] Ibid., p. 23. Back to text.

[8] The Problem of the Hexateuch, pp. 92ff. Back to text.

[9] The Gospel and the Land, p. 36. Back to text.

[10] Ibid., p. 48. Back to text.

[11] "Jesus Christ was a minister to the Jews on behalf of God's truth [the Gospel] to confirm the promises made to the Patriarchs, so that the Gentiles may glorify God for His mercy." Back to text.

[12] Commentary on Romans, Word Books, 1988, p. 202. Back to text.

[13] Pulpit Commentary, Eerdmans, 1950, Vol. I, p. 200. Back to text.

[14] Anchor Bible, Commentary to the Hebrews, Doubleday and Co. 1972, pp. 192, 194. Back to text.

[15] Cp. J.A.T. Robinson's observation that "'heaven' is never in fact used in the Bible for the destination of the dying.... The reading of I Cor. 15 at funerals reinforces the impression that this chapter is about the moment of death: in fact it revolves around two points, 'the third day' and 'the last day'" (In the End God, Collins, 1968, pp. 104, 105). Back to text.

[16] Dunn, p. 219. Back to text.

[17] Ibid., pp. 213, 463. Back to text.

[18] Ibid., p. 233, emphasis added. Back to text.

[19] Ibid., p. 234. emphasis added. Back to text.

[20] Prophecy and Religion, Cambridge, 1922, p. 308. Back to text.

[21] Commentary on the Greek Testament, Vol. II, p. 350. Back to text.

[22] Commentary on John, Funk and Wagnalls, 1884, p. 277. Back to text.

[23] Sanday and Headlam, Epistle to the Romans, T & T Clark, 1905, pp. 109, 111. Back to text.

[24] Davies, p. 54. Back to text.

[25] Henry Alford, Commentary on the Greek Testament, Vol. 1, pp. 35, 36. Back to text.

[26] Gen. 28:4; Gal. 3:14.

This article appeared in A Journal from the Radical Reformation, Vol. 2, No. 4.

The above article was taken from here

Is Jesus “the Lord God … the Almighty” in Revelation 1.8? By Kermit Zarley

The following is the beginning of my treatment of Rev 1.8 in my book, 
The Restitution of Jesus Christ:

Despite such strong evidence in The Revelation that Jesus Christ is not God, a bare few traditionalist expositors assert otherwise concerning Rev 1.8.[1] This passage reads as follows in the NASB: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’” These traditionalists assume that Jesus Christ is the speaker in v. 8 because He is the subject of the three previous verses.

In modern times, nearly all scholarly authorities on the book of Revelation have interpreted the speaker in Rev 1.8 as God the Father, not Jesus Christ.[2] And they usually don’t even deem it necessary to substantiate this interpretation. G.R. Beasley-Murray says of Jesus therein, “Older expositors sometimes thought that He is the speaker here also, but clearly the view is mistaken; it is spoken by the ‘Lord God’ (RV) … the Almighty,” which he regards as God the Father.[3] And Hans Georg Link states, “In Rev 1:8 God is the subject of the sentence,… while in Rev 1:17f. the Son of man speaks.”[4]

The following reasons affirm that God the Father is the speaker in Rev 1.8:

  1. There is no logical reason why the author, John the Revelator, could not have changed speakers immediately following v. 7.
  2. The same words that describe the speaker in v. 8—“who is and who was and who is to come”—also describe God the Father in both v. 4 and Rev 4.8.
  3. The expression, “Lord God, the Almighty” (Gr. kurios ho theos ho pantokrator), occurs six times in The Revelation,[5] and “God, the Almighty” (Gr. tou theou tou pantokratoros), occurs twice therein.[6] The Greek word pantokrator means “ruler over all,” and it only occurs one other time in the Greek NT, in 2 Cor 6.18 (cf. Amos 3.13). Aside from Rev 1.8, scholars concur that in all seven other instances in The Revelation, pantokrator refers only to God the Father. The best example is Rev 21.22 because it juxtapositions God and Christ and makes God ruler over all, including over Christ. It reads as follows: “the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb.”
  4. Due to slight MS variance in Rev 1.8, the TR has only kurios and therefore reads only “Lord” in the AV. But ms authority heavily favors kurios ho theos, as rendered in all modern Greek NTs, so that all modern English versions have “the Lord God.”
  5. God’s self-annunciation in v. 8 designedly follows the description of the second coming of Christ, in v. 7, because it is God the Father who will orchestrate that event.

[1] E.g., Athanasius, Orations Against the Arians, 3.4; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 40; Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1977), 11.

[2] E.g., R.H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, With Introduction, Notes and Indices, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), 1:20; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 29; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 73; G.R. Beasley-Murray, “The Revelation,” in NBC (1970), 2nd ed., 1170; idem, The Book of Revelation, 59-60; Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation, in SPS (1993), 16:47; G.B. Caird, New Testament Theology, 193; P.R. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 116; R. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 25, 50; C. Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament, 183; D.E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, 58.

[3] G.R. Beasley-Murray, “The Revelation,” 1170.

[4] Hans Georg Link, “ego eimi,” in DNTT 2:282.

[5] Rev 4.8; 11.17; 15.3; 16.7; 19.6; 21.22.

[6] Rev 16.14; 19.15.

………………..

Taken from here

Saturday, April 15, 2023

Refuting Kyle Essay's Case That Jesus is Yahweh from Restitutio

 

The following is taken from Sean Finnegan's Restitutio Podcast


This week and next week we will discuss a recent debate about Christ's identity. 

If you haven't listened it yet, you can watch it on YouTube or listen on the Biblical Unitarian podcast episode 271 in your podcast app. But, even if you haven't yet listened to this debate, we are going to play out the audio and respond, so you should be able to follow along fine.

Now this was a two on two debate between Dr. Dustin Smith and Pastor William Barlow who took the negative position "Jesus is not Yahweh" vs. Dr. Kyle Essary and Apologist Samuel Nesan who took the affirmative position that "Jesus is Yahweh." In this episode Brandon Duke of TruthBorn and I are going to perform a postmortem critique of the debate. We'll play out Dr. Essary's opening statement and respond to it. Of course Dr. Smith and Pastor Will responded to several of these points in the debate, but I thought it would be helpful to take a little more time with them. Then in our next episode we'll take on Samuel Nesan's opening statement.

Here now is episode 491 Refuting Kyle Essary's case that Jesus is Yahweh with Brandon Duke.

Episode 491

Sunday, April 09, 2023

"He has been raised!" By Bill Schlegel

There is a popular declaration among Christians the world over this time of year. Quoting the messenger at Jesus’s tomb the declaration is made, “His is risen!” And then people respond: “He is risen indeed!”. 

But that English declaration is actually incorrect, or is an incorrect translation. The angelic declaration about Jesus is not about what Jesus did, but about what someone else, namely God, did to Jesus. In Greek, the declaration is a passive.  Jesus was acted upon. He received the action of the verb in the sentence. A more correct declaration is “He has been raised!” or, “He was raised”. 
That is, someone else raised Jesus.


“He has been raised!” (Passive verb)


Matthew 28:5-7 (Mark 16:6, Luke 24:6)

5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.

6 He is not here, for he has been raised, just as he said. Come and see the place where he was lying.

7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from the dead.  (NET)

 

NET note: “The verb here is passive (ἠγέρθηeogertheo). This "divine passive" (see ExSyn 437–38) points to the fact that Jesus was raised by God.”

 

REV Matthew 28:6 translation and commentary gets the passive verb right.

 

So does the Complete Jewish Bible and Common English Bible:

 

Matthew 28:6 He is not here, because he has been raised- just as he said!

 

Unfortunately, the NET Bible failed to translate the passive verb correctly in the same chapter, Matthew 27:63. The religious leaders speaking to Pilate:  "Sir (Lord/kurios), we remember that while that deceiver was still alive he said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 

The verb again is  passive: “I will be raised” (CJB gets it right...). Compare Matthew 17:23, 20:19, “They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised" (passive).

 

Active or Middle Voice “rise”

 

There are a few places in the New Testament where an active verb, or what in Greek is called
a “middle” voice,  are used in describing the rising of Jesus from the dead. A couple examples:

 

Luke 18:33 they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise." (RSV) - verb indicative future middle

 

Luke 24:7 that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise." (RSV) - verb infinitive aorist active from ἀνίστημι

 

Some deity of Christ believers like to point to verses like these to claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead. But this is a mistake, for several reasons:


1) Insisting that Jesus raised himself from the dead creates a contradiction with the multitude of Scriptures, some which I’ll mention in just a minute that declare that God, someone else other than Jesus, specifically, the Father, raised Jesus from the dead. And, claiming that Jesus raised himself from the dead creates contradictions with the other Scriptures like the ones we just described where Jesus is said to be acted on from the outside, that he was raised from the dead (passive) by someone else. The Bible is not presenting a confusing contradiction that says that both Jesus and someone else raised Jesus from the dead. Either Jesus, or someone else, gave life again to Jesus. It can’t be both.

 

2) The confusion is partly connected to the action related to the words raise, rise, be raised. While “rising from the dead” is a good metaphor for coming out from the dead, the question is really who gives the life that enables one to rise from the dead.  We see the same active sense where other people in addition to Jesus also take an active role in “rising from the dead”, but they are obviously not the ones who gave themselves the life that enable them to rise from the dead.

 

John 11:23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise." (RSV) “come back to life again” - verb indicative future middle

 

Mark 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (RSV) - verb subjunctive aorist active

 

The minority of biblical verses that describe the role of Jesus “rising from the dead” are in the same category of other human beings who are described in the same way. God gives life, and then people can “rise” from the dead.

 

3) Another reason that it is wrong to claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead is that the overwhelming declaration of the Bible is that God, someone other than Jesus, gave life again to Jesus, or raised Jesus from the dead. There are over 30 places in the New Testament that explicitly state that God - a singular person who is differentiated from the Lord Jesus Christ - that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Here are a few examples:

 

Acts 2:22-24   "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-  23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.  24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

 

Acts 2:32 This Jesus, God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

 

Acts 3:15 you… put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead,

 

Acts 4:10 Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-

 

Acts 5:30-31 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.  31 God exalted him at his right hand.

 

Acts 10:39-40 They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear

 

Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead,

 

1 Corinthians 6:14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.

 

Galatians 1:1. “… God the Father, who raised him from the dead…”

 

Colossians 2:12  …through faith in  the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

Note that in all the passages quoted above, and in many more like it, God, a singular person, God entire, all of God, is distinguished from “Jesus”, “Christ”, or “him” - the one whom God raised up. The one whom God raised up was not God, but is distinguished from God.

 

Jesus was raised - Passive


And then, like the “Easter” greeting mentioned above, there are many more Scriptures that describe Jesus as being acted upon in a passive sense in his resurrection, meaning, that Jesus was acted upon by God, like this:

 

Romans 6:9  We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

 

1 Corinthians 15:17 (13, 14, 16, 20) And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

 

There are lots more examples. To claim or believe that Jesus raised himself from the dead contradicts all these scriptures that directly state that God raised him from the dead, and that Jesus was raised (passive) from the dead.

 

Did God die?

 

Traditional Christianity seems to be really confused as to just who died on that cross some 2000 years ago. I hear conflicting claims. Often people, even preachers, will say that “God died”, like the Charles Wesley hymn, “Amazing love! how can it be, That thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

 

Or Max Lucato, touted as a New York Times Best Selling (Christian) Author who posted recently about a book he wrote saying: “God is on a cross. The Creator of the universe is being executed. It is no normal six hours… it is no normal Friday.”

 

Folks, if your theology brings you to a place where you think God died, you better re-think your theology. Such a claim is completely non-biblical, contradictory to the Bible. The Bible says categorically that God is immortal. God does not die
(Rom. 1:23, 1 Tim 1:17 “immortal, invisible, the only God”, 1 Tim. 6:16).

 

Other Christians will say, “Well, it was only the human Jesus who died, or the humanity of Jesus who died”.  My response is that a dual-natured Jesus is made up figment of peoples’ imagination, and he is a liar. The Bible never says the God-man who died is our mediator. The Bible only says the man Christ Jesus died and is our mediator (e.g., Rom. 5:15, 1 Cor. 15:21, 1 Tim 2:4-5).  

I suggest that the so-called dual-natured, fully-god-fully-man Jesus of modern Christianity is a dual-minded liar. Ask your Jesus a question: Did you die? If your Jesus says “No (the god Jesus) and yes (the human Jesus)”, he is a liar and is not the biblical Jesus. If your Jesus hesitates and has to explain how something of him died but something else of him didn’t die, you have a lying, false Jesus.

 

The biblical Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God, the Lord Messiah declares for all to hear: “I was dead” (Rev. 1:18).

 

Dishonoring the man, the human person, Jesus of Nazareth

 

Let’s not dishonor the Lord Messiah, the man Jesus who died for us, and give credit to some imagined “god” who took on a human nature, then for a short while supposedly shed himself of that human nature, and then again supposedly put that human nature back on – a re-incarnation.

 

Instead, may we declare with grateful and confident hearts what the messengers at the tomb that new morning declared:
“He has been raised!”.  He has been raised indeed!

 

Web resources for this episode:


Two verses in John’s Gospel: Did Jesus Raise Himself from the dead?” 

 

NET Translation and Note on Matthew 27:6

https://netbible.org/bible/Matthew+28

 

Revised English Version note on Matthew 27:6
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matthew/28/6

 

The above article was taken from

Did Jesus Raise Himself from the Dead?

What Day Did Jesus Die?

Introduction


The question of what day of the week Jesus died is one that continues to inspire debate, if not controversy. I was taught, and believed for many years, that the traditional view of Jesus dying on Friday could not be reconciled with other Scriptures, particularly the prophecy that he would be in the grave three days and three nights. In recent years I have been involved in rethinking many of the old doctrines which I once held as true. For years, I believed that a Wednesday crucifixion solved all the apparent contradictions, and I thought I had it all figured out. But my problem was two-fold. First, I did not understand the Hebrew idiomatic language; and second, I hadn't read the records in context.

First of all, let me recap the reasoning that is used to conclude that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, and not the traditional Friday. (A number of groups and individuals hold to this theory, as seen by an internet search.) To begin with, it is maintained that the Bible does not mention the day of the week by name, although the day of the resurrection appearances is identified as "the first day of the week" which we know as Sunday. Second, the often quoted verse, Matthew 12:40, refers to
"three days and three nights."

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. [see NASB]

I, and others who held this view, took delight in pointing out that anyone who can count could see that you can't get three days and three nights from Good Friday afternoon to Easter Sunday morning. Even if you count part of a day as a whole day (which many who hold to the Wednesday theory consider to be illogical and unbiblical), the most you can get is three (partial) days and two nights. And besides, other verses say he would rise "the third day." All four Gospel records say that it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, and I was taught that this Sabbath was the first day of the Passover, which was a "special Sabbath," not the weekly Sabbath.

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. [see NASB]

Since the special high "Sabbath" that started Passover could be on any day of the week, and it is thought that no other Scripture demands that it be on Friday, it is concluded that the first day of Passover was on Thursday, and that he died on Wednesday afternoon. From that afternoon to Thursday afternoon was one day and one night, to Friday afternoon was two days and two nights, and to Saturday afternoon was three days and three nights. Jesus then arose on the third day (Saturday afternoon) and when the women came to the sepulchre on Sunday morning "while it was yet dark" they found that he was "already risen" (it hadn't said when he arose). Thus he was buried on Wednesday shortly before sunset, and arose on Saturday before sunset, exactly 72 hours later, and first seen some time before sunrise the next morning. It all fit and made perfect sense, I thought. However, there are a number of difficulties with this theory.

"The Third Day" vs. "Three Days and Three Nights"


The main reason for even considering that Jesus did not die on Friday as tradition has long held, has been the problem of the "three days and three nights." It should be pointed out, however, that only one verse (Matthew 12:40) mentions "three days and three nights," while thirteen others refer to him being raised on "the third day." The exact meaning of the phrase "the third day" in its Biblical usage is defined in Luke 13:32. "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."  

Counting of days began with today as the first day, and tomorrow as the second day. The day after tomorrow was the third day, even though we would say only two days have elapsed, because we don't count today as day one.

We can see this way of reckoning time in the Old Testament as well. In Exodus 19:10-11, we read, "And YAHWEH said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day: for the third day YAHWEH will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai."   

And in I Samuel 20:12, we read, "And Jonathan said unto David, O YAHWEH God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to morrow any time, or the third day, and, behold, if there be good toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and shew it thee."  

What we would call "the day after tomorrow," they referred to as "the third day."

This fits with Jesus dying on Friday and rising on "the third day" or Sunday. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are the first, second, and third days respectively, according to the way they reckoned days in that culture. If he died on Wednesday, according to this reckoning the third day would be Friday, which would contradict the theory that he rose on Saturday. (Similarly, a Thursday crucifixion would not work either, as the third day would then be Saturday.)  But the Scriptures are clear that on the first day of the week (Sunday), the apostles said that it was, "the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:21). This identifies the day of his death as Friday, according to Biblical usage.

The phrase "after three days" (used twice regarding Christ's resurrection, in Matthew 27:63 and Mark 8:31) has a similar meaning. The preposition "after" in these verses is meta in Greek, which is translated with, among, or after. Depending on its context it could mean after the days have passed as in "after two days is the Passover" (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1), or it could mean what would happen "with" the days mentioned, as in "after three days I will rise" (Matthew 27:63).  If in this context it meant after three entire days had completely passed, then it would actually refer to something that happened on the fourth day. This can't be the case, since Matthew 27:64 says that the chief priests requested a seal on the tomb "until the third day."

One other variation is the phrase "in three days."  It occurs five times in the New Testament and all refer to Jesus’ statement that although the temple of his body would be destroyed, he would raise it up "in three days."  The word for "in" is simply the Greek word en and has the same basic meaning as in English, "in three days."  In addition, in Mark 14:58, the word dia is used, and translated "within" in the KJV, but "in" in the NASB.  When used of time, it has the meaning of throughout or during.  In both cases, the period of three days is referred to, which fits with "today, tomorrow, and the third day."

As for the phrase "three days and three nights," we have had a problem reconciling this with the rest of the clear Biblical records, because in our Western thinking "three days and three nights" means a literal period of 72 hours. But it was not so in Hebrew thinking of Biblical times. 

There is abundant evidence that the expression, "three days and three nights" was simply an idiomatic phrase to refer to a period of three days which included partial days at the beginning and end. When a Hebrew in Biblical times referred to "three days and three nights," he was using a type of Jewish "shorthand." The literal meaning would be too long and awkward to say—"a part of a day, a night, a whole day, another night, and part of a third day." Thus the idiomatic shorthand phrase was used.

The Jewish Encyclopedia, under the article "Day" (Volume 4, page 475) says the following:

In Jewish communal life, part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; for example, the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day, only a few minutes remain after the birth of the child.

There are examples of this idiom in the Old Testament. In Genesis 7, the length of the flood is described as "forty days and forty nights," in verse 12, and as "forty days" in verse 17. The two phrases are equivalent. The rain started during the first day, and ended during the last day. The two partial days are included in the entire period described as both "forty days" and "forty days and forty nights."

In Genesis 42:16-18, Joseph "...put them all together into ward three days. And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God." They are put in ward on the first day, and released on the third day. The two partial days are included in the three days.

In I Kings 12:5, we read "And he said unto them, depart yet for three days." Then in verse 12, it says, "so Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day." Here we note that the "three days" included the first, second and third days. The same example also appears in II Chronicles 10:5 and 12.

I Kings 20:29 reads, "For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined." The partial days at the beginning and ending are included, so that "on the seventh day" marked the end of "for seven days."

There is also the example from the New Testament which we saw earlier, in Matthew 27:63-64. "Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first." 
Note that "after three days" was equivalent to "until the third day" (not "until the fourth day").

Another example from the New Testament involves Cornelius. In Acts 10 he has a vision at the ninth hour (v. 3). He sends messengers for Peter, and then "on the next day" (v. 9), Peter has a vision, meets Cornelius’ messengers, and gives them lodging. "On the next day" (v. 23) Peter goes with the messengers, and "on the following day" (v. 24), they enter Caesarea. Then in verse 30, Cornelius says, "Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour.

From the first day at the ninth hour to this day at the ninth hour would be considered three days and three nights, or 72 hours, by our Western reckoning. Yet Cornelius says it was "four days ago," because they considered the day on which they started as day one, whereas we call the first day after the starting point day one.

The argument has been made that the above verses speak of numbers of days, rather than "days and nights" (except for the reference to Noah's Flood). But we saw from the Flood record in Genesis that the phrase "forty days" is equivalent to the phrase "forty days and forty nights." Nevertheless, there are also at least two other places where "days and nights" are referred to. Esther 4:16: "Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish."   And then in 5:1: "Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house..." 

In this case, "on the third day" is the end of the period of time described as "for three days, night or day."

The other example is in I Samuel 30:12-13: "And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights. And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone [ago] I fell sick."   

In this case "for three days and three nights" was equivalent to the period of time that started "three days ago" in Hebrew terminology, or the day before yesterday.

E. W. Bullinger, in Appendix 144 of The Companion Bible, made the argument that Hebrew idiomatic language does allow for a part of a day to be reckoned as a whole day when describing periods of time, but "when the number of ‘nights’ is stated as well as the number of ‘days’, then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact."  ...

But does the addition of the number of nights necessarily make the phrase literal instead of figurative?  The following is from A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica by John Lightfoot (first published in 1658).

Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Schabbath, concerning the uncleanness of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists [experts on the Gemara, the second book of the Talmud] concerning the computation of this space of three days. Among other things these words occur; "R. Ismael saith, ‘Sometimes it contains four Onoth sometimes five, sometimes six’. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanan saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, "A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole.

It is not easy to translate the word Onah into good Latin: for to some it is the same with the half of a natural day; to some it is all one with a whole natural day.

Thus there is no hard and fast rule that the addition of "and nights" makes the expression literal. 
An onah (a period of time) can be either a night, or a day, or a "whole natural day" consisting of a night and a day.  The context and parallel verses must determine which meaning is intended.  While this idiomatic terminology can be confusing to our Western minds, it is clarified for us by using different wording in parallel verses, all referring to the same three days.

In speaking about Esther, Bullinger said "...when it is written that the fast ended on 'the third day' (5:1), 'the third day' must have succeeded and included the third night."   Since the night preceded the day in Jewish culture, the third day would indeed include the third night which preceded it. But a literal interpretation still wouldn't fit. The fast was declared on the first day and the preceding (first) night was not involved. So in a literal interpretation, you would have the (partial) day of the declaration of the fast, then the following night and day brings it to two days and a night, and on the third day, you would have a total of three days and two nights. This shows that "three days and three nights" cannot be literal in this instance, and must be understood in light of the same idiom as verses which only refer to "three days."

Similarly, in his explanation of the record in I Samuel, Bullinger states that when the young man says he fell sick three days ago, he means three complete days and nights. He wrote, "His 'three days agone' refers to the beginning of his sickness and includes the whole period, giving the reason for his having gone without food during the whole period stated." But if he got sick three days ago, i.e. the day before yesterday, you don't count the night before he got sick. You count from the day it happened, and so literally you only have three days and two nights, although verse 12 refers to it as three days and three nights.  Thus, adding the number of nights does not make the expression literal rather than idiomatic. "Three days and three nights" is equivalent to "three days," ending on "the third day."

This is in fact the problem that many people have had with the 3 days and 3 nights that Jesus was in the grave - it doesn't fit if you take it literally. Although the phrase "three days and three nights" sounds to our Western mind like it's counting both the days and the nights, when you examine the equivalent phrases, you see that this is not the case.  The Biblical Hebrew culture was not as mathematically exact as many people try to make it.  Consider the chart below. 
(Remember the Hebrew day started with sunset, so the night preceded the daylight hours.)


If Day 1 is the day he died and was buried before sunset [+], and Day 3 (the third day) is the day he arose before dawn [^], then no matter what day of the week Day 1 fell on, there could not be three literal nights involved.  Thus "three days and three nights" cannot be referring to 3 literal days and 3 literal nights from his death or burial, but rather to three "whole natural days" (each consisting of a night and a day), and the first and third natural days are partial days, which are counted as whole natural days.  This is the only way he could be in the grave "three days and three nights" and still be raised "the third day."  And since the day of the resurrection (the third day after the crucifixion) is clearly identified as the first day of the week (Sunday) this establishes the day of the crucifixion as Friday.

The biggest thing Bullinger overlooked in his appendix is the fact that "3 days and 3 nights" is shown to be equivalent to "3 days" and "the third day." It's the same as how Genesis 7 illustrates that "40 days" and "40 days and 40 nights" are equivalent. They are used interchangeably to describe the Flood. Likewise, the 13 verses that refer to the resurrection as being three days after the crucifixion, or on the third day, must be the guiding factor in handling the "difficult" verse in Matthew 12:40.
"Today, tomorrow and the third day" defines the counting of days, and the phrases "in three days" and "after three days" (which is literally "with three days" in the Greek) both speak of the same three days.

The fact that the different wording in different verses all refer to the same thing is the key to clarifying the "difficult" wording of Matthew 12:40.  Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7,46 all say he would be killed and would rise "the third day," and Mark 8:31 says that he would rise "after [meta] three days," while Luke 24:21 explicitly states that the day they were speaking was "the third day" since those things happened.  In Matthew 26:61, 27:40; Mark 15:29; John 2:19 and 20, reference is made to Jesus’ statement that the temple of his body would be raised "in three days" while Mark 14:58 says "within three days" in the KJV and "in three days" in the NASB.  Acts 10:40 and I Corinthians 15:4, speaking in the past tense, say he arose "the third day." Mark 9:31 and 10:34 say "three days later" in the NASB, and "the third day" in the KJV.  And in fact two different phrases are used in Matthew 27.

Matthew 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After [meta] three days I will rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. [see NASB] 

So you see the majority of references say "the third day," and the few that use different wording are shown to be equivalent because they are referring to the same period of time. And the meaning of "third day" is clearly defined in Luke 13:32 (as well as Exodus 19:10-11 and I Samuel 20:12) as "the day after tomorrow" (i.e., "today, tomorrow and the third day"). These meanings are beyond dispute. And if the idiomatic phrase "three days and three nights" is speaking of the same period of time - from the death and burial to the resurrection - then it must also be equivalent.

Digging In


We have seen how understanding the Biblical meanings of phrases clarifies the subject. In addition, a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday resurrection do not fit with the records of the events in all four of the Gospels. Let us read them carefully, in context. Matthew describes events that happened on the day Jesus died.

Matthew 27:57 - 28:1

57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. [see NASB]


When Joseph put the body in the tomb, the two Marys were sitting there. Notice that verse 62 says "Now the next day, that followed the day of preparation..." and on that day the chief priests requested the guard at the tomb. Then 28:1 says "In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." Remember that even in the Wednesday crucifixion theory, it is recognized that a Jewish day started at sunset. Therefore the end of the Sabbath was Saturday evening, as we would call it. The women went to the tomb sometime after sunset and before sunrise on what we would call Sunday morning.

A question is sometimes asked, "if it was the Sabbath day, why doesn’t verse 62 just say so, instead of calling it the day after the preparation?"  However, the same question could still be asked if it was the yearly Sabbath on the first day of Passover.  The point of calling it the day after the preparation is simply to emphasize the Day of Preparation on which these significant events took place, rather than the Sabbath.

In any case, if the "day of preparation" referred to in verse 62 is the day before the weekly Sabbath, then it is clear that the events of verses 62 through 66 took place on the Sabbath, and that the day before, or the preparation day, was the day Jesus died. Then the next verse (28:1) follows in a natural flow (there were no chapter breaks in the original). The events on the Sabbath are immediately followed by the phrase, "In the end of the Sabbath..." But, if the preparation day is the day before the first day of Passover, and took place on Wednesday, then what happened to Thursday and Friday? There are missing days in this record, and a break in the natural flow, if we assume the preparation was Wednesday. Keeping that in mind, let's examine the record in Mark.


Mark 15:42 - 16:4

42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.

45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. [see NASB]

Notice that verse 42 very specifically identifies the day as "the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath." Again, it describes the day Jesus died, and says, "When the even was come" which means it was just before sundown when it would then be the Sabbath. Joseph wraps the body, and the two Marys observe, just as we saw in Matthew. And again, the next verse begins "When the Sabbath was past." Since they were to do no work on that day, they waited till the Sabbath was past to go to the tomb to anoint the body. The record makes sense if it is the weekly Sabbath, but if this Sabbath was the first day of Passover, and Jesus died on Wednesday, why is there no mention of Thursday or Friday? Now let's look at Luke.


Luke 23:46 - 24:2

46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

48 And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

50 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. [see NASB]


I started with verse 46 here to establish that it is talking about the day Jesus died. Once again, we have Joseph burying the body of Jesus, and "that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on" (verse 54). The women returned and prepared the spices that day, but then rested on the Sabbath (verse 56). Then on the first day of the week, they went to the tomb to anoint the body with the spices which they had prepared. If Jesus had died on Wednesday (assuming that the Sabbath referred to was Thursday, the first day of Passover), they still could have anointed the body on Friday and then rested on Saturday, the weekly Sabbath. But they didn't go to the tomb until Sunday morning ("The first day of the week," 24:1). Why would they have waited all that time?

Theories have been advanced, speculating that it took that long to prepare the spices, or that they ran out and had to buy more on Friday. Another theory suggests that they waited until after the guard that was posted for three days was gone, and then rested on the weekly Sabbath, finally going to the tomb on Sunday. However, the guard was posted "until the third day" which we saw above would have been concluded on Friday, not Saturday, according to their reckoning of days. The women still could have gone to the tomb on Friday if that were the case, unless the guard left close to sunset on Friday, when the Sabbath began.

These theories might be plausible, but there is no indication in any of the Gospels that they delayed for any other reason than resting on the Sabbath. And there is no indication in Scripture of any intervening days, and no direct reference to the supposed two Sabbaths, in any of the Gospel records. It would be very strange, not to mention misleading, for Luke to write his record the way he did, and omit any reference to the intervening days or a second Sabbath, if they had occurred. Finally, let’s look at John’s record.


John 19:31 - 20:1

31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [see NASB]


Once again, the day is clearly identified as the preparation, the day before the Sabbath. Joseph buries the body, and verse 42 again confirms that it was the preparation day. Then immediately in verse 1 of chapter 20 it describes what happened on the first day of the week. There is no mention of any intervening days.

All four Gospels concur that it was on the preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, that Jesus died. The question then is, does this Sabbath refer to the weekly Sabbath, or the special "high Sabbath" at the beginning of the Passover? All four Gospels also concur that it was the first day of the week that the women came to the sepulchre and found that Jesus was risen. As we have seen, the disciples said that it was "the third day since these things were done" which points to Friday being the day of the crucifixion, and thus the preparation for the weekly Sabbath, not the first day of Passover. Plus, if the day of his death was on Wednesday, there is a gap of two days missing from the records.


When Were the Spices Bought?


There is an apparent contradiction concerning when the women bought the spices they used to anoint Jesus’ body. Luke says the women prepared spices the day before the Sabbath, and Mark says they bought spices the day after the Sabbath. Generally, versions of the Wednesday crucifixion theory suggest that the only way to reconcile the two records is to understand that there were two Sabbaths. One was the "special" or yearly Sabbath, that is, the first day of Passover, and the other was the weekly Sabbath.

Proponents of this theory point out that in the verses that mention the first day of the week, the Greek word for week is actually sabbaton, the plural of Sabbath. Some claim that mia ton sabbaton should be translated "one of the Sabbaths" (as Young's Literal Translation renders it), rather than "the first of the week" and that it proves there were two Sabbaths. However the same phrase is used in Acts 20:7 and I Corinthians 16:2, where it can't be referring to two Sabbaths. The fact is, sabbaton is also translated "week" because a week is defined as the days between the Sabbaths. See a detailed examination of this here.

According to the two Sabbaths theory, Mark describes the women buying the spices the day after the annual Sabbath (the word "had" in Mark 16:1 is said to be added without any textual basis, and the verse should be read as they "bought spices" not "had bought"). Luke, on the other hand, describes the women preparing the spices (on Friday, according to this theory) and then resting on the weekly Sabbath. This supposedly explains the space of time, as Jesus would have died on Wednesday, then Thursday was the annual Sabbath, after which the women would have bought (according to Mark) and prepared (according to Luke) the spices (on Friday, when the annual Sabbath was past). Then they rested on Saturday, the weekly Sabbath, as Luke describes, and came to the sepulcher on Sunday, the first day of the week.

There is a problem with this, however. Read the record in Luke again. It is clearly describing the events of the day Jesus died. On that same day, Joseph buried the body, which the women observed, and then, on that same day, "...they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and [after sunset] rested the sabbath day according to the commandment." Whether you interpret this as the weekly Sabbath, or the annual one, it still clearly states that the women prepared the spices the same day that Jesus died. If it was on Wednesday, you have to explain why they waited till Sunday to go to the tomb, when they had all day on Friday. As noted above, some explanations have been offered, but they involve conjecture, with no direct statement in Scripture, and they result in an unnatural flow of the narrative, especially in Luke. And there is still the matter of the disciples saying on Sunday that it was the third day since the crucifixion.

How then should we handle the apparent contradiction about the spices? The verb in Mark 16:1 is translated "had bought" in the King James version, but "bought" in most others. This can be understood in one of two ways. It may be that the King James is correct in rendering it "had bought," referring to having bought the spices the day before the Sabbath, and now they were going to the tomb on the day after the Sabbath. (They may even have bought them prior to the day before the Sabbath, since Luke says they "prepared" them that day, not that they "bought" them.) The aorist tense in Greek would allow for that. "The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations" (Online Bible Greek Lexicon).

The other possibility is that they went and bought more spices for whatever reason, after sunset "when the Sabbath was ended" (Mark 16:1) and then, "very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen," they went to the tomb (Mark 16:2). In this case, the verb is correctly translated as "bought." Even if this were the case, the day the women prepared the first spices was the same day Jesus died, according to Luke. All four Gospel records clearly indicate that Jesus died on the day before the Sabbath, and the women came to the tomb on the day after the Sabbath.


Sabbaths and Preparations


Another apparent contradiction involves the setting of the day Jesus died in the Gospel of John.  All of the Synoptic Gospels clearly state that Jesus died on the Day of Preparation.  Mark even specifically defines it as, "The day before the Sabbath" (Mark 15:42), which in Greek is a single word, prosabbaton, literally "before-sabbath."  Furthermore, the Synoptic Gospels all relate that Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover together, and the crucifixion took place after that.


However, when we come to the Gospel of John, we read, "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!" (John 19:14).  This refers to  Pilate presenting Jesus to the people after being scourged, and before the crucifixion.  As written, this implies that the crucifixion took place on the preparation day, that is, before the Passover.  This problem has been addressed in a number of different ways by theologians for hundreds of years. 

The word paraskeue only occurs six times in the New Testament, and always in the context of "preparation for the Sabbath."  But the question is then raised, does this mean the weekly Sabbath, or the special Sabbath on the first day of Passover?  A common explanation, which fits with the Wednesday crucifixion theory, is that it can refer to either one.  In Bible dictionaries and commentaries, depending on the interpretation of the writer, you may read either that the word paraskeue (preparation) refers to the day before the weekly Sabbath, or that it can refer to either the day before the weekly Sabbath or the day before a feast day.

Since none of the verses in which paraskeue occurs specifically identifies it with the first day of Passover rather than the weekly Sabbath (with the possible exception of John 19:14, see below), a strong case cannot be made that the Sabbath referred to in connection with the day Jesus died is anything other than the weekly Sabbath.  It is also worth noting that there is nothing in Scripture that demands an equating of the first day of Passover with the word Sabbath, although the first day of other feasts are called Sabbaths.  See a further examination of this in the follow-up article, Jesus and the Passover.

The word paraskeue continued to mean preparation for the weekly Sabbath after New Testament times, as evidenced in the Didache (dated between AD 70 and 120) which speaks of fasting two days a week, on "the fourth day and preparation." Josephus wrote that the Jews "…be not obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath day, nor on the day of preparation to it, after the ninth hour." (Antiquities, Book XVI.6.2).  By the time of Tertullian (c. AD 160 - 225) paraskeue (preparation) had become commonly used as the name for the day before the weekly Sabbath, to the extent that he even argued that it had been the name for that day since creation.


The only place where "the preparation" is mentioned in connection with Passover is John 19:14, "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!"  But as pointed out, this would place the crucifixion before the Passover, which would contradict the Synoptic Gospels.  The most likely understanding, therefore, is that this verse refers to the weekly preparation day (Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath) that took place during the Passover week. The word Passover can mean the entire eight-day feast, as well as the first day on which the lamb is sacrificed. It is significant that it refers to "the preparation of the Passover" and not "the preparation for the Passover."

The fact that it refers to the preparation day of the Passover week is implied by verse 31: "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day)..."   Whether he meant the weekly Sabbath or the first day of Passover, it would have been obvious to his readers that the Sabbath was a high day. Why did John make a point of saying that? In this case, "that Sabbath" was the weekly Sabbath that fell during Passover, making it even more significant than a regular weekly Sabbath, and thus, "a high day."  That there is special significance to the weekly Sabbath that occurs during the Passover week is seen in Leviticus 23.  This is also dealt with in the follow-up article, Jesus and the Passover.

It is also possible that in the year Jesus died, the first day of Passover may have fallen on the weekly Sabbath, which would make that Sabbath a "high day" indeed. In that case, the day before it was both the weekly "Preparation day" and the preparation for the Passover, making it exceptionally special and significant to the Jews. But barring that, there is no basis for assuming that the Preparation day on which Jesus died was anything other than the day before the weekly Sabbath, which we would call Friday. This fits best with a simple reading of the Gospel records, as it is extremely unlikely for the Gospel writers to have employed the unnatural flow that a Wednesday crucifixion would necessitate.

The simple reading of Scripture points to a Friday crucifixion which fits with the many references to Jesus rising on the third day. The disciples confirmed that Sunday, the day of the resurrection, was in fact the third day since the crucifixion. Everything in the Scriptures agrees with this view, with the single exception of the reference to "three days and three nights." It is not a good idea to try to change the overall meaning of many clear Scriptures in order to make them fit with one difficult verse. And even this one reference fits with no contradiction when properly understood in light of its Hebrew idiomatic language.


So What?


Some may say, "What difference does it make what day he died? The important thing is that he was raised." This is true. However, this study is significant for two reasons. One, it has been humbling for me. After many years of smugly thinking I knew it all, and condescendingly implying that those who held to the traditional Good Friday view "couldn't count to three," I am in the sobering position of discovering how little I really knew. The other reason is that it illustrates some of the more common mistakes that are made in the field of Biblical interpretation. If you begin with an idea that is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures, and read it into a particular passage, the Bible can seem to say something that in fact it does not. Then when you attempt to interpret other passages in light of that preconceived idea, the result is a compounding of error. This is especially true when you have to twist and force Scriptures to make them fit with an idea that is not explicitly stated in the Bible to begin with. This practice has been at the heart of many wrong interpretations and doctrines. It has been a humbling and exhilarating experience over the past several years to discover how much I had done that in the past, and yet how simply the Bible interprets itself when you avoid doing it and just read things in context. My aim in writing this article is to inspire readers to pursue further study and rethinking of the Bible in this way.

A printed version of this study can be downloaded as either a PDF file or a Word Doc.

This article was taken from here

Powered By Blogger