Category: Articles


A Day by Day Account of the Passion Week

Some of the most cherished institutions of Christendom are based upon a commonly assumed chronology which is in great need of revision.  I remember the cheery bright crisp spring mornings when, as a child, I accompanied my parents on their annual visit to the local Easter service.  More liturgy and psalm has been created for Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday than for Christmas.  For most of Church history, Easter has been far more important to the Church in every respect than the celebration of the birth of Christ.  There were disputes over when to remember Christ’s death and celebrate His resurrection, not over when He was born.  I argue elsewhere in this book that Church authorities squelched any texts or interpretations that might throw into doubt a Sunday resurrection.  Many devotees, even into the 4th Century, felt that Passover and the remembrance of the day of Christ’s death was far more important than the day of the resurrection, which came to be known as Easter.  Jerome records a custom of the early apostolic Church whereby the Paschal meal was not eaten until early dawn, so that the full impact of Christ’s suffering might be driven home.[1] After all, the wisest man who ever lived (Solomon) said (Ecclesiastes. 7:2-4):

“It is better to go into the house of mourning, than to go to a house of feasting.  Because that is the end of every man, and the living takes it to heart.  Sorrow is better than laughter; for by sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.  The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning.

I would further argue that the Church’s unwillingness to be buried in the likeness of His death ensures she will not be raised in the likeness of His resurrection (Ro. 6:5).  Instead, the Church kills socially or literally those who would keep an appropriate Passover and choose to go into the house of mourning to proclaim the Lord’s death til He comes (I Cor. 11:26).  Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy Ps. 126:5).  The suppression of Passover together with the exclusive exaltation of the resurrection is the Church’s attempt at circumventing the Biblical emphasis on self-mortification and dying to self as commemorated in the Passover without which there will be no personal celebration of the resurrection in the end.  Giving the glory of the resurrection to the name Easter–the Babylonian fertility goddess Ishtar—at the expense of Passover is a crime against apostolic tradition whose perpetrators will be judged.

But in the end, who cares what happened on which day?  Does it really matter?  As long as we all believe in the atoning death and factual resurrection of Christ, why sweat the details?

Not so fast, folks.  Every fact presented in this book indirectly or directly goes to the core of how Christianity got off track in the Second through the Fourth Centuries.  Most people still are clueless as to what is fundamentally wrong with mainstream Christianity.  But it is a fact that the non-Jewish elements in the early Gentile churches pushed through an ‘orthodox’ agenda to have the Sabbath, the holy days, Passover, and the rest of the excellent precepts in the Old Testament relegated to heretical status.  The chief cornerstone in justifying this antinomian, anti-Moses, anti-Jew, Neo-Platonist theology was the misguided notion that Yeshua arose on a Sunday morning, thus giving excuse for the celebration of the so-called ‘Easter[2] event’ every Sunday.

Inattention to detail in the Gospel accounts, not to mention misrepresentation of the actual Greek words mia twn sabbatwn (mia ton sabbatown)—translated in the King James as “first day of the week”–has allowed this grand deception to masquerade as Christianity since the time of Constantine.  Mia twn sabbatwn literally means “one of the Sabbaths.”[3] This chapter, and this book, prove that it is Saturday that commemorates the resurrection, not Sunday.  The subject matter in this book cannot be presented without painstaking attention to detail.  What are the odds that a modern audience, with today’s “give it to me in a nutshell” mindset, will have the patience to study and comprehend this material?  Frankly, not many will have either the time or the inclination.  But as our increasingly lawless Church world gets hammered with joblessness from the New World Order, or once the Day of Yahweh finally arrives, there is going to be more time for sober reflection on the nature of the Christianity we practice.  Yahweh willing, the truth and the facts will emerge triumphant as this material finally finds its way into the hands of pastors who will actually feed their flocks with knowledge.  Remember, the western world lived for almost fourteen centuries under the hegemony of a very powerful Catholic Church, and later the Church of England, which did not even permit their members to read the Bible!   But the idea, carried over into many churches, was to let the Church spoon feed whatever knowledge and doctrine they wanted the people to have.  To this day, even in the most independent of churches, it is the individual who has been the most diligent in acquiring knowledge and understanding that church leadership feels the most threatened by!  This sad spiritual state of affairs does not bode well for the Church.

Revelation 22:15 says that Yahweh will refuse entry into the holy city to all those who love and make a lie, along with whoremongers, sorcerers, murderers, and idolaters.  This book exposes the plethora of lies associated with the Friday-Sunday scenario that make the Gospel accounts unnecessarily contradictory, thus casting doubt upon the veracity of these scriptures.  This chapter validates every verse having to do with the where, when, and why of what happened during the days leading up to the crucifixion.  This revised narrative will prove that Christ came out of the tomb on a late Friday afternoon, three days after His death on the cross on Tuesday March 27th 31 A.D., and was encountered by Mary Magdalene the following Sabbath morn.[4] It is necessary that the Savior arose at the start of the Sabbath to symbolize the fact that He will return from heaven at the end of the 6000 year period we are now living in, and will be alive and endowed with power to commence His reign over the earth during the seventh millennium. This metaphor is lost even with the Wednesday-Saturday scenario of Wm. Graham Scroggie, E.W. Bullinger, the Church of God Seventh Day, and the H. W. Armstrong movement, since this version of events has Yeshua sleeping in the grave all the way through the Sabbath.  Prepare your heart to receive a presentation of the events of Passion Week as you’ve never understood them before.

Passion Week Narrative: Background and Explanations

Scholars old and new are fond of stating that the Gospel writers weren’t much interested in providing chronological information.  And while it is agreed that this is not their primary focus, it is wrong to assume that the Holy Spirit has not provided us enough data in the Gospel accounts to know when everything happened during the Passion Week.  This book dispels the notion held by some scholars that the Gospel accounts are hopelessly confused. Hence, I would like to provide a day by day account that demonstrates the complementary nature of the four Gospels. This effort is aided greatly by the fact that the four Evangelists go into far more detail about the final week than any other time of Christ’s ministry.  In fact, because the Gospel writers use a diary format during the final week, we should not expect any events to be out of sequence.  In the topical format used by Luke prior to the Passion Week, it is not necessary events be in the same order as the other Gospels.

We begin with Yeshua entering the city of Jericho one full week prior to the Passover. It is only March 20th, three days before the end of winter,[5] but thankfully the Jericho valley sports a subtropical climate and is one of the warmest areas in Palestine.  Herod the Great built one of his palaces and a hippodrome in Jericho for the purpose of passing his winters under more ideal conditions.  Yeshua healed several blind men He passed by the wayside there, including Bartimaeus.  Great crowds accompanied Him.  While passing through the city, a Jewish man named Zacchaeus, who was the chief tax collector, climbed up into a sycamore tree to get a better view of the Master (Luke 19:1-4).  Being a tax collector, especially a Jewish tax collector, was a rather dangerous occupation, given the attitude of the Zealots and some Pharisees; hence, it is very likely that Zaccheaus lived in the midst of the city of Jericho in order to avail himself of the protection of the Roman garrison stationed there.   It is clear from Luke’s account that Yeshua encountered Zacchaeus near his house as He was passing through Jericho, and that Zacchaeus hurried down from the tree and welcomed Yeshua into his house.  All who saw it began to grumble and said to the Lord, “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.”  In any case, Yeshua no doubt spent Tuesday night March 20th at the house of a fellow Jew[6] who had grown very rich doing the bidding of the Roman government.  It was also at this point that Yeshua told the parable of the pounds.

The following day was Wednesday, March 21, the sixth day before the Passover of March 27, 31 A.D.[7] Before this day was through, Yeshua arrived at Bethany (John 12:1) after a long, uphill, difficult thirteen mile hike from Jericho.[8] Take notice that if the crucifixion was on Friday, this trip would then have taken place on Saturday.  The following misguided statement is typical of what is found in most Bible commentaries:

Since the Passover, according to [John’s] Gospel, took place on Friday [supposedly], Jesus apparently arrived on Saturday (the Sabbath)…[9]

Since the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem took place the very next day, it becomes apparent how people arrived at the popular notion of Palm Sunday.  All scholars realize that the synoptic accounts of Yeshua’s activities at Jericho directly precede his arrival at Bethany (John 12:1), where He ate a meal at Lazarus’ house.  But the trip from Jericho could not have been on a Sabbath, because Yeshua kept the law, observing the requirements of Sabbath rest (Exod. 20:8; Luke 4:16). The resultant Palm Sunday is thus a figment of men’s imaginations divorced from the Biblical account, as our first two chapters amply illustrate.  It is a natural outgrowth of the Church’s anti-Torah theology that their Passion Week scenario should picture the Savior breaking the holy Sabbath.[10] We choose here, however, to rescue the true Messiah from such a dilemma.  The Lord of the Sabbath has left us an example, that we should walk even as He walked (I Peter 2:21).  The thirteen mile hike from Jericho never happened on Saturday, as we shall soon see.

The Progression of Days in the Passion Week

In establishing a chronology for the Passion Week, it is important to realize that 1) moneychangers did not do business at the temple on Saturday, and 2) there were two days in a row when Yeshua drove out commercial activity there, and 3) the day following these two cleansings was indeed a weekly Sabbath.  When these truths are established, then it becomes easy to see when everything transpired.

Significance of the Meal at Lazarus’ House for the Passion Week Chronology

We know by a number of facts that Christ arrived at Lazarus’ house in Bethany near Jerusalem on Wednesday afternoon and ate this meal on Wednesday night. The main one is that when we harmonize the parallel accounts in the synoptic gospels, we find that on BOTH of the next two days, Yeshua cleansed the Temple of its moneychangers.[11] Since these moneychangers would not be operational on the Sabbath, these successive days of cleansing must have been on Thursday and Friday.  It is noteworthy that the third day after His arrival in Bethany there is no mention of cleansing the Temple, simply because there was no need to do so; it was the Sabbath and there would have been no business as usual in the Court of the Gentiles where the moneychangers operated (six days a week).

The well-known friendship and love between Yeshua and Lazarus (John 11:36) and his two sisters tells us that 1) they would have made Him their guest at their house Wednesday night, and 2) Martha’s diligence at serving (Luke 10:40), would not have allowed her very special guest to leave for Jerusalem the next morning hungry.  This little detail (together with the fig tree incident) is what distinguishes the morning of the Triumphal Entry (no hunger, no fig tree) from the following one (fig tree reminds Him He is hungry[12]).  The cursing of the fig tree takes place on the latter, but there is no fig tree on the former.  This hunger on Friday morning suggests to astute observers like Alfred Plummer that Yeshua was “not under the roof of friends [at Bethany]; they would have provided Him with food in the morning.”[13] All of this suggests a logical story flow.  He is not hungry Thursday morning because He just had a terrific meal the night before courtesy of Mary and Martha.  He is hungry Friday morning because He has not had the benefit of local hospitality in Bethany.  After all, it would have been an imposition to have returned to Lazarus’ house with the twelve, a disregard for the Biblical precept “Enter sparingly into thy friend’s house.”[14]

The Day of the Triumphal Entry

All four Gospels mention the Triumphal entry, which was on Thursday morning.[15] Yeshua left Lazarus’ house with the twelve, directing two of them to go into the village ahead to procure a donkey and her yearling.[16] John 12:12-13 is critical to the sequence here:

The next day [after the meal at Lazarus’ house] a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Yeshua was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of YHWH, the king of Israel!’

When the crowd began throwing their garments and shouting the Messianic Psalm 118—“Blessed is He who comes in the name of Yahweh,”—this violation of rabbinic taboos against pronouncing the name must have rankled the Pharisees.  Luke 19:40 says that some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” But Yeshua answered, ’I tell you that if these were to hold their peace, the stones would cry out.’”  This all took place on the outskirts of the city.

When He entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil.  Many in the crowd who had seen Yeshua call Lazarus from the tomb kept testifying about him (John 12:17). On account of this the multitude went out to meet their Messiah, because they had heard that He had done this miracle (John 12:18). The huge crowds followed Him as He made a beeline for the Temple.  The road in from the Mount of Olives provided a view into the outer court of the Temple itself.  Christ knew what He was going to do before He got there.  The Jewish authorities two years earlier had refused to hearken to his challenge “Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise.”  This time Yeshua would again cleanse the Temple of all commercial activity in order to make it a house of prayer for the crowds intent on hearing Him. Yeshua walked stridently through the outer gate and into the Temple courtyard and drove out all who were buying and selling (Matt.21:12). Matthew, being one of the twelve, was there and saw and heard everything.  He quotes Yeshua—“It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you are making it (poieite = present active indi-dicative, 2nd person pl.) a den of thieves.” (NAS, CJB, NIV[17])  Yeshua at this point still holds out hope that they might accept His correction and leave things quiet enough for prayer and teaching.  But the transformation of the Temple which Yeshua brought about was only temporary.  By the following day, Friday, Yeshua will have taken a much stronger attitude, as is reflected in the difference in language between Mark’s account and Matthew’s.

Mark intersperses an evening not found in Matthew’s account to show that he is describing a cleansing of the Temple that is subsequent to the day of the Triumphal Entry. On this day, Friday, Mark uses the pluperfect tense to show that Yeshua now feels that the Jewish authorities at the Temple have irreversibly turned the place into a den of thieves, fait accomplit.  Mark quotes the Savior: “You have made it (pepoihkate) a den of thieves.” (Mark 11:17)  Let us imagine what Yeshua may have been thinking at this point:

Your refusal to hearken unto my words of correction, stubbornly insisting on undoing my work of cleansing this courtyard each and every time, has now turned this place (past perfect tense) completely into a den of robbers.  I have now dug about this fig tree on three separate occasions over three years running (compare Luke 13:6-7), but you stubbornly refuse to repent and reserve the outer court for its intended glory and original purpose—as a house of prayer for all the nations (Mark 11:17).  The judgment upon this house is now sealed, as it was in Jeremiah’s day (Jer. 7:11-15), for similar reasons.  You commit iniquity and then come back in here and use Yahweh’s Temple as a ‘refuge for robbers’, saying to yourselves ‘we are delivered to commit all these abominations.’

It was on this Friday, as well as the next day (the Sabbath), that Yeshua was prepared, with deep pathos, to foretell the destruction of the Temple (Luke 19:41-45; Matt.23:38; 24:2; Mark 13:1-4).  The desecration of the Temple in the First Century helps us understand why Yeshua was able to prophesy so succinctly “not one stone shall be left here upon another that shall not be thrown down.” (Matt. 24:2)  But to say this is to get ahead of our story.

Matthew understood that there was no intervening night between the entry into Jerusalem on a colt and the initial cleansing of the Temple on Thursday.  Mark mentions an intervening nightfall and retreat to Bethany (Mark 11:11), because his cleansing of the Temple is on Friday.  On Thursday afternoon, certain Hellenist Jews wanted to see Yeshua.  He sent word back to them: “Anyone who loves his own life shall lose it; and anyone who hates his life in this world, shall keep it into eternal life.”  Yeshua epitomized this attitude when taking total control of the situation in the outer court, knowing full well that His actions and words there would bring about the successful conspiracy against Himself.

It was Thursday afternoon when the people heard a thundering voice come from heaven which confirmed the Father’s was being glorified through Yeshua (John 12:28).  He foretold the demise of the ruler of this world, Satan, and the manner of His own death (John 12:32).  Having preached these things, He “departed and hid Himself from them” (John 12:36). Matthew says the same thing, “He left them, went out of the city to Bethany and spent the night there (Matt. 21:17 NRSV).” Mark, after giving an account of the Triumphal entry, parallels Matt. 21:17 at Mark 11:11:

Then He entered Jerusalem, and went into the temple, and when He had looked around at everything (as it was now already evening), He went out to Bethany with the twelve.

When one sees the Holy Spirit as directing the narrative in each Gospel to make them complementary, one has no problem with Mark’s omission of the cleansing on Thursday.  Mark, whom Church history tells us traveled with Peter and collected his teachings[18], is basically thought to have written the Gospel of Mark from Peter’s perspective.  It is also very possible Mark may have been in Jerusalem witnessing these events.[19] Mark also mentions the Triumphal entry on Thursday, but simply says Yeshua late that afternoon looked around at all things at the Temple, and retired to Bethany for the night, not mentioning any cleansing of the Temple (until the next day).  To argue that Yeshua could not have cleansed the Temple earlier that day is an argument from silence, as nothing in Mark’s accounts prevents that.  Mark also fails to mention Yeshua teaching in the Temple that same day, yet we know from Luke 19:47 “every day He was teaching at the Temple.”  When Yeshua looked around at everything in Temple at the end of that Thursday, He was seeing the Court of the Gentiles as it should be, totally rid of commercial tables, chairs, pens, manure and traffickers.  And yet He knew the transgression would resume once again the very next day, a Friday.  The love of money is a root of all evil (I Tim. 6:10).  The chief priests, instead of accepting Yeshua’s righteous indignation and rooting covetousness out of their practices, chose instead to allow their sins to force Yahweh’s hand in uprooting them and their Temple.

If there is only one cleansing here, then it is impossible to reconcile these accounts without cutting and pasting verses to fit our pre-conceived notions of what actually happened.[20] Most people begin with the premise that there had to be only one cleansing, and that any suggestion of successive cleansings is ludicrous. However, Throckmorton’s Parallel Gospels[21] for these two days illustrates clearly the points we are trying to make.  We wish at this point to establish the background for the necessity of consecutive cleansings of the Court of the Gentiles.

A Prophetic Perspective on Yeshua’s Cleansing of the Second Temple

Yeshua fulfilled a number of prophecies when He boldly and courageously cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem.  Christ’s zeal for His Father’s house literally and figuratively ate Him up.  Yeshua literally fulfilled Psalm 69:9.[22] These cleansings were pivotal events.  His actions so threatened the authority and profits of the High Priests, that it is clear from Mark and Luke[23] that it was from that point on that they “kept looking for a way to kill Him, for they were afraid of Him.” (Mark 11:18)

Malachi 3:1 is another prophecy that directly refers to Yeshua’s entrance into Jerusalem and the Temple on Thursday, March 22, 31 A.D.

The Lord[24] you are seeking shall suddenly come to His Temple; the messenger of the Covenant,[25] whom you delight in, behold, He will come, says Yahweh of Hosts.

Finally, at this juncture it behooves us to bring to the fore the prophet Haggai, who prophesied in the 5th Century B.C., at the very time when the Second Temple was being constructed.  He boldly asserted, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that:

The Desire of all Nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, says Yahweh Sabaōth…the glory of this latter house will be greater than the glory of the former (Solomon’s Temple).” (Haggai 2:7, 9)

With this prophecy, Haggai provided great encouragement to the Jews of his day who had returned from Babylon, but who were dismayed at the dimensions and lack of gold, detail and splendor in this, the Second Temple.  But the latter Prophets and the Writings leave us in suspense not telling us how Haggai’s bold assertion was to come to pass. The reader is left to wonder how such a physically diminutive Temple could possibly ever rival the glory of the Solomonic Temple.  It is the resolution of this anomaly that links both Old and New Testament together into an indissoluble whole, and provides one of the great proofs that Yahweh is the author of such interlocking thematics.

The original order of the Old Testament ended at II Chronicles. This book has the concluding words of the Old Testament.  Oddly enough, they are the words of a Gentile, Cyrus, King of Persia, who was appointed by Yahweh to decree the building of the Second Temple: “Any one of His people among you, may Yahweh his God be with him, and let him go up.”  These are the same words used in the book of Joshua for those who went up to do battle against the peoples of Canaan.  But the answer to “Who will go up to this Second Temple to do battle?” is found in the very next book of the Bible—Matthew!  And why did the Temple need to be the scene of battle?  Because Yahweh knew in advance the Jews would dishonor Him in the sight of the nations by turning it into a house of merchandise.  The ties between the Old Testament/ II Chronicles and the book of Matthew have been the subject of cutting edge theological inquiry in recent years. Yeshua is the thread that links the two testaments.  He alone is the fulfillment of these amazing prophecies concerning the Second Temple.

Why Was It So Necessary To Cleanse the Second Temple?

It was absolutely necessary for Yeshua to come and cleanse His Father’s house, not only to fulfill the prophecies, but in order to restore it to its original purpose.  The Tosefta in the Talmud pronounces Woes on the High Priests of Herod the Great’s day down thru the fall of the Temple, chiefly for their greedy practices.[26] Josephus speaks of the brutality of the Sadducees (who were in control of the Temple) in collecting tithes[27]. Many went hungry due to this brutality, as well as their failure to distribute Temple moneys on behalf of the poor, even retired priests. According to a second century tract of the Mishna (Kritut 1:7), the high priests allowed their monopoly on sacrificial animals to drive even the cost of doves to five times the market value.  Because of their greed, the market for birds rose so high that even the poorer women of the community could not afford them.  As Lev. 12:6-8 and Luke 2:24 show, the law of Yahweh required, at the very least, a pair of doves or pigeons to be sacrificed on behalf of every male that opened the womb, because such were holy to the Lord. Yeshua’s repeated interdiction of these practices led the high priests to realize that Yeshua was a problem that needed to be “dealt with.”  Saturday was the last day spent teaching the public in Jerusalem. By Sunday the Paschal meal was less than two days away.  It only speaks of Him being in Bethany for a meal at Simon the leper’s house.  There He was anointed ‘for His burial’ with very costly ointment; but we have no indication He went into the city that day.  From that anointing forward all His focus was on preparing for the Passover with His disciples.

The Outer Court: A Place of Petition and Prayer for the Gentiles

.

Isaiah 56 addresses lofty promises to the Gentiles who take hold of Yahweh’s Covenant by keeping the Sabbath, etc.  It is this very prophecy that Yeshua quotes from to justify His bold actions at the Temple:

Even these strangers will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer, for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people. (Isaiah 56:7)

Only on Mark’s day of cleansing does Yeshua quote Isaiah 56 in full: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? (Mark 11:17)  The word nations is ‘Gentiles.’  Where were the tables of the moneychangers set up?  Where was the market place for animals destined for sacrifice?  It was in the Court of the Gentiles.[28] This in spite of the fact that when Solomon dedicated the Temple, he did so with these words:

As for the foreigner who comes from a distant land to pray at this Temple, hear from heaven, and do whatever the foreigner asks of You, so that all the earth may know your Name [Yahweh]. (I Kg. 8:41)

Description of the Scene in the Court of the Gentiles

This Court of the Gentiles—which was called The Bazaar of [Joseph] Caiaphas[29] and later The marketplace of the family of Annas[30]–lay just inside the outer gates of the Temple.  Instead of creating a quiet, contemplative atmosphere where people from all nations could come and make their petitions to Yahweh, the High Priests had turned the huge area into “a mart of petty bankers who were intent on money business and rates of exchange.”[31] The smell of dung from bullocks, lambs, goats, and doves, permeated the air, not to mention the cacophony of distraught livestock and Jews dickering over prices:

Cattle and doves were a necessity for the prescribed sacrifices but a poor excuse for making this great court of the Temple into a stockyard…the necessity [for a money exchange] again was no excuse for making the Temple itself a mart of petty bankers…this outrageous sight was always the first that greeted the visitor when he was passing thru the outer gates…The Temple authorities themselves controlled this volume of trade and in typical Jewish fashion operated what amounted to a grand, lucrative monopoly.  If one bought his animals in the Temple, these animals would be accepted; otherwise he might have trouble on that score….[32]

…this great court of the Gentiles…was greater than all the other courts into which all Gentiles were freely admitted.  In the very structure of the Temple the universality of the true religion was expressed.  Yet right here in this important court what a sight met the eyes of any visiting Gentiles—and there were always many!  What must they think of a Temple whose greatest court was thus desecrated and of the God to whom such a temple belonged?[33]

Perhaps the Sadducees, due to the love of money, thought they could get away with turning the Gentile court into a flea market. When one reads these accounts of temple cleansing and the leaders’ responses, one gets the impression that they knew it was wrong.  They knew they were polluting Yahweh’s house.  The fear Christ evoked in them  stemmed from realization that they were being exposed before the people, being shown to be unholy hypocrites, peddlers of that which is sacred.  Yahweh would graciously allow this license to go on another 39 years, giving ample signs over that span indicating that He was about to abandon His house. In 70 A.D. the Sadducees and the priesthood faded into historical oblivion. Yahweh’s judgments are sure. Yahweh now desires to live in temples made without hands—you and me. The lesson of this is that if Yahweh spared not the Jews and His own Temple, neither will He spare us if we disobey the strictures of the Gospel (Jude 5, I Cor. 10:6-9).  Curiously enough, the Thursday and Friday of Passion Week correspond to the 5th and 6th Millennium (29-2029 A.D.), during which we see Yeshua, the Church’s High Priest, cleansing his Church with the washing of the Word, so He might present her to Himself in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle, that she should be holy and blameless (Eph. 5:26-27).

Winston Churchill once said that “courage is the mother of all virtue.”  It is certainly remarkable that no one in Israel had mustered the courage to do what Yeshua eventually did. Yeshua’s manliness and boldness in asserting His right to drive out the money changers brought on questions the next day, a Sabbath, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people about where Yeshua derived His authority, “Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things?” (Luke 20:2)  Perhaps they knew that Yeshua’s boldness and courage stemmed from a higher authority.  It is plain to the believer that since it was His Father’s house, then He was doing it on behalf of His Father, in His Father’s name.  This truth was borne out when Peter was asked whether his Master paid the Temple tax (Matt. 17:24).  Peter spoke (out of place) on Yeshua’s behalf, and told the collectors of the two-drachma tax, “Yes, He does.” But Yeshua said, in effect, that since He was the Son of the One who owned the Temple, that He was tax-exempt.  Nevertheless, so as not to offend the Jews, He sent Peter fishing (literally) for the coin with which to pay the tax.

The overturning of the tables of the moneychangers and the driving out of those who were selling and purchasing offends the tender sensibilities of those who know only of a “gentle Jesus,” and not also of the holy indignation that prompted Him to act as He does here.  But in so doing He cleared out space for the great multitudes which followed Him to the Temple each morning to hear Him.  At this very point in the narrative, Luke, referring to the Friday cleansing, makes a summary statement (Luke 19:47-48, NRSV):

Every day He was teaching in the Temple.  The chief priests and the leaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill Him, but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were spellbound by what they heard.

Yeshua looked on the multitudes as sheep having no shepherd.  They were enthralled by His teaching, and the authority with which He spoke.  Yet there is no way the crowds would have been spellbound had Yeshua NOT cleared out the courtyard of all commercial activity. He had no intention of trying to teach over the noise and ruckus of the Bazaar of Caiaphas:

Yeshua seems to have taken complete command of the situation in the court of the Gentiles.  After he is rid of all the traffic he was not letting anyone carry as much as a vessel or utensil thru the court [only Mark mentions this detail].  This cannot be restricted to carrying things for lucrative purposes.  To make a mere convenience of the court was already to desecrate it.  Jesus must have remained in this outer court for some time in order to enforce this regulation.  No Temple police and no Sanhedrinists hurry up to him to stop him or to question his authority as they did [in John 2].  Did they know his authority by this time?  The change wrought by Jesus must have been astounding: all the turmoil was gone, no one was even carrying things across the court; everything was quiet and decorous as it should be in God’s House.[34]

Yeshua then proceeded to use this court for the purpose intended—“he engaged in teaching” (Mark 11:17 uses the durative imperfect).  Hundreds of people must have rushed into the space vacated by Yeshua’s demands.  We see then that Yeshua of Nazareth, the very Son of the Most High God, came and filled the courtyards of the Second Temple with the glory, the presence and the authority of Almighty Yahweh in a way that Solomon’s temple never had.  The first was the epitome of physical splendor and wealth; the latter enjoyed the presence of God’s own Son.  Very few of us, if given the choice, would choose the former over the latter if we had our chance to go back in time.  Yeshua, in short, was the fulfillment of Haggai’s remarkable prophecy.

The question we are asking is whether this happened more than once during the final week.  If so, then the Passover must have fallen on a Tuesday in the year of the crucifixion.

How Many Times Did Yeshua Cleanse His Father’s Temple?

This question is of the utmost importance to the chronological affairs here addressed.  We are not so much concerned with the cleansing of the Temple that took place at the first Passover near the beginning of Yeshua’s ministry in 29 A.D. (John 2:13-17).  With the thought that Mark’s account of the cleansing in 31 A.D. was very likely on the day after the accounts in Matthew and Luke, which place their cleansings on the same day as the Triumphal entry, I would like to quote some pertinent remarks by Lenski[35]:

The cleansing of the Temple reported in John 2:13 is not the same as the one reported by the synoptists.  To assert that what they placed at the very end of Christ’s ministry John placed at its very beginning is to undermine the credibility of the Gospels.  If these books contain such contradictions or take such liberties, who can be certain of anything they state?  The thesis that John corrects the synoptists is untenable, for if these needed such correction they should be discarded.

To be sure, the effect of the first cleansing did not endure.  Is anything needed to explain that fact beyond the hostility of the Sanhedrin to Jesus?  So Jesus cleanses the Temple again.  Both are Temple cleansings and thus resemble each other.  But why overlook the differences? In John 2:13ff] Jesus is at once confronted by the authorities, and his reply is made to them; in the second, no one dares to confront him and challenge his act, and the word he utters is addressed only to the mob which he throws out…In the first, Jesus uses words of his own; in the second, he quotes (even “robber’s den” is a quotation from Jer. 7:11).

The point we wish to make is that if it is wrong to confuse the John 2 cleansing with the later one(s), then it is equally damaging to the veracity of the scriptures to confuse the cleansing which took place on the day of Triumphal entry (described by Matt. 21:12-13 and Luke 19:45-46) with the one described in Mark 11:15-19, which was a day later.  Again, “Why overlook the differences?”  On the former morning Yeshua was not hungry, and saw no fig tree full of leaves.  On the latter, He was hungry and did see a fig tree in the distance by the dawn’s early light.  Mark alone has “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.” Mark alone distinguishes his account by stating that Yeshua “would not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple.”  Any attempt to edit the verses and make them come out on the same day is presumptuous, and assumes that neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke had enough knowledge to edit and put things in their proper sequence, on their proper days.  Worse yet, “experts” living 2000 years later presume to edit and “harmonize” the accounts to make them more accurate!

On both Thursday and Friday, Yeshua basically took the attitude, “I am not going to compete with this mess and try to teach at the same time.  I will use violent means to prevent any trafficking of any kind while I am here, and for the time being I can count on the loyalty of the crowds to shield me from the authorities while I give out my most important teaching.  I am going to die for this; but this is what I have come for.”

If there was a need to cleanse the Temple on one day, then nothing diminished that need on the next day.  Christ was consistent.  It just so happened that the necessity of making the outer court a suitable place for teaching the multitudes and cleansing the Temple went hand in hand. There simply was no way, while He was there, that the One who was greater than the Temple was not going to have it His way.  It was a means to an end.  It was an issue for which He was willing to die. (Are we willing to sacrifice for the purity of ourselves and the Churches we attend?)  It is no exaggeration to say Yeshua lost His life asserting what should and should not be going on at the Temple. Yeshua prevailed largely because of the popular adulation of the crowds which swarmed Him inside the city.  The Temple authorities “could not find anything they could do (Luke 19:46 NRSV),” because “all the people regarded Him as a prophet” (Matthew 21:46 NRSV).  Judas provided the only solution to the Sanhedrin’s problem—a way to apprehend Yeshua privately while the crowds were gone.

It has now been established that Yeshua cleansed His Father’s house, not once, not twice, but three times—once at the beginning of His ministry, and on two consecutive days at the end of His ministry.

Third Temple Cleansing Tied to the Cursing of the Fig Tree

Thursday night Yeshua retired to Bethany.  There was no meal, nor friendly hospitality like the night before at Lazarus’ house.  Sunrise the next (Friday) morning, March 23, was around 5:45 AM, and Matt 21:18 says that is about when Yeshua returned to the city.[36] The sight of a fig tree in the distance made Him think of food and the fact that He had had none the night before.  We share the opinion of some scholars that the fig tree was used by Christ as a metaphor for the Jewish nation, and for the Jewish leadership in particular.  The next day, on the Sabbath, Yeshua warned the chief priests and the Pharisees to their face: “I am saying to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruits.” (Matt. 21:43)

Baskets of very good and very bad figs had already been used by Yahweh to show the prophet Jeremiah the difference between those who were obedient to Yahweh and those who were not.  So there was already biblical precedent for comparing the tribe of Judah to a fig tree. The parable of the fig tree in Luke 13:6-8 seems to be saying that Christ came looking for fruit on the fig tree of Israel/Judah, but found none three years running, and that God was running out of patience and getting ready to cut it down.

The withering of this fig tree outside of Bethany is the only miracle of judgment Yeshua ever performed during His ministry, and almost surely was used as a metaphor for the curse that was about to befall the Jewish people for tolerating and partaking of the wickedness of their spiritual leaders.[37]

Once Yeshua passed by the fig tree, nothing is said about how He satisfied His hunger that day.  “My meat is to do the will of Him Who sent me.” (John 4:34)  We only know a few things about this Friday: that Yeshua came to Jerusalem, entered the temple, and ‘cleaned house’ again.  As already mentioned, He taught the people, saying that the Court of the Gentiles was meant to be “a house of prayer for all of the nations.” When Yeshua indicted the priesthood, together with all the buyers and sellers, for having turned Yahweh’s house into “a den of robbers”, the chief priests and scribes began looking for a way to kill Him.  Yeshua also took the additional step of prohibiting anyone from carrying anything thru the courtyard that day.  Mark gives us just enough details to let us know that it is not the same cleansing as the day before.  Because of the foregoing contextual and linguistic differences noted above, E.W. Bullinger,[38] could see that Mark’s cleansing of the temple occurred subsequent to Matthew’s.[39]

The temple cleansings had to be on Thursday and Friday, forcing the objective analyst to conclude that the Passover fell on Tuesday in the year of the crucifixion.   If two non-Sabbath days are needed to accommodate both cleansings of the Temple, then the arrival at Lazarus’ house from Jericho six days before the Passover (John 12:1)–is forced to be no later than Wednesday.  The arithmetic goes something like this: one day for the trip in from Jericho, two days of encounters with the moneychangers, one Sabbath day upon which the lion’s share of His teaching takes place. Saturday night He states it will be “after two days” when the Passover arrives, which was held on Monday night.  [1 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 6]  This is the basic outline of the six-day period John 12:1 is talking about.

The Sabbath before the Passover

The weekly Sabbath before Passover and after the temple cleansings was an important day. More is recorded about this day’s events than any other in Christ’s ministry–except perhaps the crucifixion day—and yet there is not one word about buying and selling at the Temple.  There was no need to cleanse the Temple this day as on the previous two, because it was Saturday, the one day of the week when they refrained from making the Father’s house a “house of merchandise” (John 2:16).  A great deal of teaching, prophetic and otherwise, took place on this Sabbath—the lesson from the withered fig tree, the question about Yeshua’s authority, the parable of the two sons, the parable of the wicked tenants, the parable of the wedding banquet, the question of paying taxes to Caesar, the question about the resurrection posed by the Sadducees, the Great Commandment, about Messiah being the Son of David, denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23), His lament over Jerusalem, His prophecies at the temple (Luke 21) and later on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24:3, Mark 13:3) which included His predictions concerning the destruction of the temple and the persecution that was sure to come upon His disciples, lessons on watchfulness, being faithful and wise, the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids, parable of the talents, the Last Judgment, and then finally Luke’s summary of the days spent in Jerusalem:

Every day He was teaching in the temple, and at night he would go out and spend the night on the Mount of Olives…and all the people would get up very early to hear Him in the temple.  (Luke 21:37, 38 NAS)

There is absolutely no indication that Christ retired for the evening in between any of these teachings.  Such an omission, given the nature of the narrative over the last six days, indicates that it all took place on one day, that day being a Sabbath. To those of us who have made a habit of keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, it makes a lot of sense that it should work out in this manner.

Turning Alms-Giving Into an Exhibition on the Sabbath Day

The Synoptic Gospels provide us with further evidence that this day was indeed a Sabbath. We pick up the story in Mark 12:41.  Before Yeshua left the temple precincts that Sabbath He “sat down opposite the treasury and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury.”  Many rich people were casting in large sums also (Luke 21:1).  One poor widow came and put in two small copper coins worth a penny.  The fact that rich and poor alike in very large numbers had chosen this particular day to bring their gifts to the treasury is notable.  We know from Matt. 6:1-2 that the hypocrites of the day preferred to bring their alms at times when they could “be gazed at by men…so they that could be glorified by men.”[40] Maximum exposure was attainable on the Sabbath before Passover, due to the large influx of feast-goers arriving early.  Besides, Sabbath was the usual time for bringing tithes and offerings, whatever season of the year it was.

The Pharisee’s school of Shammai, who were arch-conservatives, did prohibit collections for the poor on the Sabbath.[41] Such a consideration should not dissuade us from believing that Temple donations were encouraged on the Sabbath.  After all, the Pharisees did not control the Temple, the Sadducean high priests did.  Does anyone seriously think, given what we have learned about their ability to turn the Temple into a money-machine, that they would have entertained any serious compunction about collecting tithes and offerings on the Sabbath day at the Temple?  The Pharisaic school of Hillel did not prohibit collections for the poor at their synagogues.  Both Pharisaic schools were far more conservative than the Sadducees, whose philosophy was, “Don’t make any more rules than are enumerated in the Torah.”  Nothing in the Law supports Shammai’s view.  His only reason for not collecting money for the poor on the Sabbath was that “they conflicted with the future material abundance which the day symbolized.”[42] I’m sure the poor, and they were legion in that day, appreciated such a magnanimous policy.  After all, the less money you allow to go to the poor, leaves that much more for the school of Shammai and their synagogues.  No such thinking applied at the Temple. We have every reason to believe that the high priests took advantage of the increased visitation to the Temple on the Sabbath to enlarge their coffers.

Before leaving the Temple, Yeshua predicted that not one stone of the Temple buildings would be left upon another.[43] The prophecy of Luke 21 was given at the Temple in direct reply to people’s questions about the impressive Temple structures. This prophecy was intended for the masses and speaks of vengeance and “wrath upon this people.”  Matt. 24:29-31 speaks of the gathering of the Elect at the end of the Age, and was given privately to the apostles later that evening on the Mount of Olives.  All the teachings of Matthew 25 were given on the Mount of Olives Saturday night. Matt. 26:1:

When Yeshua had finished saying all these things [which began with the Olivet discourse], He said to His disciples, ‘As you know, the Passover is two days away–and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.’ (NIV)

Yeshua spoke this on Saturday night.  Monday night March 26, 31 A.D. was the night of the Passover meal.  Around midnight, Judas betrayed Christ in the garden of Gethsemane.  Yeshua, just as He said, was handed over to evil men two days after the Saturday night of the Olivet discourse.

At the same time Yeshua was speaking the words of Matt. 26:1 to His disciples, the elders of the people, the chief priests and the scribes were gathered at the palace of the high priest.  It is natural to suppose that they waited until after sundown on the Sabbath to hold this secret council.  Hence, Mark 14:1 narrates here with the same words Yeshua uses in Matt. 26:1, i.e. “Now the Passover [is] only two days away.”  This coincidence leads us to believe that Yeshua spoke these words to His disciples at the same time the Sanhedrin was plotting His arrest. This is another example of how Mark complements Matthew.

Sometime on Sunday (probably Sunday evening)[44] in Bethany Yeshua was anointed with precious oil by an unnamed woman at Simon the leper’s house (Matt. 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9).  The oil was poured on His head as He sat down to eat. Some of the women disciples apparently understood, better than the men, what was about to befall their Master.  This anonymous woman, just like Mary of Bethany four days earlier at Lazarus’ house, did her good deed in preparation for His burial.  In fact, in John 12:7 Yeshua says to “allow her, for she has kept the ointment for the day of my burying.”  This shows that Mary was paying attention to what Yeshua was saying.  It would be wrong, as some scholars do, to confound and conflate these accounts, when the Gospels are so clear that the events were on separate days. Besides, other features show disparity between the two accounts.  No other activity is mentioned for this Sunday.  After Saturday, the people had gone back to their jobs, their fields and their preparations for the feast which was now less than 36 hours away.

The next day was Monday, and the Gospels tell us very little about this day, except to say that Yeshua sent two of His disciples, probably Peter and John, into the city to prepare for the Passover meal that night.  Of critical importance is the fact that the disciples knew that the meal was going to be that night, at the end of the 13th of Nisan (at the beginning of Nisan 14).[45] Here is how Matthew, writing to potential Jewish believers in the Messiah, described this episode (Matt. 26:17):

Now on the first of the unleaveneds, the disciples came to Yeshua, saying to Him, ‘Where do you desire that we prepare for You to eat the Passover?’

The underlined phrase, prw,th| tw/n avzumwn,) is most assuredly not referring to the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as the KJV seems to indicate.  The KJV supplies “day of the feast,” but this is unwarranted.  The First Day of Unleavened Bread begins after, not before, the Passover.[46] The 13th of Nisan was the first day that tradition authorized for deleavening one’s house.  Luke, who uses dawn to dawn reckoning for daily activity, calls it “the day of unleavened bread, in which the Passover must be sacrificed.” (Luke 22:7, Concordant Literal NT). They removed leaven from their houses on the 13th because they were commanded to eat unleavened bread with the Passover lamb which was killed at the end of Nisan 13 at sunset, even though the feast of Unleavened Bread began twenty four hours later at the end of Nisan 14, at the beginning of Nisan 15. Some scholars, realizing that the language of the Synoptic Gospels is abundantly clear that Yeshua and His disciples “ate the Passover,”[47] have erroneously concluded that they ate the meal on the early part of the 15th of Nisan so that they could avail themselves of a lamb from the Temple Passover sacrifices.  But this view presumes too much: i.e. that no one was killing lambs in their homes on the early part of Nisan 14. We prove in the appendix entitled “Were the Passover Lambs Killed at Home in the First Century?” that the majority of the people obeyed Yahweh’s ordinances in Exodus 12 and kept the domestic Passover in their homes at the beginning of the 14th day of Nisan.[48] The Pharisees and Sadducees ate the Passover one day later, on Nisan 15, as do modern Jews.  That is why John 18:28 says that,

The Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor (praetorium)…They themselves did not enter the praetorium (Ft. Antonia), so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.

This took place during the wee hours of the night of the 14th.  Christ was nailed to a cross only a few hours later at 9 AM. (Mark 15:25). The date was Tuesday, March 27, 31 A.D.  All four Gospels say that the day of the crucifixion was the preparation day for the annual Sabbath, the First Day of Unleavened Bread.[49] Since this High Day fell on the 15th of Nisan, then the crucifixion occurred the day before, on Passover Day, Nisan 14.  Confusion has arisen because the Jews conflated Passover observance with the First Day of Unleavened Bread, even referring to Passover as the first day of the Feast.  It is hard for some people to realize that Passover Day itself is not a High Day or Sabbath until they have studied and begun to keep Yahweh’s appointed times.  “A good understanding have all they that do His commandments.” (Ps. 111:10) The truth is apparent to all who observe the Passover unfettered by rabbinic obfuscation. Yeshua and his disciples ate the Passover a night before the Jewish leaders ate it (John 18:28). Still, there are many in the holyday-keeping and Messianic Jewish movements who prefer to side with the rabbis and Pharisaic Judaism on this subject.  But there is an abundance of evidence in this book and many other sources[50] to disprove the keeping of a Nisan 15 Passover.

Returning to the first question posed by the disciples, “Where do you want us to go and prepare that You might eat The Passover?” Yeshua had already made arrangements to rent a well-appointed–furnished and carpeted—spacious room from one of His followers.  Yeshua told His disciples that they would meet a man bearing a water pitcher, who would lead them to his house where they were to observe Yahweh’s feast.

It might be of interest to some that we are now entering the Age of Aquarius.  This means that the sun will be in Aquarius during the spring equinox during the next 2000 years.  The precession of the equinoxes will accomplish these phenomena by 2020 A.D.  Since Aquarius is a man bearing a water pitcher, I feel strongly that one of the Passovers after 2020 will escort us to the Upper Room for the Lord’s Marriage Supper.  The Bible expects a lot of its readers, and subtle hints are there for those that have eyes to see them.

Last, but not least, is the matter of the preparation of the Passover meal.  As any woman will tell you who has prepared a meal for thirteen, it takes up the better part of a day. This is perhaps the best reason little else is said about Monday, the day prior to Passover.  Peter and John attended to the lamb and it’s roasting, provided the bread and other food items, and had everything ready for the celebration that evening.[51] This left Yeshua free to prepare spiritually for the important things He would need to share with His disciples that night, knowing all the while He was about to face the greatest ordeal any human has ever endured.

When evening came[52], He sat down with the twelve and ate the[53] Passover.  John focused in on the foot washing as well as the teaching that took place after the meal (John 14-17); the Synoptics focus in on the emblems of communion, the bread and wine.  If Protestant scholars and Christian theologians would keep Yahweh’s holy days, as Paul’s churches did,[54] they would not indulge in idle doubts about whether John placed this event on the same night as the synoptic gospels.  They would also know that Yeshua kept the correct night, the scribes and Jewish leaders taught and kept the wrong night, the 15th of Nisan (John 18:28).

At approximately midnight on Monday evening, in the garden of Gethsemane, Yeshua was arrested and taken to the palace of the High Priest.  Peter followed Him from a distance and was found warming himself by an open fire there in the courtyard of Joseph Caiaphas (Mark 14:67, John 18:18, 25).   This is surely indicative of a late March Passover rather than a late April one.  We will raise this issue again in the chapter which shows the shortcomings of the Wednesday Passover which most Church of God, sacred name and sabbatarian groups espouse.  The only Wednesday Passover possible during the reign of Pontius Pilate is April 25, 31 A.D., the same year supported by this thesis, but one lunar month too late.

Summary of Events Leading up to the Crucifixion of Christ

The sequence of events of the Passion Week shows how deliberately our Lord “set His face to go to Jerusalem” to be sacrificed.  Yeshua arrived in Bethany on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem on Wednesday, March 21, 31 A.D.  That evening, a dinner was held in His honor at Lazarus’ house.  The next day, Thursday, He made His triumphal entry on the colt, the foal of an ass, accompanied by crowds shouting hosannas in adoration.  He straightway cleansed the Temple outer court and after teaching there all day, retired to Bethany.  On Friday morning, Christ returned to Jerusalem, cursing the fig tree as He passed it en route.  He again cleansed the Temple, taught all day, and returned to the Mount of Olives that night.  On Saturday, the Sabbath, Yeshua returned to the city, passing the withered fig tree He had cursed the previous day.  He taught in the Temple all day, concluding with the prophecy of Luke 21, a prophecy of His Second Coming.  At sunset, He retired to the Mount of Olives with His disciples, and delivered the Olivet discourse, concluding with the words: “You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered to be crucified.” (Matt. 26: 2)  At this same time, on Saturday night, two days before Passover, the Sanhedrin was plotting to kill Him.  On Sunday, Yeshua dined at Simon the leper’s house in Bethany, where a woman anointed Him with precious oil anticipating His imminent burial.  Monday was dedicated to preparation for the Last Supper, the Passover meal, after which Yeshua would be betrayed in the garden of Gethsemane and handed over to the Temple guard.  Christ was crucified by the Romans on the day portion of Nisan 14, which, according to modern reckoning, was Tuesday, March 27, 31 A.D.  Three days and three nights later, on Friday evening, at the beginning of the Sabbath, Yeshua arose from the dead in fulfillment of the sign of Jonah 1:17 and Matt. 12:40.

The Messiah is the ‘Lord of the Sabbath.’ It was necessary that He be alive at the beginning of the Sabbath, which is a type of the seventh Millennium, in order to picture the fact that He will return to earth at the end of man’s allotted 6000 years and rule as Lord of Lords over the earth during the seventh 1000-year period. Christ is Lord over all things created “whether in heaven or on earth” and all things were created by Him, through Him and for Him (John 1:3, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:16, Rev. 4:11).  Yahweh chose the seventh-day Sabbath to commemorate His creative genius at the beginning of the world.  The time has now come for the Church to realize that the Sabbath is the symbol of New Creation and the resurrection of his Son. It also points to Yeshua as having been the Son of Elohim, the Agent used to speak the universe into existence.  The act of calling forth life from the dead is in itself an act of creation, and just as Yeshua called Lazarus from the tomb, He will also call the Church from her grave in the near future.

We are led, then, inexorably to the realization that the Sabbath is one of the great unifying themes of the entire Bible.  It unites the idea of Creation in the beginning with the renewal of that Creation via the Sons of Elohim/God, which will commence with their resurrection from the dead (Rom. 8:20-22, RSV & NIV):

For the earnest expectation of the creation is eagerly awaiting the revelation of the sons of God/Elohim…the creation will be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves having the first fruits of the Spirit do also groan within ourselves, eagerly expecting our adoption as sons and the redemption of our bodies [at the resurrection!].

www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

derstinetodd@yahoo.com


[1] Epistle of the Apostles, cited in Bacchiochi’s God’s Festivals in History & Scripture, Vol. I.

[2] The fact that the Church fathers could even countenance the use of the term ‘Easter,’ which is derived from the Babylonian goddess of fertility, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the apostles or Christ, speaks volumes about their blindness.

[3] See Concordant Literal NT, Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2.

[4] What did Yeshua do during those intervening hours?  See appendix, “Leading Captivity Captive.”

[5] The equinox fell on March 23 in 31 A.D.

[6] Luke. 19:9 Yeshua says “he too is a son of Abraham.”

[7] J. K. Fotheringham, “Astronomical Data Limiting the Year of the Crucifixion” gives March 27th as the only possible date of the Passover in 31 A.D., based on visibility of the crescent 14 days earlier and the criteria that Passover cannot fall more than one month after the equinox, which was March 23.

[8] Jericho is about 1000 feet below the Mediterranean, and Jerusalem is about 2600 feet above it.

[9] Drummelow’s One-Volume Bible Commentary, p. 795.  Note this commentators prejudice against the sabbath, which he fails to capitalize, and yet does capitalize Saturday.

[10] That the Seventh Day Adventist Church and S. Bacchiochi would promote such a scenario is almost inexcusable.

[11] Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., Gospel Parallels, Thomas Nelson Pub., p. 154-156.

[12] Matt. 21:18, Mark. 11:12.

[13] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel of St. Mark, p. 260.

[14] Proverbs 25:17, LXX.

[15] Wm. Scroggie, though correct in identifying three full days and nights as the sign of Christ’s messianic claims, incorrectly places the Triumphal entry on the Sabbath [Guide to the Gospels, 574).  It is unlikely, however, that Yeshua would have offended Sabbath law (Ex. 20:10) by riding a beast of burden on that day. Similarly, many people broke limbs from various trees and strawed them in His path as He entered the city.

[16] Matt. 21:2-4.

[17] New American Standard Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible by David Stern. These translations are based on the earliest and most well-attested reading of this text.  The Textus Receptus/KJV reading here is best understood as a recension where the copyist sought to harmonize Matthew’s verb with the aorist tense found in Luke 19:46.

[18] Papias around 95 A.D. is an early, credible witness to Mark using Peter as his source.  Most scholars believe that Peter had Mark write his Gospel.

[19] Some scholars believe that Mark’s father was the owner of the house where Yeshua ate the Passover.  Mark. 15:51-52 is almost surely a reference to Mark himself at the garden of Gethsemane during Yeshua’s arrest.

[20] Many ‘Harmony of the Gospels’ and Bible exegetes indulge in re-editing these ‘cleansing of the temple’ passages for no other reason than they cannot fathom how Yeshua would do it two days in a row.

[21] Pages 154-156.

[22] Ps. 69:9–“zeal for Your House consumes Me, and the insults of those that insult You fall on Me.”

[23] Luke 19:47.

[24] Hebrew Ha Adon. This refers to Messiah.  See Bullinger’s Companion Bible, p. 1299.

[25] An entire study could be presented proving that Yeshua was the Malach-Yahweh of the Old Testament, as He is here in Malachi 3.

[26] Menachoth 13.21.

[27] Temple officers would forcibly collect tithes of grain at the site of threshing floors, no matter how poor the people were who came there to thresh.

[28] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Mark, p. 264.

[29] Caiaphas the high priest was the man most responsible for the murder of Christ.

[30] The high priest who murdered James, the brother of Yeshua, in 62 A.D.

[31] Lenski, Interpretation of Mark, p. 486.

[32] Ibid. p. 486.

[33] Ibid. p. 489.

[34] Ibid. p. 488.

[35] Ibid. p. 486.

[36] According to Friberg’s Analytical Lexicon, Prwiav in Matt. 21:18 is between 3 and 6 AM.

[37] Those who have studied the views of the Karaite Jews will realize that they blamed the teachings of Pharisaic Judaism, the rabbis, for the curses that had come upon the Jews during the first millennium.

[38] Bullinger is one of the greatest, most prolific Biblical scholars of all time, and almost alone with Scroggie in defending the three days and nights of Christ’s burial.

[39] Bullinger, Companion Bible, App. 156.

[40] Concordant Literal New Testament, Matt. 6:1-2.

[41] Samuele Bacchiochi, From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 91-92.

[42] Ibid. p. 91.

[43] Josephus’ description of what was left in 70 A.D. graphically shows how Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled.

[44] It is possible that Yeshua fasted from late Thursday until this meal at Simon the leper’s house.

[45] For proof of early 14th Passover, read “Between the Two Evenings” at www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

[46] Lev. 23:5-6, Num. 33:3.

[47] Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, 312-318; Matt. 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-17, Luke 22:7-15.

[48] Fred Coulter, The NT in Its Original Order, York Pub., (2003), p. 392.

[49] Matt. 27:62; Mark. 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31.

[50] Fred Coulter’s The Christian Passover is the best, most comprehensive scholarly work proving that the Passover lambs were to be killed at dusk early on the 14th of Nisan.

[51] Lenski,  Interpretation of Mark, p. 613

[52] Ibid. Mark. 14:17—“The genitive absolute with the aorist genomenhv means evening had fully come.”

[53] The Last Passover accounts in the Synoptics put the definite article in front of “Passover” nine times!

[54] I Cor. 5:7-8 (“Let us keep the Festival”), 11:26, 16:2 (correctly translated=“every one of the Sabbaths”); book of Acts; Col. 2:16; II Thes. 2:15.

Acts 20: Chronological Landmark of the New Testament

Copyright 2009

And upon the first day of the week (Greek μια των σαββατων, transliteration = mia tōn sabbatōn), when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

Older commentaries on Acts 20:7 exhibit a general consensus that the meeting described here was the first clear-cut example of Sunday worship in church history. Conybeare & Howson state: “This is a passage of the utmost importance, as showing that the observance of Sunday was customary,”[1] One would expect that a fantastic assertion such as this would warrant more than a footnote in a 1000-page book on the life and epistles of Paul. Another example: Charles John Ellicott, commenting on Acts 20:7, says “This, and the counsel given in I Cor. 16:2 are distinct proofs that the Church had already begun to observe the weekly festival of the Resurrection in place of, or where the disciples were Jews, in addition to, the weekly Sabbath.”[2] Ellicott believes that Paul remained at Troas for seven days in order to “keep the Lord’s day,”[3] even though it is admitted the term Lord’s Day had not yet come into vogue.  Here, according to most theologians, is the precedent-setting, earliest case of the transference of the sanctity of the Mosaic Sabbath to the first day of the week. Thankfully many modern scholars have exposed the presumptions inherent in such views.  We are pleased to find that at least one theologian of the Reformation knew his Greek well enough to admit that the mia tōn sabbatōn in Acts 20:7 is a probable reference to the Jewish Sabbath.  We quote from none other than John Calvin [emphasis mine]:

Either doth he mean the first day of the week, which was next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath, which latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, because that day was more fit for all assembly, according to custom… For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place.[4]

When Calvin comments on I Cor. 16:2, which has the same phrase, (albeit anarthrous), he is equally clear in his understanding that the phrase refers to the Jewish Sabbath.  The following is Calvin’s highly interesting commentary on I Cor. 16:2, in which he makes it clear that Paul and the other apostles continued to use the accustomed Jewish Sabbath for the sacred assemblies of the Churches:

On one of the Sabbaths.  The end is this—that they may have their alms ready in time.  [Paul] exhorts them not to wait till he came…but to contribute on the Sabbath what might seem good, and according as every one’s ability might enable—that is, on the day on which they held their sacred assemblies.  The clause rendered on one of the Sabbaths (μιαν σαββατω Chrysostom explains to mean—the first Sabbath.  In this I do not agree with him; for Paul means rather that they should contribute, one on one Sabbath and another on another; or even each of them every Sabbath, if they chose….Nor am I inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom—that the term Sabbath is employed here to mean the Lord’s day, for the probability is, that the Apostles, at the beginning, retained the day that was already in use. [emphasis mine]

The Concordant Literal NT agrees with Calvin’s rendering of the Greek:

On one of the Sabbaths, let each of you lay aside by himself in store that in which he should be prospered, that no collections may be occurring then, whenever I may come.

It is hard to imagine Calvin being unaware of the fact that the Greek in these two passages was the same as in the resurrection narratives.   In fact, the μιαν σαββατω of I Cor. 16:2 matches Matthew’s (Matt. 28:1) day of the week when Mary Magdalene came to the empty tomb.   When commenting on Matt. 27:57, Calvin seems to agree with the thesis of this book, that there were three days between the death of Christ and the following weekly Sabbath, when he states, without explanation, “Now from the time that Christ died until the Sabbath began to be observed, there were three free days.”

Did Yahweh not know in advance there would be an attempt to use a supposed Sunday resurrection of his Son in a deceitful way to theologically undermine his Sabbath command, long before the switch from Sabbath to Sunday became a fait accomplit?  Was He aware that deceived antinomian Christian theologians would put a “spin” on Acts 20:7 in an attempt to legitimize the switch?   These are questions for the reader to decide.

I am Elohim (God), none is like Me, declaring the end from the beginning. (Is. 46:10)

Nothing takes Him by surprise.  That being the case, we must ask whether Yahweh, in His infinite wisdom, may have hidden away confirmation of the literal meaning of mia tōn sabbatōn, in Acts 20:7. This much is certain: This passage is either speaking of a Saturday/Saturday night meeting, or a Sunday/Sunday night meeting.  Divergent opinion is reflected in two distinct translations of this passage.  We begin with the KJV:

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Notice that the word “day” is italicized in the KJV because it does not exist in the Textus Receptus, or in any Greek text.  Nor does the Greek word mia mean “first.”  We challenge the Greek scholar to demonstrate anywhere in the LXX or NT where ‘εις, ἐν, or μια (the masculine, neuter, and feminine forms of the Greek word for “one”) means first. Therefore, “first day of the week” is an interpretation of the underlying phrase mia tōn sabbatōn, rather than a translation, all the more so since sabbatōn means “of the Sabbaths,” not “of a week.”  Translators have assumed the phrase to be idiomatic rather than literal.  Given the fact that in the preface to the Authorize Version, King James charges the translators with upholding the institutions of the Anglican Church, of which he was the head, institutions such as Sunday worship and Easter Sunday, we are not surprised that they did not venture to consider a more literal rendering of the Greek phrase. A more objective and dispassionate translation of mia tōn sabbatōn may be found in the Concordant Literal New Testament:

Now on one of the Sabbaths, at our having gathered together to break bread, Paul argued with them, being about to be off on the morrow.  Besides, he prolonged the word unto midnight.

If we knew the year in which Paul traveled to Jerusalem in Acts 20, this would go a long way toward helping us to decide which of the two translations of mia tōn sabbatōn is correct. This process is simplified because it is possible to eliminate years contiguous to the correct year due to the fact that the calendar information for those years, based on astronomical computer models, eliminates them by not accommodating Luke’s facts.   This will become apparent as we meddle with the particulars.  We will now assemble relevant linguistic, astronomical, historical, calendrical, and scriptural facts in order to arrive at that year.  As it turns out, Luke supplies enough historical-chronological information between chapters 18 and 20 to greatly narrow the year of the collection trip.

Using astronomy software, we can reconstruct the Jewish festival calendar for each of the several possible years that Paul may have traveled to Jerusalem with the collection for the saints.   This is possible because the Hebrew religious calendar was based on the phases of the moon, which can be determined for any date in history. The regularity of the moon’s elliptical orbit around the earth allow computer programs to calculate the date of the new moon when the Hebrew month of Nisan started in any given spring in history.

Luke, a brilliant historian, Paul’s emenuensis and historiographer, was Paul’s traveling companion and fellow-prisoner from Troas to Rome, including two years Paul spent in prison in Caesarea, capital of Judea.  Paul supplied the details, Luke did the historical research, and together they collaborated on what Sir William Ramsay has called a very reliable historical treatise, the book of Acts.[5] The historical data which narrows the year of Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem indicate that mia tōn sabbatōn could not have been a figure of speech referring to Sunday!

The life of Paul in the book of Acts is one synagogue meeting after another in one major city of one Roman province after another.  In between Sabbaths he plied his craft of making tents for individuals to earn money so that he was chargeable to no man and no church.  Much of the conversion of Jews and Gentiles took place in the open format of the local synagogues.  Scholars have noted how prominently the Sabbath figures in the book of Acts, and some have suggested the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) and festival days are a kind of chronological thread knitting the story flow together.  When we have reached our conclusion at the end of this chapter, we shall see that the gathering of believers in Troas in Acts 20:7 was part and parcel of this same thread.  On “one of the Sabbaths” (μια των σαββατων), the third of seven Sabbaths counted between the Days of Unleavened Bread (mentioned in previous verse, Acts 20:6) and Pentecost, Paul rendezvoused with the church representatives who were to accompany him to Jerusalem with the collection for the saints.  The phrase “one of the Sabbaths” in Acts 20:7 provides a chronological bridge between Acts 20:6, “after the days of Unleavened Bread,” and the Jewish festival of Pentecost (the day after the seventh Sabbath) in Jerusalem which prompted Paul’s haste and Luke’s intense narrative.  In Acts 20:16 Paul refuses to tarry at Ephesus, opting to have the elders of the Church come to meet him in Miletus instead of Paul going 35 miles north to them, because he was hastening to get to Jerusalem by Pentecost.

To assist us in our chronological evaluation of Acts chapters 18-20 we will consult various eminent Bible chronologers—Jack Finegan, F.F. Bruce, George Ogg, Colin Hemer, and Dale Moody.   Both Finegan and Moody conclude that Paul’s fifth and final trip to Jerusalem (in Acts 20) occurred in 55 AD:

If the relevant materials in the book of Acts are taken as they stand…a relatively detailed chronology, particularly in the later part, can be worked out [for the life of Paul].[6]

Astronomical data dictating the Passover date in 55 AD are as follows: On Monday, March 17, 55 AD, the new moon would not have been visible, being less than half a day old and near apogee.  Disk illumination was only .32%.  By the following night, Tuesday, March 18, conditions were ideal for visibility, with 16 degrees separation from the sun at dusk, with 1 hr. 20 min. difference between sunset and moonset.  The moon was 1.38 days old, and March 18th was day 30 from the previous likely new moon.  Therefore Wednesday, March 19 was Nisan 1, Tuesday, April 1 was Passover (Nisan 14), and Tuesday, April 8 was the Last Day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 21).   Acts 20:6 says:

And we [Paul and Luke] sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them in Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

It took five days to sail from Philippi to Troas, and the hurried nature of the narrative implies strongly departure on the next day after Unleavened Bread, on Wednesday, April 9.The voyage lasted from April 9-13, Wednesday through Sunday.  Paul’s week-long visit in Troas would have extended from April 13-19.  Using the usual Jewish inclusive reckoning of time, the seven days encompassed Sunday through Saturday, the latter being “one of the Sabbaths”, i.e. μια των σαββατων”) referenced in Acts 20:7.

The year 54 AD is admitted by almost all scholars as compressing Luke’s history into too short a space to allow for Paul’s 27 months[7] in Ephesus.  In the addendum to this chapter, we provide the astronomy that shows 56 and 57 AD, the only other possible years for the trip, do not allow the seventh day at Troas to fall on a Saturday or a Sunday.

 

The Historical Evidence in Acts 18 and 19

We are now ready to explore Luke’s historical account in Acts 18 and 19, which forms a backdrop for Acts 20.  The following historical facts mutually confirm each other. When linked together they create a clear outline of the events leading up Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem in Acts 20:

  1. Expulsion of Jews from Rome in the 9th year of Claudius Caesar (49 AD), resulted in the arrival of Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth a short time before Paul himself arrived in Corinth (Acts 18:1-2), late 49 AD. (See pages 6-9)
  2. Paul taught for 18 months in Corinth, converting many (including the chief of the synagogue) to the faith, resulting in opposition from the Jews.  When Gallio became proconsul of Achaia, arriving in late May of 51, the Jews brought charges against Paul, thinking they could take Advantage of Gallio’s inexperience.  The 18 months extends from about December of 49 AD to the early summer of 51 AD, the time of Paul’s arraignment.  Gallio dismissed the Jews’ charges. (Details on page 10)
  3. Paul spent “a considerable number of days” (Acts 18:18) with the brethren in Corinth after the trial.  Toward the end of summer he shaved his head to terminate a Nazarite vow.  This left him with the ceremonial obligation of presenting himself and his shaved hair at the Temple.  No doubt Paul timed the culmination of this vow to coincide with the fall feast that was coming in Jerusalem (18:21), allowing several weeks travel time.  The Feast of Trumpets, which is the first day of the seventh month, fell around Sept. 26 in 51 AD.  This allows plenty of time for the “considerable days” Paul spent in Corinth after his appearance before Gallio.
  4. He no doubt reported to the Jerusalem Church on the success of the second missionary journey, which was just completed.  There is no indication he tarried there.  He merely “greeted the church,” then went down to Antioch (Acts 18:22).
  5. He spent “some time,” probably the fall and winter of 51/52 AD, in Antioch, which was Paul’s “home” church.
  6. Just as in the American Southwest and Southeast, spring begins in mid-February throughout the Mediterranean.  Therefore Paul commenced his third missionary journey in February of 52 AD, passing consecutively through the Galatian province and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples there as he made his way back to Ephesus to fulfill the promise he had given them the previous summer: “I will return again to you, if God will.” (Acts 18:21)
  7. Paul taught for 3 months in the synagogue of Ephesus (Acts 19:8).  When the hard-headed among them began to blaspheme the Christian faith, Paul separated the disciples, and defended the truth in the school of Tyrannus for two years.
  8. Paul’s teaching over this period spread from Ephesus throughout the entire province of Asia, making serious inroads into the realm of idolatry; so much so that the people got together to burn their books on sorcery and magic.  Paul fell into disfavor with the provincial craft union in charge of making silver idols of Diana.  The head of the union aroused great fury among the citizens, who rushed into the huge theatre chanting “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”
  9. By the grace of Yahweh the town clerk, who was the most powerful local official, used great tact and wisdom to calm the mob, who likely would have stoned Paul and his fellow travelers.  He does so by the threat of Roman displeasure.  Paul has not spoiled any temples, nor blasphemed (at least directly) their goddess.  He then makes the point that no formal charges have been filed, for which there are day courts in session (v. 38).  Lastly, if they don’t like the verdict of this court, they can appeal to the proconsuls (plural).
  10. The proconsuls, anthupatoi of which the town clerk speaks, are a vital clue to understanding the time of this tumult in Ephesus that brought a culmination to Paul’s ministry there.  Had the town clerk simply made a reference to the pro-consul (singular), we would have no chronological clue.  It just so happens that there were three deputy proconsuls in Asia by November of 54 AD as a result of the assassination of the Roman proconsul Silanus.  Since Paul spent the following winter in Corinth (I Cor. 16:6), and a new replacement proconsul’s appointment and arrival would have taken place by late May of 55 AD, the only time for the Ephesian riot that accommodates proconsuls plural and the third year of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus is the fall of 54 AD.  This is the only time when there were multiple proconsuls and Paul present simultaneously.  (Details are given for point # 10 on page 11.)
  11. After wintering in Corinth (I Cor. 16:6), the Church there sent Paul forward with the collection to Jerusalem.  Due to a plot against him by the Jews, he detoured through Philippi (setting sail from the port of Neapolis) the day after Unleavened Bread, which was Wednesday April 9, 55 AD.  Sailing against the southerly spring winds for five days they came to Troas on Sunday, which began a perfect seven day week in Troas.  The seventh day of that week was indeed a weekly Sabbath, mia tōn sabbatōn, “one of the Sabbaths” as one counts to Pentecost.  The disciples got together for a fellowship meal, after which Paul taught, prolonging his dialogue until midnight,[8] when the sleepy Euthychus fell down from a loft and was restored via Paul’s prayer.

The above then is an outline presenting the case for the events of Acts 20 taking place in 55 AD.   After showing the likelihood that Paul’s Roman epistle was written from Corinth during the winter of 54/54 AD, prominent historian C. K. Barrett summarizes the argument for Paul’s collection trip taking place the following spring, 55 AD:

Paul was brought before Gallio in or about July in A.D. 51 …it is implied that the bulk of Paul’s [18-month] stay fell before his appearance in Gallio’s court…it seems probable then that Paul reached Corinth in March 50, and left in Sept. 51 (each date being very proximate).  This would enable him to sail, by one of the last boats of summer, to Syria (Acts 18:21 f.)…He probably renewed his travels with the return of favourable weather in the spring of the next year(Acts 18:23) and thru the ‘upper country’ (Acts 19:1) might well last most of the following summer; he would reach Ephesus (Acts 19:1) in the autumn.  The length of his stay there is given by Acts 19:8 (3 months) and 19:10 (2 years); the Pentecost therefore which he was anxious to keep in Jerusalem will have been that of 55, and his three months in Greece (Acts 20:3) must have come to an end a few weeks earlier…The chronology of Paul’s movements cannot be settled beyond dispute, but on the whole no view meets with fewer difficulties than that which places the ‘three months’ of Acts 20:3 in or about January-March 55.  We have reason to think that the Epistle to the Romans was written in this interval.[9]

For those interested in a more involved discussion of arguments supporting the chronological outline above, the following section provides notes elaborating on some of the above points.

 

Elaboration of Point 1: Historical Notes Confirming the Approximate Time of Priscilla and Aquila’s Arrival in Corinth.

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.  And he found a Jew named Aquila…recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. (Acts 18:1-2, ESV)

The Christian historian Orosius tells us that his copy of Josephus placed the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Emperor Claudius in the 9th year of his reign[10] (Jan. 24, 49 AD. to Jan. 23, 50 AD).  Here is what we know about Orosius’ credibility:  He was a Christian presbyter from Portugal who wrote “the first self-enclosed and literarily sophisticated world or universal history.”[11] He stands as the “founder of Christian universal historical writing.[12] He had a wide range of sources available to him due to the nearness of the bishop’s library of Hippo Regius, et. al., and used his sources with precision.[13] He is very high among the ranks of ancient historians.[14]

Acts 18:1-2 tells us that Priscilla and Aquila, as a result of Claudius’ edict, arrived in Corinth from Rome shortly before Paul came there from Macedonia. Acts 18:11 indicates Paul made disciples in Corinth for 18 months, until the new proconsul Gallio arrived.  We are able to backdate the arrival of Paul in Corinth to December (give or take a month) of 49 AD, due to the chronological certainty of the datum in the following section.

There are at least two other Roman historians who mention Jewish civil unrest in Rome under Claudius, Dio Cassius (early 3rd C.) and Seutonius (ca. 110 AD). Dio Cas-sius 60.6.6-7, discussing Claudius’ actions during his first year, says this:

As for the Jews, who had increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, Clau-dius did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.

These limited restrictions by Emperor Claudius took place in his first year, 41 AD, as Gerd Luedemann and others have shown.[15] Though Dio provides no clue as to why they were debarred from holding synagogue meetings, I have little doubt it was due to controversy over the life and teachings of Christ. On this point we quote F. F. Bruce:

Perhaps [in 41 AD]… there were already signs of that unruly and turbulent behaviour which led him, about eight years later, to decree their absolute expul-sion from the capital.  Christianity was not the only messianic movement abroad among the Jews in this period, although it is as probable that it had reached Rome by the beginning of Claudius’ reign as that it had reached Alexandria by that date…if Claudius had already experienced some trouble with the Jews of Rome [in 41], we can understand better the sharpness with which he warned the Jews of Alexandria not to foment a similar plague there by an illegal increasing of their numbers [via migration from Palestine and Antioch.][16]

Bruce is referring to Claudius’ Letter to Alexandria, written in the autumn of 41 AD, in which he accuses the Jews of “making a general nuisance of themselves throughout the empire,” and that if they did not behave in the future, they would incur imperial wrath. The severe tone of this letter contrasts with the conciliatory attitude back in the winter of this same year.  When Claudius replaced Caligula in late January of 41, he issued executive orders reversing Caligula’s abuses, and warning the Greeks in various cities to refrain from their persecution of Jews.  Some have compared this favorable approach with the revocation of the right of assembly mentioned by Dio Cassius for 41, and have come to the erroneous conclusion that one or the other must be untrue.   It is likely, however, that this suspension of the right of assembly in Rome took place much later in the year.  Furthermore, Claudius’ initial actions re-establishing Jewish civil and religious rights were directed at abuses of their adversaries in the East, in Alexandria, Antioch and elsewhere.[17] Herod Agrippa, recently installed as king of Judea, had tremendous favor with both Caligula and his successor Claudius, but the emperor’s first responsibility was to maintain order in Rome.   F. F. Bruce explains this paradoxical situation adroitly:[18]

No amount of goodwill on the emperor’s part [toward the Jews] or personal influence on Herod Agrippa’s part could make the emperor close his eyes to anything that seemed to threaten the public peace of the capital.

It is hard to imagine what else, besides the proselytizing activities of the new faith fermenting within the dozens of synagogues throughout Rome, could have brought about this restriction.  But it is apparent from Claudius’ Letter to Alexandria that the Jews were beginning to acquire a reputation of being tumultuous.  Fourteen years later the Jewish orator Tertullus tries to deflect blame for this unrest onto the Apostle Paul, painting him as “a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the [Roman Empire].” (Acts 24:5)  When tumultuous debates over Christ were repeated in 49, Claudius had no choice, despite his demonstrated good will toward the Jews, but to expel them from Rome itself, at least for the time being.[19] E. M. Smallwood explains:

Claudius’ action in 49, like its forerunners [in 41], was a police action taken in the interests of the peace of the capital, a purely local restriction imposed in answer to local disturbances but not one implying any change in the permanent and universal protection which the Jews normally enjoyed.[20]

That events became tumultuous is attested by the Roman historian Seutonius (110 AD): “Since the Jews constantly made tumults at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.”[21]

Was Seutonius really talking about conflagrations over Christ?  “The only reasonable interpretation of Suetonius’ sentence is that the reference is to Christianity.”[22] Chrestus is a modified and corrupt form for Christus (Christ). “Christus [was] not unnaturally confused with the common slave-name Chrestus.”[23] George Howard points out the considerable amount of evidence of “confusion over the pronunciation of Christ’s name in the early centuries of the Christian era.”[24] Sir William Ramsay says this:

The strange term Christos was vulgarly modified to Chrestos, the Greek adjective meaning “good, useful,” which seemed to popular fancy a more suitable and natural name for a leader or a deity.  “Chrestians” was the form in which the name was often used; and it occurs in inscriptions.[25]

A prime example of ‘Christian’ being spelled ‘Chrestianos’ is Codex Sinaiticus[26] (Acts 11:26, 26:28, and I Peter 4:16).  In the early second century, Tertullian (Apol. 3.5) complained about pagans mispronouncing the name “Chrestianos”.  Lactantius (Divine Institutions 4.7) spoke of the same phenomenon (Chrestus instead of Christus).  Hence, we have every reason to believe that Seutonius has made the same mistake when giving the namesake that was the cause of Jewish expulsion from Rome in 49.  From these facts we concur with George Howard’s conclusion:

It may be concluded that some time before 49-50 AD Christianity had reached Rome, and become sufficiently disseminated within Roman Jewry to cause fierce struggles between those who espoused the new faith and those who clung to the old.[27]

Seutonius thus indicates that the same kind of tumults over ‘Chrestus’ were going on in the sizable Jewish community in Rome in the late 40’s as are described in a number of places in Acts.  As a result of powerful preaching, a mob at the temple brought about the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 6:12, 7:57, 8:1). After this event, there was great persecution against the church that scattered the brethren everywhere (Acts 8:2-4), and likely led to the preaching of Christ in Rome before 40 AD.  Paul was thrust out of Psidian Antioch (southern Galatia) by the Jews (Acts 13:50).  Jealousy caused the Jews to incite tumult in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5), down the road in Berea (17:13), and later in Ephesus (Acts 19).

Violent zeal over religious matters was a large reason for general antipathy towards the Jewish race, expressed by almost every pagan writer.  Though only a small percentage of the Jews were fanatical, they succeeded in tarnishing the reputation of the rest as being unruly and pestilential (Acts 24:5).  Josephus brings out their willingness to protest and die for even the smallest of offenses during the time of Herod and Pilate.  Messianic and apocalyptic fervor (flamed by Emperor Caligula’s attempt to place his statue inside the Temple in 40 AD) was a strong element in Jewish society in the late 40’s AD, so debates over John the Baptist’s and Christ’s mission could have easily made their way to Rome by 49 AD.  When Paul came to Psidian Antioch (47 AD), his reference to John presumes they have already heard much about him. (Acts 13:24)

The riots described in Acts were largely the result of jealousy and envy on the part of Pharisaic or Hellenistic leadership in the synagogues, the loci of Paul’s evangelistic opportunities.  But Christians faced increasing opposition from the Zealots between the death of Agrippa I (44 AD) and the revolt of 66 AD. The effects of the Zealot movement were felt as far as the Diaspora in Antioch in 48 AD and Rome in 49.[28] Reisner believes that the Zealots despised Christianity on two counts: (1) Zealots believed that evil could only be overcome via the sword; hence the pacifism of Christ and Paul was a dangerous diversion from the will of God.[29] (2) Stripping down the barriers between Jew and Gentile was a threat to a) the authority of Phariseeism’s two greatest teachers Hillel and Shammai, and b) the integrity and ritual purity of the Jewish race, and c) promoted collaboration with the enemy, Rome.

When Paul came to trial in Caesarea before Governor Felix near Pentecost of 55 AD (Acts 24:1-5), the Jewish orator Tertullus tried to blame Paul as a “mover of sedition among ALL the Jews throughout the world.”  It is as if Tertullus knew that Felix was aware of the world-wide commotion over Christianity, and tried to say to him, ‘We have here their main ringleader; without him us Jews would not be so unruly.”

The foregoing is the historical context of Priscilla and Aquila’s arrival in Corinth in early fall of 49 AD as a result of riots in Rome over Christ.  I quote F. F. Bruce to summarize our findings:

Our inference from Seutonius that the riots were due to the recent introduction of Christianity into the Jewish colony at Rome agrees well enough with our independent inference from the New Testament that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians before they came to Corinth…Ambrosiaster was no doubt right in saying that the [earliest] Roman believers ‘had embraced the faith of Christ, albeit according to the Jewish rite, although they saw no sign of mighty works, nor any of the apostles’.[30]

 

Elaboration of Point 2:  The Proconsulship of Gallio—Anchor Point for Pauline Chronology

[Paul] continued [in Corinth] a year and six months, teaching the Word of God among them.  But when Gallio was pronconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul, and brought him before the tribunal. (Acts 18:11-12, ESV)

The standard term of office for the proconsul of a senatorial province was one year.[31] Claudius Caesar made a law that the governors must begin their journey to take office by mid-April.[32] Therefore, Gallio took office in Corinth, the seat of administration for Achaia, sometime in May, 51 AD. The evidence for this date comes from the restoration of inscription fragments at Delphi. A century ago, a stone was discovered with both L. Junius Gallio and Tiberius Claudius Caesar’s name and their respective positions. The inscription thereon is a record dating Gallio’s tenure at Corinth to the time when Claudius had received the “imperial acclamation” for the 26th time. Other inscriptional evidence[33] may be adduced to prove that the 26th imperial acclamation dates to the first half (Jan-July) of 52 AD.[34] Since the Delphi Inscription declares Gallio as both friend (amicus Caesaris) and “proconsul of Achaia in the first half of A.D. 52, he must have entered upon that office in the early summer, say May/June of the year 51.”[35] F. F. Bruce, George Ogg, Jack Finegan, Dale Moody, Colin Hemer are five among an overwhelming consensus of historians who have concluded that Gallio was proconsul between May 51 and May 52 AD.[36] I quote prominent English scholar Colin Hemer[37]:

It is sufficiently clear [from this inscription] that it [Gallio’s proconsulship] must be assigned to the spring or summer of 52 and is addressed to the Delphians at the close of Gallio’s tenure or to his successor immediately after his arrival.  In either case the implication is that Gallio was proconsul in 51-52. …Gallio’s proconsulship of Achaia is otherwise attested in the writings of [Seneca].

F. F. Bruce states: “A date not later than May, 51 AD is indicated for Gallio’s entrance on his proconsulship…the narrative of Acts implies that Paul was accused before him shortly after his arrival as proconsul…”[38] The language of Acts 18:11-12 leads one to believe that Gallio arrived after Paul had stayed in Corinth for 18 months.  The Jews thought they could take advantage of the new governor’s inexperience, and so it is likely Paul was brought before Gallio’s tribunal in June of 51 AD.  Thus we are able to backdate Paul’s arrival in Corinth to the winter of 49/50 AD, which harmonizes well with Orosius’s placement of the Claudian expulsion decree in 49 AD.  Finegan says “Paul’s finding of Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth when he himself came probably in Dec. A.D. 49 agrees well.”[39] Dale Moody concurs.[40] The above dates are anchor points for the entire chronology of Paul’s missionary life accepted by most scholars.   Our dates are further corroborated by Paul’s earliest epistle, that of I Thessalonians, written only a few months after he had left Thessalonica[41] for Berea, Athens and Corinth.  In this letter, written in early 50 AD, Paul states that the wrath of God had finally caught up with the Jews (I Thes. 2:16).  The aorist aspect of the verb εφθασε points to an overt act having transpired which indicated to Paul Yahweh’s sore displeasure with Jewish hindrance of the Gospel.  The imperial wrath which Claudius had threatened early in that decade finally materialized in his expulsion edict of 49.

 

Elaboration of Point 10: Consideration of Luke’s Use of Proconsuls (plural)

If therefore, Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. (Acts 19:38, ESV)

Most scholars deny that Luke used proconsuls literally to refer to the plurality of deputy proconsuls, preferring to put “There are such people as proconsuls” in the mouth of the town clerk (19:38).[42] Other scholars admit the surprising nature of the plural anthupatoi,[43] since there was never more than one proconsul at a time. Ernst Haenchen dismisses the plural as simply “generic,”[44] which George Duncan admits as “possible.”  However, Duncan seeks another explanation:

In the speech of the Ephesian municipal secretary [town clerk] there is a strange reference to ‘proconsuls’ (in the plural)…[Did] “the two agents of the murder exercise authority prior to the arrival of the new governor[?]  If so, it would mean that the death of Silanus was anterior to the Demetrius riot [and] the Demetrius riot was later than the proconsul’s death in 54…. The year when Junius Silanus, the proconsul at Ephesus, met his death was the year 54.  Paul’s residence at Ephesus was apparently from 52 to 54.[45]

Luckrock states: “There are…reasons to believe that it is a strictly accurate statement, and that it testifies to wholly exceptional circumstances.”[46] There is no hist-orical record of more than one holding office at once in the same place.[47] What led to this plurality of deputy proconsuls in the senatorial province of Asia, and when did it take place?  Agrippina, the wife of Claudius Caesar, maneuvered to have her son Nero appointed her husband’s successor. The Roman historian Tacitus says this:

The first victim of the new reign was Junius Silanus, Proconsul of Asia.  His death was brought about by Agrippina’s devices, unknown to Nero; nor was it provoked by any turbulent element in [Silanus’] character.  He was a man of sluggish nature, and previous Emperors had treated him with contempt…But Agrippina was afraid of him.  She feared he might avenge the death of his brother Lucius, which had been her doing; and popular talk kept saying that instead of a lad like Nero, barely out of his teens, who had won the Empire by a crime, it would be better to have a man of ripe age, of blameless life and noble blood…for Silanus too [like Nero] was a great-great-grandson of divine Augustus.  Such were the reasons for his death.  The deed was done by Publius Celer, a Roman knight, and a freedman called Helius, who had charge of the Emperor’s affairs in Asia; these two administered poison to the Proconsul at a banquet, in a manner too open to escape detection.[48]

We frankly find it rather inexcusable that more historians and chronologers have not taken Luckrock’s thesis more seriously. After all, mid-autumn of 54 A.D. is a full three years and some months removed from Paul’s departure from Corinth for the fall festival in Jerusalem of 51 AD, which is plenty of time to accommodate (1) Paul’s fall and winter 51/52 hiatus in Antioch, (2) his revisiting the Churches of Galatia and Phrygia from February to June, let’s say, of 52 AD, and then (3) the 27 months spent at Ephesus (Acts 19:8-10). Some scholars have unnecessarily interspersed an entire extra year for Paul’s layover in Antioch, and/or stretched his revisiting of the churches in Asia Minor prior to Ephesus into 8-12 months.  To do so is to misread the spirit of Luke’s account. Would Paul promise to return to the Jewish brethren in Ephesus who had urged him to stay and teach them, and then spend 17-18 months in Antioch? Would Luke use a word like dierchomenos (διερχομενος, passing through), to describe a trip that took 8-12 months?  The sense of the terse narrative (18:23) is that nothing of note occurred, no beatings or stonings, no imprisonments, just passing from one church house to another confirming and strengthening the brethren.  But the eye of the narrator and his protagonist is set on the terminus of Ephesus.  Yahweh is about to, through his bondservant Paul, do some serious damage to Satan’s seat of idolatry in the province of Asia.[49] We close this section with a quote from Luckrock concerning Luke’s accuracy in Acts 19:38:

In the case of Luke we have a right to expect nothing but what is absolutely correct, because he is the chosen historian of Christ’s Church at a most critical period, when every detail is of momentous interest; and it is a cause of no little joy and satisfaction to receive, year by year, renewed proofs that he was guided by the Holy Spirit “into all truth.”  With confidence, then, may every faithful student of this Book say, “O Lord, thy word is tried to the uttermost, and Thy servant loves it.” (Ps.119:140)

Elaboration on Point 11: Did Paul Depart From Philippi Immediately After The Days of Unleavened Bread?

But we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days came to them in Troas, where we stayed for seven days (Acts 20:6, ESV).

Paul had hoped to make it to Jerusalem with his collection for the saints in Jerusalem by Passover of 55 AD, but because of a Jewish plot against his life (Acts 20:3), he could not travel directly from Corinth to Syria, but had to go northeast back through Macedonia (where he rejoined Luke), and sail out of Philippi instead, increasing his travel time.  Therefore, he determined to make it to Jerusalem by Pentecost.  So they (Paul and Luke) sailed away from Neapolis, seaport suburb of Philippi, after the Days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6).  In the year 55 AD, the very year Paul made this trip, the Passover and the Last Day of Unleavened Bread fell on Tuesday.  The five day trip—Wednesday thru Sunday–bucking the southerly winds of spring took twice as long as his trip the opposite direction (over the same sea lanes) in chapter 16.  He arrived in Troas on Sunday and spent seven days there.  Take note that the “us/we” accounts resume in Acts 20:5-6, because Luke himself sailed with Paul from Philippi.  Since Luke is an eyewitness to the final trip through Troas to Jerusalem, all arguments against the veracity of the details are futile. The men—Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus, Trophimus,–were waiting for Paul and Luke in Troas (Acts 20:5).  They were men from different cities and provinces who had been appointed by their churches to gather the collection of the saints and carry it to Judea.  Ramsay states:[50]

The purpose of this numerous company is not stated in this part of Acts; but in 24:17 Paul says: ‘I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings.’

The importance of the mission that Paul and his men were embarking upon, and the fact that Paul knew his delegation was awaiting his arrival, argue for a next day departure the Wednesday after Unleavened Bread was over.  Yet at the same time the need to stay and observe the feast of Unleavened Bread with the Macedonian Church is in view also.    The success of the collection trip underscored the unity of the Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian church. The Gentiles had benefited from the spiritual things of the Jews—salvation itself was “of the Jews,” as Christ himself had said to the Samaritan woman—now the Gentiles were about to show their appreciation, as they had done at Antioch earlier through Paul and Barnabas, by rendering their physical blessings.

In the vast majority of cases, Hebrew/Jewish counting is customarily inclusive.  Hence, the day Paul arrived, Sunday, is counted as the last day of the journey from Philippi to Troas, as well as the first day he spent in Troas.  Saturday was the seventh day he spent in Troas.

ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE OF TIME DESIGNATION IN JOHN 20:19 AND ACTS 20:7

 

Acts 20:7–And upon mia tōn sabbatōn, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

John 20:1—Now on mia tōn sabbatōn, comes Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and sees the stone taken away…

John 20:19—Then the same day at evening, being mia tōn sabbatōn, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst…

The Greek describing when the believers in Acts 20:7 met is identical to the Greek in John 20:1 and 20:19.[51] If John 20:19 is a Sunday evening meeting, then Acts 20:7 has to be a Sunday evening. However, there are a number of scholars who believe, along with the Christian Sabbath-observing groups, that Acts 20:7 is referring to Saturday night. An article by A. T. Robertson on I Corinthians[52] written almost a century ago argues that the meeting in Acts 20:7 could not have been a Sunday night, as Ramsay believed,[53] because of “the Jewish phraseology.” Conybeare and Howson say “it was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath,”[54] and then jump to the very hasty conclusion that the passage is of the “utmost importance” for showing “that the observance of Sunday was customary.” Both of these major scholars say that the sabbatōn in mia tōn sabbatōn makes it “Jewish/Hebraistic phraseology,” and therefore not likely to refer to Sunday night.  If these and numerous others are correct that the Hebrew phraseology forces this to be a Saturday evening, then we must conclude that the original purpose of the meeting on mia tōn sabbatōn om Acts 20:7 was the observance of a typical Jewish Sabbath no different than any other in the Gospels or Acts when believers gathered during the day for food, fellowship and worship. As with Calvin (p. 1-2), we would love to know how Robertson and Conybeare & Howson could have missed the fact that if the mia tōn sabbatōn of Acts 20:7 is a Saturday night, then John 20:19 also has to be a Saturday night. And if John 20:19 is a Saturday night, then the visit to the empty tomb 19 verses earlier on the same day has to be a Saturday morning. These great scholars may not have been aware of the parallels between John 20:19 and Acts 20:7, otherwise they, for reasons of doctrine and Church tradition, might never have suggested that Acts 20:7ff was a Saturday night!  Even church scholars with a vested interest in promoting modern Sabbath-keeping,[55] who emphasize the fact that Acts 20:7 is a Saturday night and not a Sunday night, have also missed the parallel language describing the time of the  events of John 20:1, 19 and Acts 20:7.   The Greek text of Acts 20:7, as well as historical information dictating the likely year when this trip occurred, point to a seventh day Sabbath as the seventh day Paul spent in Troas.

Having now established the parallel language and context between Acts 20:7 and John 20:1, 19, we are in turn led to believe the visit of Mary Magdalene to the empty tomb of John 20:1 to be a Saturday morning, which is the thesis of this book!

When Did the Acts 20:7 Meeting Occur?

 

The first presumption to be dispelled is that the meeting in Troas began after sundown. Common meals in the Middle East were eaten before sundown.  The phrase “break bread” was a common idiom in Greek secular literature for that which takes places at mealtime, breaking off a piece of bread from a loaf, or breaking off grapes or tomatoes from a vine/stem.  The idiom is used in this way in Acts 2:46 (ESV):

And day by day [the disciples] attending the temple together, and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts.

It can be shown from countless Jewish sources of the first and second centuries that common meals began well before sunset.[56] Notice Matt. 14:15-17:

Now evening coming on, the disciples come to Him, saying, ‘This is a desolate place, and the [dinner] hour has already passed. Dismiss the crowds so that they can depart into the villages and buy food for themselves.’

Luke 24:29 is another indication that late afternoon is mealtime. Scholars realize that “breaking bread” refers to a common meal rather than to the Lord’s Supper,[57] and often symbolized their social and spiritual solidarity. “Such meals were opportunities to gather together for community prayer and to hear inspired teaching (cf. Acts 2:42).”[58] Paul’s discussion or lecturing [dielegeto] is the central activity of worship in Acts 20:7. Because of time constraints, his desire to get to Jerusalem by Pentecost, caused him to prolong his speech until midnight. Paul’s life-saving action, which appears as a mere hiccup during his teaching ministry, would seem to indicate that the two actions—teaching and miracle-working—form a coherent whole to express a common resurrection theme. By way of contrast, Judaic scholar Joachim Jeremias demonstrates that the Last Supper was a special Passover meal because it began well after sundown:

Nowhere else in the gospels do we hear that an ordinary meal was held at night…in fact, it was customary to have two meals a day: a very simple breakfast between 10 and 11 a.m. and the main meal in the late afternoon…Discussions about the words of blessing used to usher in the Sabbath (kiddush) provide ample evidence that in the early times with which we are dealing the main meal was taken in the afternoon (beminhah), both on Friday and on the Sabbath.[59]

We are led to conclude that Acts 20:7 took place some time after noon on a seventh day Sabbath. Given the farewell nature of Paul’s visit on this occasion, and the importance of delivering the collection, there is an air of anticipation and moment to this gathering. This was no ordinary Sabbath. Scholars have noted numerous parallels between Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem and Yeshua’s final ascent to the holy city during Passion Week. Who can doubt the eagerness which caused the disciples to gather earlier and stay later to eat again and converse (20:11) than they might otherwise have? Little wonder, then, that “there remains therefore the keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God,”[60] words probably penned by Paul some years later. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the stay in Troas, as in Tyre on the Phoenician coast two weeks later, was prolonged seven days (despite the urgency of getting to Jerusalem by Pentecost) so that the grand finale would occur on a Saturday Sabbath!  Even John Calvin (quoted on page 1), a Sunday keeper, could not escape this same deduction.

Given the preponderance of evidence for Sabbath meetings in the rest of Acts leading up to chapter 20, it is odd in the extreme for any theologian or historian to presume that Paul spent seven days tarrying in Troas (when he was in a hurry to deliver the collection by Pentecost), then upon the final day there, a Sabbath, which it was his custom to keep and observe (Acts 17:2), simply told everybody to do their own thing until sundown!  Are we expected to believe that the seventh day in Troas was “the evening of the Jewish Sabbath,” but that Luke simply omitted any and all reference to worship and activity on the actual day-portion of the Sabbath?

Notice what the Anchor Bible says about miav sabbatōn in Matt. 28:1:

The notes of time in our gospels concerning the resurrection, together with the confused chronology of Holy Week, make it hazardous to say with any confid-ence whether the evangelists wished us to understand Saturday or Sunday at this point [Matt. 28:1].[61]

If all scholars were as honest as this Anchor Bible commentator (W. F. Albright), they would have to admit that translators may have erred. Such transparency is evident in Word Biblical Commentary, which states that mia tōn sabbatōn literally means “one of the Sabbaths.”[62] Greek experts P. W. Comfort and R. K. Brown, in their New Greek English Interlinear New Testament (Tyndale House Publishers), a word-for-word translation, renders mia tōn sabbatōn in Acts 20:7 as “one of the Sabbaths.” Yet when they translate the same phrase in the Gospels (Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1, 19), they switch the translation inconsistently to “first day of the week,” which just goes to show the scholarly ambivalence toward this crucial phrase. For an advanced discussion of the syntax and grammar of the seven occurrences of mia tōn sabbatōn in the NT, the reader will want to read our study devoted to this subject. Certainly the matter requires further investigation circumventing assumptions from post-apostolic tradition or Church history, since the Church apologists of the second and third century viewed the Law of Moses and the Sabbaths and holy days of Yahweh quite differently than the Apostles did.[63] The idea that somehow the Apostles transferred the solemnities of the Sabbath to Sunday, and somehow adopted the Mithraists’ nomenclature “Lord’s day” to describe the new institution, is an anachronistic fable.

The Preponderance of Sabbath Meetings in the Book of Acts

We challenge the reader to find one instance in the book of Acts where sabbatōn is used to refer to anything other than a Sabbath. Sabbatōn was the long-standing Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word Sabbath, used dozens of times in the third century B.C. Septuagint. Why should the addition of the Greek words mia tōn, meaning “one of the,” transform sabbatōn into a completely different day? We should like to know what  precedent exists before the second century of any Greek author employing sabbatōn to refer to any day other than a Jewish Sabbath. Acts 17:2 says:

Paul, as he was accustomed (το ειωθος = customary habit), entered to them (in the synagogue) reasoning three Sabbaths (sabbata tria) with them out of the scriptures.

Luke used το ειωθος to describe Yeshua’s custom of entering into the synagogue on the Sabbaths in Luke 4:16.  So Paul was no different. Many realize that when Paul was called by God’s grace, he did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor with those who were apostles before him in Jerusalem, but instead spent considerable time in Arabia, no doubt at Mt. Sinai, with Christ Himself (Cp. Gal. 1:16-17 and 4:25). There he received the Gospel, as Christ wanted it taught to the Gentiles, directly by revelation from Yeshua the Messiah (Gal. 1:12). Yet there is no evidence that meetings were switched from Saturday to Sunday (cp. Acts 13:42, 44). John Calvin thinks the apostles switched to Sunday sometime after Acts 20:7, but provides no evidence whatsoever.  Given all the time the risen Christ spent with the apostles, it should seem odd that He left them no instruction in this regard.  And if Paul had made the switch to Sunday in Acts 20:7, as so many theologians claim, then why would Luke use such a strong word, το ειωθος to identify Paul’s custom with that of Yeshua’s, attendance at synagogue on Sabbath. I suspect that the English word ethos, derived directly from the Greek το ειωθος, has the same strong connotation today as το ειωθος did back then. Both designate the fundamental character or spirit of a culture that informs its beliefs, customs and practices.

At the conclusion of the first Apostolic Conference (49 AD) in Acts 15:21, James said that the new Gentile converts would be able to grow in righteousness by having Moses read to them in the synagogues across the empire every Sabbath day (κατα παν σαββατον). At the start of their commission from the Holy Spirit, Paul and Barnabas came to Salamis (Acts 13:5), the first port they reached on the east end of Cyprus. They preached the Word of the Lord in the synagogues of the Jews (another reference to the Sabbath, albeit oblique). In Acts 13:14 Paul and his company entered into a synagogue with a sizable Gentile constituency in Antioch of Psidia. The Jews largely rejected the forgiveness of sin that was offered them through Paul’s powerful presentation of Yeshua, but the Gentiles received the Word gladly, and (Acts 13:42) “besought Paul that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath (το μεταξυ σαββατον). The following Sabbath, almost the whole [Gentile] city came together, to the chagrin and envy of the Jews. In Acts 14:1 Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue in Iconium, resulting in many new believers, a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks. Paul and his new companion Luke attended a prayer meeting on the Sabbath by a riverside outside of Philippi in Macedonia (Acts 16:10). A certain lady named Lydia was there that day, whose occupation was selling purple fabric, a very profitable trade. Much of Paul’s financial support for the balance of his mission in Greece will come from her and other Macedonians. In short, the entire gamut of Paul’s missionary work revolves around Sabbath and synagogue meetings, so that once we get to Acts 20:7, we are prepared for Paul’s final rendezvous with the brethren of Europe and Asia to be on a Sabbath. From the standpoint of the literary structure and organization of Paul’s work in the East, the Acts 20 passage is definitely the denouement of what has gone before, not a time for introducing brand new institutions and days of worship. The seal and consummate proof of his apostleship is now brought to bear, under the Lord’s direction, upon Troas, on another Sabbath day, mia tōn sabbatōn, where representatives from Galatian, Macedonian, Achaian, and Asian churches convene with monies collected over the past three years. This holy offering evidenced the grace of God working in Gentile hearts, giving out of their poverty to the needy Jewish saints in Jerusalem. There can be no question that the final chronological “way-station” to the Pentecost delivery of the collection is “one of the Sabbaths,” or as John Calvin put it, “some certain Sabbath,” at Troas. An amazing story which began on Pentecost in Jerusalem with Peter prophesying[64] that the time had come for Yahweh to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, including the Gentiles (Acts 2:17), is now about to see Peter’s reference to Joel confirmed. Paul and his men carried with them the evidence that Yahweh had expanded his Covenant to include the Nations. They would deliver the fruit of God’s grace working in countless non-Israelites to the needy saints in Jerusalem on Pentecost, 55 AD, two dozen years down the line from the Pentecost of 31 AD. Pentecost, Jerusalem, Sabbaths, and Troas form the framework around which Luke hangs his narrative. It is evident that he has done so for theological reasons identical to the ones he puts on display in the Gospel of Luke. There, unlike the other synoptic Gospels, he omits Christ’s cursing of fig tree in conjunction with his account of the cleansing of the Temple and begins and ends his Gospel at the Temple (Luke 2:22ff and 24:53). Luke consciously avoids an overly negative portrayal of Judaism for his Gentile audience and upholds the legitimacy of “the Law of the Lord.” In Luke 2:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 39, 42, we see the themes of the Temple, the Law of the Lord, Jerusalem, and the Holy Spirit all woven together and reinforcing each other in a very positive way.

In conclusion, if the last winter of Paul’s final missionary expedition in the East was 54/55 AD, and Paul left Philippi on the day after the Last Day of Unleavened Bread, which ended on Tuesday April 8 in 55 AD,[65] then the five day trip from Philippi to Troas was from Wednesday through Sunday, and the time spent there were a perfect seven-day week spanning that Sunday through the following Sabbath. Therefore the seventh day at Troas–called mia tōn sabbatōn–was a Sabbath, one of seven successive Sabbaths counted in order to arrive at Pentecost. That certain Sabbath was a fitting epitaph to a ministry that had been punctuated from start to finish with one memorable Sabbath and synagogue engagement after another. It was Yahweh’s way of affirming that Yeshua the Messiah is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8), and that the New Covenant had not abandoned the Sabbath for Sunday.

Addendum A: Astronomy Prohibits 56 and 57 AD for the Collection Trip

If one believes that Paul left Philippi on the day after the Last Day of Unleavened Bread, then that Feast would need to fall in a year when the seventh day at Troas fell on Saturday or Sunday night some twelve days after Unleavened Bread—five days for the boat trip to Troas, 7 days for the actual time there–to accommodate one of the two possible meanings scholars have deduced for mia tōn sabbatōn. One of the “back door” proofs that means “one of the Sabbaths” is the fact that when we let Yahweh speak from heaven, the astronomy is not very kind to those who have opted for the Sunday night meeting. The great Lucan historian Sir William Ramsay is a good case in point. Ramsay was one of the first scholars who felt Luke supplied the necessary chronological information in Acts 18-20 to pinpoint the year of Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem:

In AD 57 Passover fell on Thursday, April 7. The company left Philippi on the morning of Friday, April 15, and the journey to Troas lasted until the fifth day, Tuesday, April 19.  In Troas they stayed seven days, the first of which was April 19, and the last Monday, April 25.[66]

For Passover, Nisan 14 to have fallen on Thursday, April 7, in 57 AD, the lunar crescent had to be seen on Thursday night, March 24. But computer models show only 42 minutes between sunset and moonset on March 24, and only 8 degrees separating the two bodies.  This is below the minimum parameters determined by Karl Schoch and J. K. Fotheringham for visibility of a young new moon.[67] In addition, the moon was in complete apogee, within 2000 km of its furthest distance from earth. In these cases, the translation period from conjunction to visibility is invariably a minimum of two days. Therefore the earliest the Last Day of Unleavened Bread could have fallen in 57 AD is Friday, April 8, and this would make the seventh day at Troas a Tuesday. So 57 is hardly a workable year for Paul’s trip. Had the Feast ended on Friday, no doubt he would have waited until Sunday to travel anyway. We are confident that the venerable Ramsay, had he been the beneficiary of astronomy software available today, would have altered his chronological scheme to accommodate the facts presented in this addendum.

Now let us consider 56 AD, which is considered a possible year for the trip by a handful of scholars. Since the Passover cannot fall before the spring equinox, March 20 (which is two days before the equinox) is too early. The full moon was 10:15 pm March 19, 2.5 days before the equinox. Hence, 56 AD was an intercalary year. Tuesday April 6 was Nisan 1, Passover fell on Monday, April 19, and the Last Day of Unleavened Bread was Monday, April 26. The five day trip from Philippi to Troas would have been from Tuesday through Saturday. The seven days at Troas, therefore, could not have ended any later than Friday or Saturday of the following week. Therefore, if indeed Paul made the collection trip in the year 56 AD, then mia tōn sabbatōn is forced to mean “one of the Sabbaths” again, as with 55 AD. On that chance that they did not intercalate that year, making the Passover March 20 (a Sabbath), this would cause the fast of Acts 27:9 to fall on Sept. 10, which is too early for sailing to be considered dangerous, leaving too many months after shipwreck on Malta before they set sail for southern Italy (Acts 28: 11).

 

Addendum B: Does Saturday Night Constitute an Additional Day at Troas?

Saturday night was the conclusion of the seven days spent at Troas, and Paul departed on foot the next day (Acts 20:13). A critical question with which we must deal is whether Saturday night was viewed separately from the Sabbath itself as an additional day. Most students of the Bible are quite aware that Scripture often reckons days as beginning and ending at sundown, as pointed out in the chapter on the Hebrew calendar.[68] However, most are not cognizant of the fact that “in the NT in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts the day seems usually to be considered as beginning in the morning.”[69] This becomes appar-ent to anyone studying the use of the Greek words for tomorrow (αυριον, aurion and επαυριον, epaurion).  That aurion is a different day from today can be seen from James 4:13: “Come now, those saying, today or tomorrow (αυριον) we will go into this city…”

There are several instances where evening comes, and yet the next morning is called επαυριον, i.e. the next day (see Mark 11:11-12). Julian Morgenstern has demonstrated satisfactorily from Acts that Luke uses morning to morning reckoning of days.[70] In Acts 10:23, for instance, Peter invites Gentiles into his house, lodges them for the night, and on the morrow (τη δε επαυριον) leaves with them for Caesarea. In Acts 4:3, 5 (very similar to the wording in Mark 11), it was already evening, ην εσπερα, when the Temple authorities seized Peter and John, yet the morrow is called the next day, aurion. In the LXX of Exod. 19:10f, at the giving of the Ten Commandments, a passage likely familiar to Luke and the apostles, aurion is the day between today (σημερον) and the third day.  In Acts 23:31-32 Paul is transported under heavy Roman guard by night to Antipatris, and on the next day (τη επαυριον) Paul was led to the governor of Judea.

When one carefully notes Luke’s story of what transpired at Troas, it is plain Paul’s departure took place “on the morrow” (τη επαυριον, Acts 20:7), yet that departure took place at dawn (αυγης), at which point the all-night conversation and bread-breaking ended (20:11). The next day, τη επαυριον, is the day beginning at dawn. Therefore the events post-sundown in Acts 20:7-11 all belong to the evening of mia tōn sabbatōn (just as with John 20:19), and the new day is reckoned at “break of day” (αυγης), when Paul departed for Assos. The Apostle John’s narrative in John 20:1, 19 is analogous. There John describes the Eleven gathered in an upper room for fear of the Jews after having spent the Sabbath together. It is now evening of the same day (μια των σαββατων) referenced in 20:1. Yet the former is a Sabbath morning, but the latter technically belongs to a new Jewish day which began at Saturday sundown. The Saturday evening belonging to that Sabbath morning (20:1) is called the “evening of that day, mia tōn sabbatōn.” These are literary conventions which John and Luke employ for their Greek-speaking readers, and must be observed before assuming that additional calendar days are being reckoned in Acts 20:7-12.

How do we explain the apparent discrepancy in day reckonings between the OT and NT? It is plain from Mark 1:28-32 that the Sabbath day ends at sundown, i.e. calendar days still end “at the going down of the sun.” In Acts 27:27-33, Luke confirms this ancient principle that calendar days are comprised of daytimes which belong with the previous evening (see Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19). However, when we consider that Luke and the other evangelists are writing day-by-day narratives whose activities oftentimes extend into the evening (as in John 20:1-19), it made sense to join the evening to the previous day. When you add to this the fact that Luke and the other Gospel writers are writing to a target audience of Greek-speaking common people throughout the Roman Empire, for Gentiles, Greeks, Galatians, and for Roman officials, then the only convention that mattered was how they regarded days. No matter the reason, Luke reckoned diary and narrative days from morning to morning, with the next day beginning at dawn.

www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

derstinetodd@yahoo.com


[1] Conybeare & Howson, The Life & Epistles of St. Paul, p. 206, n. 2.

[2] Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1959), p. 138.

[3] Ibid.

[4] John Calvin, Commentary on I Cor. 16, www.ccel.org/ccel /calvin/calcom40.ii.i.html.

[5] St. Paul the Traveller, 27.

[6] Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 390.

[7] Acts 19:8, 10

[8] For the purposes of daily activity, Luke reckons days as beginning and ending at sunrise, as Julian Morgenstern has shown, Crozer Quarterly, 26 (1949): 232-240.  Therefore, Paul’s departure at daybreak of Sunday dawn is not reckoned as any kind of eighth day at Troas.  Just as the evening of mia ton sabbaton in John 20:19 is reckoned as an extension of that same day which began in John 20:1, Luke in Acts 20 is reckoning the evening activity of prolonged dialogue, teaching, raising the dead, and fellowship meal as part of the previous day, and counts the new day as beginning at sunrise. See Addendum B (end of chapter) for fuller explanation.

[9]  C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Harper & Row, NY, 1957), 4-5.

[10] Orosius baldly cites an inextant section of Josephus as his source.

[11] F. Wotke, PRE II 35 (1939), 1192.

[12] B.R. Voss, KP IV (1972), 350.

[13] F. Wotke, PRE II 35 (1939) 1192.  H. W. Goetz, Die Geshichtstheologie Des Orosius (1980), 18.

[14] Rainer Reisner, Paul’s Early Period, 180.

[15] Luedemann, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (Philadelphia, 1984), p. 164, n. 67.  Also, F. F. Bruce, New         Testament History, Doubleday (1969), 295-96.

[16] F. F. Bruce, New Testament History, Doubleday (1969), 296.

[17] This increase in anti-Semitic behavior among the Greeks in Alexandria, Antioch, and elsewhere in the East was encouraged by Caligula’s attempt to set up an image of himself in the Jewish Temple in 40 AD.  Greeks in these cities started vandalizing synagogues and setting up small statues of Caligula in them.

[18] Ibid., 297.

[19] By the mid-50’s, Prisca and Aquila were probably back in Rome (Rom. 16:3).

[20] E.M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule ( E.J. Brill, 1976), 216.

[21] Life of Claudius, xxv.4.  Seutonius is credible, since he had access to the imperial archives.  This expul-sion should not be confused with Dio Cassius’ account of the Jews in Rome early in Claudius’ reign (41 A.D.), where the emperor showed tolerance toward the Jews.  Seutonius  refers to a later period when more stringent measures were needed.  Howard, “Note on Seutonius,” Restoration Quarterly (1981), 175.

[22] Smallwood, op cit., 211.

[23] Bruce, 297.

[24] George Howard, “Note on Seutonius”, Review Qumran 24 (1981), 176.

[25] W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, (NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1896), 48.

[26] The oldest (mid-4th C.) complete manuscript of the NT ever discovered.

[27] Howard, ibid., 177.

[28] Reisner, ibid. p. 281.

[29] Reisner, p. 280.

[30] Bruce, 298.

[31] Finegan, 391.

[32] Dio Cassius 60.17.3, cited by F. F. Bruce, art. “Chronolog. Questions in Acts” BJRL (Vol. 68), 283.

[33] Aqua Claudia, an aqueduct ded. Aug. 1, 52 AD, links Claudius’ ‘12th Tribunician power’ (Jan 25, AD 52—Jan 24, AD 53) with his seventh imperial acclamation.  Since Claudius had received his seventh imp-erator prior to Aug. 1, 52, his 26th imperial acclamation must have come within the first half of the tribun-icia potestate XII, i.e. between Jan. 25, AD 52 and Aug. 1 of AD 52.  Therefore, the Delphi inscription with Gallio’s name referring to Claudius’ 26th imperial acclamation must be dated in the 1st half of AD 52.

[34] Finegan, 392.

[35] Ibid., 393.

[36] Ogg, Odyssey of Paul, 111.

[37] Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Mohr, (1989), 168-69.

[38] Bruce, “Chronological Questions in the Acts of the Apostles” BJRL (Vol. 68, 1986), 283.

[39] Finegan, op cit. 393-394.

[40] Moody, “A New Chronology for the Life & Letters of Paul,” Chronos, Kairos, Christos, 225.

[41] Ernest Best, Commentary on the 1st & 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians (Harper & Row, 1972), 7-9.

[42] Trebilco, The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, 356.

[43] Ibid. 356.

[44] Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, Westminster Press (1971), 576.

[45] George S. Duncan, St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (Scribner, 1930), 106.

[46] Luckrock, Footprints of the Apostles As Traced by St. Luke, II (1897), 189.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Tacitus Annals, Bk. XIII, opening paragraph.

[49] The official seat of Satan’s throne was Pergamum (Rev. 2:13), some 150 miles north of Ephesus.  However, prior to Augustus making Asia a senatorial province and Ephesus its capital, Pergamum had been the capital of Roman Asia.  Both were centers of the imperial cult. The proconsul regularly held court in both cities.  Silver mining and idolatry were a big part of their economy. (Acts 19:24-25)

[50] St. Paul the Traveller, 221.

[51] Scholars and pastors in Adventism and the Church of God Sabbatarian organizations for 150 years have maintained that Acts 20:7 was a Saturday night meeting, yet seem oddly unwilling to accept the truth that this forces John 20:1 to be a Saturday morning, not a Sunday morning.

[52] Vol. I, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, p. 485.

[53] Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller (1895), 221-222; also Expositor, (May 1896).

[54] The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. II (Scribner & Sons, NY, 1887), p 206.

[55] Seventh Day Adventists, Church of God Seventh Day, the many off-shoots of Worldwide Church of God, Messianic Sabbath-keepers, Assemblies of Yahweh, Seventh Day Baptist.

[56] S. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie III, Leipzig, 1912, 29: “in the hours before evening’; Billerbeck II, 204, 206; IV, 615: in the ‘later hours of the afternoon.’  Tos. Shab. 12.16.  Ber. 8.5.

[57] New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. X, 277.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Chas. Scribner, NY., 1966), p. 44-46, n. 1 and 4.  See conclusive proofs

[60] Hebrews 4:9

[61] The Anchor Bible: Matthew, W. F. Albright & C.S. Mann.  (Doubleday, New York (1971), p. 358.

[62] Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35, p. 1188.

[63] The proliferation of heresies, Gnosticism, hellenistic philosophy, and pagan customs even during apostolic times and increasing during the second Century, makes post-apostolic documents like the Didache, Ignatius and Justin unreliable for defining apostolic practice or terminology.

[64] Peter based this prophecy upon the words of Joel 2:28.

[65] See footnote #

[66] Ramsay, op. cit., 221.

[67] J. K. Fotheringham, “Evidence of Astronomy and Technical Chronology for the Date of the Crucifixion.” Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 4, 1934, 161-62.

[68] “The Hebrew Calendar,” www.americaspropheticdestiny.com.

[69] Finegan, op. cit., 8.

[70] Morgenstern, Crozer Quarterly, 26 (1949): 232-240.

 

The “Fossilized” Reformation

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth. (I Jn. 3:18)

The Concordant Literal Version renders this important scripture of the Apostle John in the following manner: “we should not be loving in word, neither in tongue, but in act and truth.” With this as our keynote and spring board, we will show examples in the scripture that sanctification through language was not a fundamental concern of YHWH’s prophets.

Some years back, C. J. Koester of S. Africa, a physician by training, wrote a book called The Final Reformation, in which he claimed to be able to trace the origin of a number of terms used in the King James Bible—holy, sacred, lord, God, Christ—back to pagan culture many hundreds of years ago. Nobody called the man to task for his dubious efforts, the fruits of such doctrine, or the self-righteousness in thinking a mere human could ascribe to himself the work of final reformation. Acts 3:18 and our own intuition tells us that full unity and restoration of doctrine awaits the return of our Lord and Savior, Yahshua of Nazareth.

Compare the spirit and flavor of Koester’s thesis with the teaching of another reformer of the first century—John the Baptist. Yahshua said of John that he was Elijah, and came restoring all things (Matt. 17:11). Yet John said nothing about terminology, not even to soldiers and publicans who spoke Latin and Greek. His answer to the crowds who asked him what they should be doing was to share food and clothing with the poor. To the tax-collectors he said to impose no more than was prescribed to them. To soldiers he said, “Intimidate no one, neither be blackmailing, and be content with your wages and rations.”

Those who make a fair show with the tongue are a diversion from the kind of practical righteousness that John and Christ taught. The apostle Paul re-emphasized practical righteousness, saying that nothing but envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings and the like came from “strifes over words” (I Tim. 6:4-5). The same thought is repeated stronger in II Tim. 2:14:

Remind them of these things, solemnly testifying before Yahweh not to dispute about words for nothing useful, to the throwing down of those hearing.

How many divisions contrary to the doctrine of Christ, how many broken relationships and marriages must occur before we realize that terminology-based righteousness tears down those listening to such tripe? My wife and I met a couple recently whose marriage was in jeopardy, thanks to Lew White’s book Fossilized Customs. This so-called study in etymological origins of scriptural words, led to inability of the couple to praise and worship freely together because of undue concern over terminology used in praise music that had hithero been a rich blessing to them. When we showed them that Yahweh Himself used ‘questionable’ terminology to refer to his role as Husband, they quickly realized it could not possibly be wrong to call him ‘Lord.’ Jer. 3:14 says: “Return unto Me, O apostate sons, says Yahweh, for I am lord (ytleb) over you.” The Hebrew characters are the verb form of ba’al, and translated ‘married’ by the KJV. Similarly, Isa. 54:5 says “For your husband (yleb) is your Maker, YHWH is His name.” The parentheti-cal Hebrew characters mean “your ba’al,” but are best translated “your husband.” To this day in Israel, where modern Hebrew is used, the ba’al of any household is the husband. When we see how Yahweh desired to remove the names of Baalim out of Israel’s mouth (Hosea 2:17), it is apparent that Yahweh’s concern all along was against calling upon the name of Ba’al, as though Ba’al were a real entity, not against using ba’al as a common noun meaning husband, owner, lord. The verb and noun form of ba’al is used in many places, hence any other understanding would invalidate the scriptures using this noun. It is apparent to those having the Spirit of YHWH, that Jeremiah and Isaiah did not share the scruples of so many in the Sacred Name movement, which falsely censors its adherents from using common terminologies such as Lord, God. We hasten to confirm the truth that no man has the authority to substitute Lord or God in the place of Yahweh’s revealed name, which occurs some 6,958 times in the OT, and was likely in the original MSS of the NT. In this the translators are in grievous violation of the 3rd commandment, which prohibits taking away or bringing to desolation the name of Yahweh.

Ezra and Nehemiah coming out of captivity, adopted the Babylonian terminology for referring to the months of the lunar calendar (see Neh. 2:1, 6:15, Ezra 3:7, Esther 8:9). Their lack of scruples in this indicates that what a word refers to is more important than the word itself.

Word Origination vs. Word Pathways: A Study in Deception

There is an important lesson to be learned when we return to the example of the word ba’al. It is apparent to the thinking person that Ba’al did not originate with the Canaanites or Assyrians. They simply must have taken the already existing common semitic noun and turned it into a proper name for their deity. In other words, they turned a common noun into a proper noun. Likewise, the Ammonites probably took the common noun for king—melech—and appropriated it for the name of their god Molech. Common sense does not jump to the conclusion that the Ammonites originated the term molech. All human language had its origins in Babel in Gen. 10, thus making Yahweh the ultimate author of language.

The same principle applies to old English and terms such as sacred, god, lord, holy. Lew White claims that these terms were used by pagans in the Middle Ages. But this does not mean that they originated the terms. The lingo came thru pagans, but did not originate with them. Lord is a legitimate and useful poetic equivalent of the Hebrew word adonai and the Greek kuriov.

Cristov—A study in Butchered Etymology

The Greek Cristov, translated Christ in our English versions, goes back to classical Greek times as far back as Homer. It meant to pour oil upon, anoint. The Hebrew word messiah (hysm) means essentially the same thing, and was used when a prophet, such as Samuel, poured oil on the head of the next king, David. To explain this equivalency in terms, John the apostle included interpretative explanations for Hebrew terminology in his Gospel. Notice John 1:41:

Andrew, finding his own brother Simon, says to him, “We have found the Messiah!” (which is being interpreted, ‘Christ’).

To the pure all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled (Titus 1:15).

Lew White understands the simple meaning of christos, that of anointing with oil, yet relies on one old French dictionary to cast aspersions upon the term Christian. This dictionary, without explanation, gives cretan as the meaning of Christian Contradicting this, many sacred name adherents struggle in their attempts to link ‘Christian’ with Krishna, the Indian god. But this violates the laws of etymology. Cristov was in use in Greece long before Alexander the Great had any contact with east India. The –ian ending (such as on Christian) was very com-monly added in Latin to Greek names to indicate the followers of any particular person. There are scholarly articles on this that make infinitely more sense than Lew White or C.J. Koester’s etymological nonsense.

Was Christian a Pejorative Term?

The term Christian occurs three times in the New Testament. Its first use is in Acts. 11:26. When one asks the question of why Luke, the greatest historian of all time, ancient or modern, would mention the fact of where the disciples were first called ‘Christians,’ it is plain that he is trying to inform the prominent Roman convert to the faith, Theophilus (Luke 1:3), of the source of the label which early on became widespread for the followers of The Christ. It is irrelevant who coined the term, for the literary use by Luke and Peter, as we shall see, is simply not pejorative. In Acts 26:28, Herod Agrippa II, king of Judea, asks the question whether Paul has almost persuaded him to become a Christian. Paul’s response in vs. 30 contains no negatives, but rather an affirmation that Paul wishes all present, including the Roman governor Festus, would become as Paul himself. There is not the least hint in this narrative that Paul finds the term offensive, or that it misrepresents what he is. It is evident that King Agrippa believes Paul to be a Christian, and Paul does not deny it. We have almost no evidence in the New Testament for how Sunday worship came about, but the New Testament leaves no doubt that the term Christian became the most popular way of referring to the new sect.

I Peter Shows that ‘Christian’ means a follower of Christ

In I Peter 4:14, Peter says “If you be reproached for the name of ‘Christ.’ Now we know the name of Christ was ‘Yahshua,’ or ‘Yehoshua’ but it is more likely that Peter means the title ‘Cristov.’ He says that when the Christians were being reproached for the name of Cristov, they were happy, because the very same spirit of glory and power that Yahweh had anointed Yahshua with, had come to rest upon the Christians. Two verses later Peter says they should not be ashamed if they suffer as a Christian, but should be glorifying Elohim in this name, seeing it is now the appointed time for judgment to begin from the house of God.

The Sacred Name movement has provided no excuse for rejecting the sense and the truthfulness of these verses penned by Peter and John Mark. The Greek New Testament is, after all, the most well-attested and highly scrutinized piece of literature in the ancient world. The variant readings seldom make much, if any doctrinal difference, and when they do they make for very challenging investigation as to why and how they came about. Variant readings should be no more offensive to the true believer than the fact that Elohim suffered His Son, the Word of God, to be pummeled beyond recognition and hung on a tree.

Attacks on the terms Christ and Christian are vain attempts at creating a parallel religious culture seeking to create separation and differences for the mere sake of differentiation, not holiness or righteousness. This kind of differentiation is pseudo-intellectual sophistry with cultish tendencies. Lew White, C.J. Koester, and many others fostering exclusivism via the Names have cast unnecessary aspersions on the integrity of the New Testament Greek texts containing the names Christ and Christian. Yet the author of Fossilized Customs — Lew White–earns the largest portion of his income as owner of the largest head shop in Louisville, KY. My heros are the various authors of the New Testament —Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and their amenuenses Barnabas, Mark, Luke, etc. Marvin Cox sins greatly against the Word of God by repeatedly pointing people to Lew White, in lieu of the authors of the New Testament, who do not share his scruples.

Lew White Owns/Operates Electric Lady Land 7 Days a Week!”

How ironic that a major sacred name publication such as YEA newsletter would lean on Fossilized Customs to come up with enough evidence to debunk the Lunar Sabbath, which is a counter-cultural religion just like Lew White’s headshop—Electric Lady Land. There, in mid-town Louisville, KY you will find thousands upon thousands of hard rock and acid rock albums promoting the most heinous sex crimes and immorality, even violence against women and constituted authority. Large posters of vile rock stars are displayed prominently in idolatrous fashion. Lew White’s religious books are displayed prominently right next to cases with 300-400 dollar dope-smoking pipes and paraphernalia. Sacred Namers who continue to buy and distribute his books are partakers of his iniquity. Such are false apostles who have spoken, but YHWH has not sent. It is shameful that you have settled for a bowl of pottage instead of the inspired Greek New Testament.

A Word on the Peshitta

The Aramaic New Testament, the Peshitta, is a translation from a Greek original! That is the opinion of the vast majority of scholars who have compared the two. It is in Aramaic because the Churches it served—in Babylonia, Antioch, Damascus, Syria, Mesopotamia, eastern Asia Minor—spoke Aramaic, and thus had the need for an Aramaic record of the deeds and words of our Lord and His Apostles. Of course, there is not one Sacred Name adherent who has investigated the Greek origin of the Peshitta. They have yet to explain how the Peshitta would use the Greek word pentecostos in Acts 2:1; 20:16, and I Cor. 16:8 to refer to the Feast of Weeks, and why the Peshitta seems dependent on the Greek text in Acts 17:22. There the Greek word–desidaimonesterouv–actually means “fearful of gods.” The word was taken to mean “worship-pers of demons” by whoever translated from the Greek to Aramaic. Countless other examples could be adduced to demonstrate the Greek origin of the Peshitta.

Since Gentile believers in Yahshua greatly outnumbered Jewish believers in Asia Minor, Antioch, Macedonia, Achaia, Ephesus, and Galatia, and since the Jewish believers in these areas were very much like Philo and only understood Greek, there is no question that every apostle who had anything to do with writing the New Testament saw the tremendous need for a faithful and reliable Greek transcript of whatever had been placed in the Canon under their authority. The marginalization of the Greek New Testament is therefore an attack on the New Testament itself, and in turn casts aspersions on Yahweh’s willingness and ability to preserve the New Testament as originally penned. And if Yahweh’s truths and concepts cannot be conveyed adequately via the Greek language, through which the vast majority of Church members were converted in the first Century, then we are led to believe that our own ability to grasp the Bible is hindered somehow by English. Some Messianics believe that the vibrations of the Hebrew language convey healing and spiritual connectivity. None of this is healthy to the Body of Messiah.

Christ Himself foretold that the Kingdom of Heaven would be taken from the Jews, those speaking Hebrew, and given to a nation (the Church) speaking a different language that would bring forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43). There is always value in studying the scriptures in Hebrew and Greek, as I myself am able to do, but the Sacred Name and Messianic movement has gone way too far in lowering the status of the Greek New Testament in the eyes of its followers. A New Covenant with the Gentiles required a new language for its adherents. Sabbatizo–the keeping of Sabbaths (Heb. 4:9, and used long before in the LXX)—is a good example of the sufficiency of the Greek language to convey Hebrew concepts to its hearers.

www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

derstinetodd@yahoo.com

CHURCH  TRADITIONS VS. BIBLICAL FACTS

ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE SAVIOR’S DEATH AND RESURRECTION

Proverbs 25:2—It is the glory of Elohim to conceal a matter,

and the glory of kings to investigate a matter.

A New Chronology of the Passion Week: Why Is It Needed?

The ‘Who, What, How, and Why’ of the crucifixion week have been answered fairly satisfactorily by the Christian apologists over the past two millennia.  The Son of YHWH God took human form in the womb of Mary, a descendant of King David, and condemned sin in the flesh by His sinless life, paying the penalty in our stead by a very cruel, torturous death via crucifixion.  Being hung on a tree, He became a curse for us.  Millions of words have been said, and should continue to be said, about ‘Who’ He was, ‘What’ He accomplished during His three year ministry, and ‘Why’ He gave his life.  But if there one thing that the scholars, Gospel pundits and church councils have utterly failed to answer satisfactorily, it is the question of ‘When’ Yahshua fulfilled these things.  It is not for lack of interest that answers have fallen short of the scriptural criteria for truth.  After all, the first Church council in 325 A.D. (Nicea) was very much concerned with establishing the proper date for pagan Easter, and less than 200 years later Dionysius gave the world 1 BC and 1 AD based solely on his desire to have Christ be 33 years of age in a year when Passover fell on Friday.[1] Dionysius knew that the monopoly which Constantine had handed his Catholic Church was very much in jeopardy if scholars of the Church could not establish a plausible year for their Paschal event.

Yahweh Himself declares certain Times to be holy, in so many words. In scripture the seventh day of the week is the first thing hallowed. “And Elohim blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” (Gen. 2:3).  We are told in the first chapter of Genesis (vs. 14) that Elohim/God created the Sun, Moon and stars for signs (symbols of spiritual import) and for seasons (moedim is the Hebrew word for appointed times or holy days), and lastly for days and years.  All the holy days in Lev. 23 come under the heading of moedim/dewm (see Lev. 23:2).   Calendars in every culture from time immemorial have been the province of priests, and have been played a central role in the religious life of mankind.

The first Torah command is Exod. 12:2, which declares Aviv to be the beginning of months, and the first month of the year for Israel.  Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that above and beyond the healings and miracles that Christ performed which bore witness of Him, he gave but one sign of His Messiahship, the sign of the prophet Jonah (a sign concerning time), found in Jonah 1:17, i.e. that “as Jonah 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” (Matthew 12:40).  Beyond the improbability that Christ was referring to any portion of three days[2], it is certain to this writer that a 1½ day interment would have been no sign whatsoever to the Jew of the first century.  And it was for them that this sign was given in the first place, “the evil and adulterous generation”[3] of Jews who rejected Him.

Death and Burial in First Century Judaism

The following is taken from Appendix 148 (entitled “The Third Day”) of Bullinger’s Companion Bible:

John Lightfoot (1602-75) quoted a Talmudic tradition that the mourning for the dead culminated on “the third day”, because the spirit was not supposed to have finally departed till then (Works, Pitman’s ed., vol. xii. Pp. 351-353).  Herodotus testifies that embalmment did not take place until after three days. The Jews did not accept evidence as to the identification of a dead body after three days.

This period therefore, seems to have been chosen by YHWH to associate the fact of resurrection with the certainty of death, so as to preclude all doubt that death had actually taken place, and shut out all suggestion that it might have been a trance, or the resurrection a mere case of resuscitation.  The fact that Lazarus had been dead “four days already” was urged by Martha as a proof that Lazarus was dead, for “by this time he stinketh.”

In support of the foregoing, we would like to refer to the work of Professor David Kraemer, PhD[4], an Orthodox Jew who teaches at Jewish Theological Seminary, who uses the Gospel accounts to establish the Jewish attitude toward death in the first century.  In his chapter on “Jewish Burial Customs Before the Rabbis” we find:[5]

“The visit on the third day [by the women bringing spices for treatment and comfort of the deceased] after burial…is of particular interest.  The third day is distinguished, by implication but nonetheless clearly, from the fourth day in John 11—the story of Lazarus.  The story emphasizes that Jesus arrives at the tomb of Lazarus on the fourth day following his death.  Because Lazarus has been dead for four days, there is an immense stench which issues from the tomb when it is opened.  Nevertheless, Jesus prays to God and then calls to Lazarus to come out of the tomb.  Thereupon, miraculously, Lazarus steps forth. The key to this story is the miraculous revival of Lazarus.  It is miraculous because, on the fourth day following death, the stench of death gives indisputable evidence that the individual is dead and decaying.  Before this, though, it is not certain that what looks like death is indeed that.  For this reason, it appears, survivors visit the deceased on the third day: to anoint him with oils (for his comfort), to pray on his behalf, perhaps to visit him for the last time before death is absolutely certain, and generally to ascertain his state.” On page 22 he continues—“

We have seen in the literature of this period that the first three days following death were significant, probably because, during this time, it was not even clear that death had occurred… So people do not burst into death; they fall into it slowly.

It is clear from Dr. Kraemer’s treatment of the subject that any interment period less than three days would have failed to be a sign to Jews of the first Century that somebody had prevailed over death and the grave.  For them, a person was not truly dead until after three days, when it was thought the spirit left the body and returned to God. Hence, we see the first mistake made by orthodox Christian theologians speculating about the timing of Christ’s burial and resurrection is the projection of their modern mindset about death and burial onto the Jews of that day.

The Jews Understood Yahshua’s Statements as Requiring 3 Full Days

There is evidence that even the Jewish leadership responsible for putting Christ to death understood Him to mean He would be in the tomb at least three days.  The chief priests and Pharisees quoted Yahshua as saying, “After three days I will rise again,” when obtaining authority from Pilate to seal the tomb (Matt. 27:63).  Two “witnesses” at Yahshua’s trial before the Sanhedrin quoted Christ as saying much the same thing (Matthew 26:61):

This one said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and through[6] three days to build it again.’

The underlined preposition is dia in the Greek text, which means through here, because the object of dia is in the genitive (possessive) case.  This instance flies directly in face of any scenario where the resurrection is early in the day, for it is saying the resurrection would be after he had gone through three days of death.  Nor does it say much for using the few minutes He was off the cross before sundown and counting that as an entire day.  But these “witnesses” no doubt had Christ’s statement at the Temple at the first Passover (John 2:19) as their basis for their testimony, the same as the Pharisees before Pilate.  This was Messiah’s first reference to the three day entombment.  There the Jewish leaders asked Him (v. 18), “What sign do you show us…?  His memorable response was, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”  John explains by saying that:

He spake of the temple of His body.  When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them.”

The disciples were not the only ones who remembered Christ’s statement at the Temple.   Therefore the scriptures tell us that the Pharisees, chief priests, witnesses at His trial, and the disciples themselves all understood Christ to have meant three full days when referring to the period preceding His prophesied resurrection.  Many more passages (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31, 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33 indicate the resurrection would take place “on the third day.”  Others use the preposition “in three days.”  When combined with Matt. 12:40 and the sign of Jonah we have a conundrum.  How can all of these different expressions be literal and be true at the same time?  We are going to satisfy all of these conditions and show how each one was true.  Think of it this way:  the word of God has given us a riddle that needs to be solved.  Solve it we will.

A New Paradigm for Reconciling the Different Expressions for the Length of Yeshua’s Entombment

How are we going to solve the riddle of these different expressions?  Can we silence the mouths of the skeptics who say that the three days and three nights cannot be taken literally?  My answer to the open-minded is an emphatic ‘Yes!’  We are going to prove Christ was placed in the tomb at the beginning of one day (i.e. just after sundown), the second or middle day was entirely spent in the tomb, and at the end of a third day he was raised by YHWH the Father.  Hence, the end of the third was both on the third day and yet also within three days.   However, rising at the end of the third day means He had also been dead through three days, as required by Matt. 26:61 and by the sign of the prophet Jonah.

A PROPOSED TIMELINE OF YESHUA’S DEATH AND RESURRECTION

Aviv 14

Passover, Crucifixion day.  He dies at 3 PM.

Christ taken off the cross just prior to sundown.  Aviv 14 ends at sundown, and a new day begins.

Aviv 15

High Day Sabbath (1st Day of Unleavened Bread), but dead could be attended to.  Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus place Him in tomb after sundown of the 14th.  Tomb sealed by Pharisees ‘late’ on the [High Day] Sabbath (Mt. 27:66 and 28:1a).

Day One in the Tomb.

Aviv 16

Weekday when buying of spices,

(Mark 16:1) and other work could be done.  Spice preparation for burial was costly and time-consuming.

Day Two in the

Tomb.

Aviv 17

Weekday preparation for weekly Sabbath.

Luke 23:56 says the women rested according to the commandment after preparing the spices on this day. Yeshua rose from the dead before sundown Friday.

Day Three in Tomb.

Tuesday March 27

Wednesday March 28

Thursday

March 29

Friday March 30

This day near sundown

is both on, in and

after three days.

This paradigm also satisfies the requirement for a full three days and three nights mentioned by the Savior in Matt. 12:40, whose model is the time period Jonah spent in the belly of the whale.  In the outline above we can see that Tuesday night, Wednesday night, and Thursday night were the three nights, while Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday daylight periods were the three days.  When we let the Bible interpret the Bible, we see that the Savior in John 11:9 defines a day as comprising 12 hours:  “Are there not twelve hours in the day?”  We may naturally infer from this that the Messiah also ascribes twelve hours to the night.  Therefore, as E.W. Bullinger[7] has pointed out, the Savior was making reference to six approximately twelve hour periods just as in Jonah chapter 1, and the reference to both night periods and day periods eliminates the possibility of it being figurative.

What this paradigm does not satisfy are the theologians bent on upholding the authority of their churches, an authority derived not from the apostles, but from the Council of Nicea and Constantine, when these matters were finally put in stone.  What theologians and Church leaders are wont to tell lay Christians, but which is understood by anyone who has studied Church history, is that Sunday is nothing more than the weekly celebration of a supposed first day resurrection, and became the Church’s excuse for not keeping the Saturday Sabbath holy.  What the so-called Church fathers thought about Sunday resurrections means little to the person who realizes, along with Martin Luther, how scripturally deficient many of the Catholic Church fathers were.  Most of the Church fathers in the West after the second century did not know Greek; they only knew Latin.  Martin Luther said knowing the scriptures in Latin was like drinking from a mud puddle compared to knowing them in their original languages, which he compared to a rushing mighty stream.  In other words, the meaning of mia ton sabbatwn (one of the Sabbaths) was quite lost on them.  And even if they had known its literal meaning, their penchant for interpreting scripture allegorically meant that the phrase would not be understood or applied literally. How very few stop to consider how anti-law, anti-Jewish, anti-woman, anti-marriage, anti-sex, and anti-God-of-the-Old Testament the ‘Church fathers’ were.  Ambrose of Milan forgot that it was his sins that put Christ up on the cross, not just the Jews’ political machinations with Pilate.  Jerome, the most erudite linguistic scholar of them all, made the priesthood celibate almost single-handedly (contrary to what Paul taught in Timothy and Titus and Corinthians).  The fruits of mandatory celibacy have come home to roost in almost every generation.  Jerome’s strict asceticism was more typical of a Greek philosopher than a Christian.[8] Justin Martyr, Origen, and a host of other Church ‘fathers’ allegorized away the significance of the Old Testament and its laws.  For example, the monks commissioned to create our oldest surviving complete MS, the Codex Sinaiticus–dating to only a decade after Constantine’s death—included the flamingly anti-Semitic Epistle of Barnabas (140 A.D.) as part of their Canon.  In it, the pseudonymous author [9] claims a demon came down and convinced the Jews of the need to keep YHWH’s law literally.  He spends time attempting to persuade his readers that it is  acceptable in YHWH’s eyes to eat pork, and that the symbolic lesson behind this is to not associate with humans who are like pigs, and other such nonsense.

It is apparent from Samuele Bacchiochi’s ground-breaking book From Sabbath to Sunday, that Christians even in the Western part of the empire were still meeting and worshipping privately on both the Sabbath and “Lord’s day” (a misnomer for Sunday), well into the 4th Century.  All Constantine’s edicts (and the Church which he created) managed to do was anathematize and drive underground the small minority who were willing to die for the keeping of the Passover and the Sabbath.  Easter, a patently pagan term deriving directly from the Babylonian fertility cult, was adopted in the place of both Passover and Sabbath, because Sunday was nothing more than a weekly Easter, as Bachiocchi demonstrates.

In a day when Christianity’s enemies are on the ascendant, it is time to direct our attention to ideological icons made of stone.  The Christian iconoclasts of the 7th and 8th Centuries went about destroying the statues and idols standing in supposedly Christian cathedrals and cities, because they rightly believed that in this respect, Christianity was less righteous than the Moslems who strictly forbade the use of idols.[10] It is time to reconsider ideas we thought were carved in stone and take an honest look at the doctrinal foundations of Christianity.  They are firm when founded on scripture, but when the are not, they are like a house built on sand about which Christ prophesied, “And the rains descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it [11] (Matthew 7:27).”

Yeshua Was Not in the Tomb on Any Part of the 14th of Aviv (Passover Day)

A Friday crucifixion and Sunday morning resurrection do not allow for three days and three nights in the tomb.  Furthermore, since Biblical and Jewish days began and ended at sundown, and since it is by no means certain that Joseph of Arimathaea placed the body in the tomb prior to sunset, Bible interpreters have simply assumed that they have part of Friday to count as one of their three days.  Notice, Matt. 27:57 says:

And evening having come,[12] a rich man from Arimathea coming up to Pilate, requests the body of Yeshua.  KJV

The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, by George Howard, a very early witness to what the original Hebrew text of Matthew may have said, says this:

At evening time (literally, “to the time of evening” in the Hebrew text), a rich man …came to Pilate and asked him for the body of Jesus.”

The Hebrew concept of “evening” (indeed the Semitic concept throughout every culture in the Middle East for thousands of years) can best be understood by consulting Baumgartner’s Hebrew-English lexicon.  In his exhaustive study of the Hebrew word for evening–erev (bre)– it is clear that all the cognate Semitic languages from Egypt to Mesopotamia understood ‘r’v as referring to the time of sunset and later (not afternoon, as the rabbis later interpreted it).  This ancient root ‘r’v meant “the going down, and the going in.”[13] When the sun went down, those working outdoors went into their domiciles.

Mark 15:42 says the same thing as Matthew, i.e. that it was near sunset (already evening was occurring) when Joseph of Arimathea came to Pilate boldly:

Now evening occurring, since it was a preparation which is toward a sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea…came with daring, entered in to Pilate and requests the body of Yeshua,

The account in Mark 15:44-45 states that Pilate was amazed if Yahshua were already dead.  Only after calling for the centurion and ascertaining how long Yahshua had been dead (which must have taken some time), did Pilate then grant permission to Joseph to take the body.  The combining of Matthew’s account with Mark 15 yields the result that entombment was after sundown, not before.  Mark in the very first chapter of his Gospel (Mark 1: 32) takes the pains of explaining just what is meant by the term evening (Greek=oqiav):

Now evening occurring [identical Greek phrase as Mark 15:42 and Matthew 27:57], when the sun sets, they brought to Him all those who have an illness and those who are demoniacs.  And the whole city was assembled at the door.

Most commentators realize that the reason the people waited until sunset was to avoid upsetting the Pharisees and leaders of the synagogue, who foolishly assumed that healing on the Sabbath was work.

John’s narrative in John 19:31-32 indicates that the Jewish leaders[14] did not go before Pilate to ask that he do something specific (Greek word is erotaw), i.e. expedite the death of Yeshua and the others being crucified with Him by having their legs broken, until after Yeshua had already expired–after 3 PM.  So this dispatch was likely between 3:30 and 4:30 PM in the afternoon.  And hour or two later, as evening/sunset is occurring, Joseph comes to ask permission to bury Yeshua’s body, and Pilate is surprised that He is already dead.  So even though Pilate had earlier complied with the Jews’ request that His legs be broken[15], Pilate was still surprised that Yeshua was dead already.  Therefore Pilate dispatched a centurion to Golgotha to bring back certain word of His death, and then granted permission to Joseph of Arimathea.

John 19:39-40 adds further detail to our story by informing us that Nicodemus carried 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes to help Joseph treat the linen burial cloth with aromatics, according to Jewish burial custom.  There are others who think the aloe and myrrh were dry aromatics intended to dry up his extensive body wounds. The application of this ointment to the body and/or wrapping must have taken quite some time, and would not have taken place inside the cramped quarters of the tomb.  This was all done prior to Him being laid in the tomb, and suggests strongly that the final placement of the body was well after sunset.

Acts 9:37 shows that it was customary to first wash the body of the deceased before proceeding to the next step.  It is unthinkable that Joseph and Nicodemus would not have washed Christ’s body before wrapping it with the treated linen [even though the text is discreet in omitting this detail].  Hence, all the evidence argues against this process being completed prior to sundown.  Even if the myrrh and aloes which Nicodemus brought were already in the prepared state[16], i.e. precious (and sticky) ointment, the application of the ointment onto the linen cloths would have taken the men more than an hour, and possibly much longer.   There is the probability that this operation took place at a private location (perhaps Joseph of Arimathea’s house), due to the need for water. In conclusion, since Matt. 27:57 indicates it was near sundown or evening when Joseph besought Pilate, there is no way he:

  1. walked from Fort Antonia where Pilate was,
  2. bought fine linen wrapping (Mark 15:46),
  3. walked to Golgotha and took the body down
  4. took the body to his private residence or a private place with water
  5. washed the body, and treated the body wounds with dry myrrh and aloes
  6. completed the application of the same to the linen, then
  7. dressed the body with the linens, and
  8. finally transported the body of Yeshua to his private tomb, and performed all of these things before dusk was over.

Now since Friday evening was part of the same day (the seventh-day Sabbath), and in no way would have been considered as part of a different day than Saturday (since both comprised the holy Sabbath), orthodox Christianity and those who believe in a Sunday resurrection have little basis for arguing that Sunday was the third day after He was buried.   So if the Churches truly wish to maintain their confession in the Apostle’s Creed, that Christ “died, was buried, and rose the third day,” the above analysis indicates that a Sunday morning would only be the second day after He was buried/ laid in the tomb.

Mainstream theologians would prefer simply to ignore Matthew 12:40 and Jonah 1:17, since these verses mitigate against the Good Friday/Easter Sunday scenario of tradition.  The taking of these scriptural passages literally as three full days and three full nights is bolstered further by the Bible’s own definition of a day as comprising twelve hours (John 11:9, referred to earlier).

The Scriptures Never State the Resurrection Occurred on Sunday

Scholars and religionists should be honest enough to admit that there is no scripture that tells us explicitly when the Savior rose from the dead.  The only verse that comes close to doing so is Mark 16:9.  The literal translation from the Greek is as follows:

But after having risen, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene (out of whom He had cast seven devils) early on first Sabbath.

The participial phrase that begins the verse contains the aorist form of the verb anastemi (anastav), and is translated correctly as “having risen” by Green’s Interlinear.  Rules governing Greek participles will tell you this “having risen” took place at an indefinite time prior to when He first appeared to Mary Magdalene.  The phrase “early on first Sabbath”  proi proth sabbatou can only be modifying the verb “manifested” (efanh), which means His resurrection had occurred at some indefinite (aorist) time in the past, prior to His appearing to her.

That phrase definitely does not mean “first day of the week”, as the chapter by that title will demonstrate.  It refers to the “early morning of the first [weekly] Sabbath” after Passover.  Those who believe it does must explain why Mark uses mias sabbatwn in verse 2 of chapter 16.  The existence, so close by, of different expressions for the same day, is an argument against idiomatic usage by the author.  If Mark was using an idiom to refer to Sunday, he would not switch from mia to proth to refer to “first day.”

All the other passages in the Gospels[17] have to do with when the women came to the tomb, not when He arose.  Therefore, the only way to derive exactly when He arose is through deduction and inference, three days and three nights being only one part of that equation.  Since the phrase that denotes the arrival time of the women is mian sabbatwn in Matt. 28:1 and mia twn sabbatwn in Luke 24:1 and John 20:1, and since these phrases mean one of two things—“one of the Sabbaths” or “first day of the week”—therefore the entombment must be three or four days prior to a Saturday or Sunday morning. This limits our search for the year of the crucifixion to a year when the Passover happened at the middle of the week, on either a Tuesday or a Wednesday.  Since the visible crescent of the moon used to calculate the first day of Aviv (the first Biblical month in spring) causes the Passover, the fourteenth day of Aviv, to fall on Sunday or Monday in 29 and 32 A.D., these years do not allow for the resurrection to fall near the weekend.[18]

The Women Bought Spices between the 15th of Aviv and the Weekly Sabbath

Yahshua died on Passover day, fourteen days after a New Moon. The Law of Moses plainly declares the 14th of the first month to be the Passover, and it was definitely on this day that Christ died.  There was urgency expressed by the Jewish leaders to get him down from the cross before the annual Sabbath, the first day of Unleavened Bread, which was the 15th day of Aviv.  Numerous passages in the Gospels tell us that the day of the crucifixion was also “preparation day” for the first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread.  The women had to wait an entire day, until the annual holy day had passed, before venturing forth to purchase spices, as per Mark 16:1:

And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him with oil.

The Friday-Sunday scenario does not allow for either the time or the work involved in buying and preparing spices.  No shops were open late on Friday.  On the chance that the women were able to buy spices after Saturday sundown, not enough time remains to have prepared them and come to the tomb Sunday morning.  But the chief problem is that Luke 23:56 indicates they prepared the spices and ointments before resting on the weekly Sabbath:

And they (the same women mentioned in Mark 16:1) returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested according to the commandment.

Yet Mark 16:1 says they bought spices after the Sabbath was past.  Very few scholars indeed have tried to reconcile these two passages.  It is apparent that Mark is referring only to the High Day Sabbath, the First Day of Unleavened Bread, which fell on the 15th of Aviv, the day after Yahshua was killed.  The afternoon Yeshua was killed is referred to as “a preparation which is toward a Sabbath” (epei hn Paraskeun o esti prosabbaton), which, with the absence of the definite article, would also tend to limit it to an annual Sabbath.  Therefore,  harmonization of these scriptures leads to the conclusion that there were in-between days that week during which spices could be bought and the work of preparing them performed before resting according to the Fourth Commandment (Luke 23:56), on Saturday.

The second reason for rejecting Friday Passover/Sunday resurrection is astronomical.  Since Passovers are counted from the New Moon, it is possible now to know the Gregorian dates of Passover with a fair amount of certainty in any year.  Knowing that date provides the day of the week.  This information can be obtained by anyone with astronomical software, such as Redshift or Starry Night.   The most plausible year for a Friday Passover fourteen days after a crescent is 33 A.D.[19] But this requires a four year ministry, which is too long.

Another major reason Friday does not work is the following:  John 12:1 says that Yahshua came to Bethany six days before the Passover, which would place His trip to Bethany on a weekly Sabbath.  Comparison with other passages in the four Gospels shows that this journey to Bethany was from Jericho, twelve miles from Jerusalem.  The early Christians who invented the myth of Palm Sunday, the supposed day of the Triumphal entry, would admit that this is true; but this wreaks no havoc with their theology, since they believe Christ came to do away with the Sabbath.  What better way to show disdain for the Fourth Commandment than by having Christ journey uphill over rugged terrain twelve miles in from Jericho on the Sabbath!   John 12:12 shows it was “on the next day” after His supposed Saturday arrival at Lazarus’ house for the special meal there, that the Triumphal entry occurred.  But it is unlikely that Christ journeyed twelve miles uphill all the way from Jericho on a Saturday.  It was customary for Him to enter into the synagogue on the Sabbath day (Luke 4:16), not use that holy time to make arduous hikes.

The main reason, however, that Friday Passover does not work, is for the reason mentioned earlier; to wit, that it is impossible to maintain belief in a literal three days “in the heart of the earth” with the Friday evening-Sunday scenario.

Was the Messiah Resurrected on Sunday?

The timing of the Savior’s resurrection is a very controversial subject because many traditions are tied to it, not the least of which is observance of Sunday as a day of rest and worship.  When considered in the light of astronomical evidence limiting the year of the passion, a strong case will be presented in this book against the figurative, idiomatic interpretation of the Greek phrases describing when the women discovered the empty tomb.  The conventional translations that render the phrase “first day of the week” (mia twn sabbatwn), should more correctly read, “one of the Sabbaths.” [20] For those who doubt whether Torah-observant Jews would come to the tomb on Sabbath morning, we shall in a later chapter cite the Talmud and Dr. David Kraemer to prove that there was absolutely no prohibition against ministering to “the needs and business of the dead” on the Sabbath in the first Century.

Was a Wednesday Crucifixion and Late Saturday Resurrection Possible?

The literal translation of mia twn sabbatwn (mia ton sabbaton) prevents the possibility of a Wednesday crucifixion and late-Saturday resurrection.  The Wednesday/Saturday scenario has up until now been the main one advanced by those who believe Yeshua was three days and three nights in the tomb.  During the middle of the last century, the Church of God Sabbath-keeping movement greatly copied and spread Bullinger’s ideas supporting three days and three nights.  Herbert Armstrong had come into contact in Oregon with leaders of the Church of God 7th Day, who had a century earlier split with the Seventh Day Adventists.  All of the Worldwide Church of God groups spread Bullinger’s idea that the three and and three nights fell between Wednesday and Saturday.  Those who believe in Wednesday-Saturday, while accommodating far more facts in the historical record than the traditional Friday-Sunday view, run into problems when they try to find a year where it is possible astronomically possible to have a Wednesday Passover.

Lunar crescents were observed to begin months, as we prove in Appendix I.  Based on this, in 28 A.D., the Passover fell on Tuesday, just as it did in 31 A.D.   But Christ could not have died any earlier than 29 A.D. to accommodate the historical facts highlighted in this book.  In 29 A.D. the Passover fell on Sunday or Monday, hence it will not accommodate the end of the three days falling near the weekend.  In 30 A.D. the lunar conjunction was at 9 PM on Wed. night, March 22, the very earliest the crescent could have been seen by Jewish observers in Palestine would have been the next day, Thursday evening.  Therefore 30 A.D. in no way accommodates a Wednesday Passover.  In 32 A.D. the same situation presents itself as in 29 A.D.   The crescent was on either Sunday or Monday night, placing the Passover either on a Sunday or a Monday.  So 32 A.D. is absolutely unworkable.   Passover definitely was on Friday in 33 A.D., but by the time the evidence in all the chapters of this is book is weighed, 33 A.D. is not an option for the year of the crucifixion.  The material in this chapter alone forces one to choose between the scriptural accounts and Church authority, because it is only the presumptive, perfunctory treatment of this issue by the Catholic and other Church intelligentsia over the centuries that gives any credence whatsoever to the Friday crucifixion.  The moon and the heavens have a lot to say about it, not to mention the scriptures covered in this chapter alone.  They do not favor either a Wednesday or a Friday crucifixion.  E.W. Bullinger and the Church of God 7th Day never attempted to use astronomy to find a plausible year for a Wednesday Passover/crucifixion.  If they would have had access to the astronomy software available to my generation, they would have been as frustrated as I have in trying to find the year when Passover could fall on Wednesday.

But wait, we have narrowed it down to one year—31 A.D.  The balance of the book will be spent showing a plethora of historical, astronomical, calendrical, Talmudic, and scriptural reasons that point to that year.  In that year Passover could have either been March 27th, a Tuesday, or April 25th, a Wednesday.  This is due to the fact that it is a year when one has to decide whether a 13th month was intercalated. We will show why the stars, not just the Sun and Moon, play a determining role in this matter. We will devote a short chapter as to why any date more than a month past the equinox is too late, and hence, why April 25th is too late.  There we will focus on Gen. 1:14—“Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens…and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.”   It will also touch on the signs of the zodiac that YHWH designed to picture the very plan of salvation, and why the Passover fell when the Sun was in Aries.

Another consideration in determining the year of the crucifixion is the year of the Messiah’s birth.  In the next chapter we will highlight the best that current scholarship has to say on that subject.  It is a fascinating study, to say the least, and one that will prove the veracity and accuracy of scripture.

www.americaspropheticdestiny

derstinetodd@yahoo.com


[1] This bold assertion will be fairly easily proven in a later chapter of the book.

[2] Read appendices 144, 148 and 156 of Bullinger’s Companion Bible– “While it is true a ‘third day’ may be a part of three days, including two nights, yet ‘after three days’ and ‘three days and three nights’ cannot possibly be so reckoned.  This full period admits of the Lord’s resurrection on the third of the three days, each being preceded by a night.”

[3] Matt. 12:39—“an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet.”

[4] Professor Kraemer, a contemporary scholar, is a foremost authority on death and burial in ancient Judaism.

[5] See page 21-22 of Death and Burial in Rabbinic Judaism, by David W. Kraemer.

[6] See Wm D. Mounce, BBG, dia as a preposition in the genitive case.

[7] Appendix 144 and Appendix 148, Bullinger’s Companion Bible

[8] “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances: Touch not, taste not, handle not, which are all to perish with the using; after the commandments and teachings of men? (Colossians 2:20-22).”

[9] The Apostle Barnabas of the Book of Acts, the apostle who welcomed Paul into the Church, had nothing to do with the second century epistle bearing his name.

[10] The iconoclasts believed God was granting success to Mohammed’s followers as a judgment against the idolatry and shortcomings of orthodox Christianity.

[11] The same words are used in Rev. 17-18 to describe the fall of Babylon the Great, the great harlot Church who has led the mainstream Churches with her anti-Mosaic heretical doctrines that put the Bible and YHWH in such bad light.

[12] See Green’s Interlinear, page 765. Oqiav genomenhv does mean “evening having come.”

[13] Article bin ha arbayim at www.americaspropheticdestiny.com , proving that erev meant dusk or evening, and not afternoon, throughout the OT.  Baumgardner’s Hebrew lexicon confirms this conclusion.

[14] I have elsewhere demonstrated that the term “Jews” is used by John to refer to the Jewish leaders (see John 1:19, 24.

[15] John makes it clear that Jesus’ legs were not broken, because He was already dead when the soldiers came to Him; nevertheless, a soldier pierced His side with a spear.

[16] This is in contrast to the raw, unprepared spices which the women bought after the High Sabbath was over (Mark 16:1), which had to be prepared (Lk. 23:56).

[17] Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1

[18] But that has not stopped some big-name scholars from postulating those years!

[19] This indeed turns out to be the real reason Dionysius Exiguus established 1 BC and 1 AD on the years he did, so that Christ would be about 33 years old in a year when Passover could fall on a Friday.  But his Dec 25th 1 BC birth for Christ is at least 2-3 years too late, since Matt. 2 says that Herod was alive and Yeshua was a toddler living in a house when the wise men arrived.  Herod’s death was in January of 1 BC, as modern scholars are beginning to realize.  See The Star That Astonished the World, by Ernest Martin.

[20] The Concordant Literal NT translates all eight places in the NT where “first day of the week” occurs in other translations as “one of the sabbaths” or “first sabbath”  (Mk. 16:9).

TWO DOCTRINAL DITCHES

© 2007  Todd Derstine

As we read the gospel accounts of Yeshua feeding and healing the multitudes, we tend to forget that Yeshua founded his ministry upon humble men.  Yeshua’s strategy for building the “king-dom of God” began with the creation of a team of apostles who could face death without fear and stand against the wiles of the devil.  Throughout the course of his ministry, Yeshua was training his apostles to avoid two doctrinal ditches – lawlessness and Phariseeism.  His verbal attacks on the Pharisees were not only to defend his ministry and mission, but to re-program his disciples, who feared the religious leadership of the day.  After one confrontation with the Pharisees, the disciples came to the Messiah and said,

Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?’   But He answered and said, “Every plant which my heavenly father has not planted will be uprooted.  Let them alone.  They are blind leaders of the blind.  And if the blind leads the blind, they will both fall into the ditch.  Matthew 15: 12-14 NKJV

On the opposite side of the path of truth from the Pharisaic ditch lies the doctrinal error of anti-nomianism (lawlessness). Yeshua’s warnings against lawlessness were to fortify his disciples against Greek and pagan influences that would undermine YHWH’s righteous standards through-out man’s age.  The Savior warned about this extreme in Matthew 7:19-23:

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  Therefore by their fruits you will know them.  Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.  Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many won-ders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (anomía).  NKJV

There is no space here to explore the Apostle Paul’s missionary and philosophical war (waged very successfully, we must add) against pagan torah/lawlessness throughout his epistles.  Suffice it to say he used the same Greek word anomía, (literally ‘without law’), and had the same attitude as Yeshua toward it.

We will now examine in greater depth Yeshua’s motives and methods for exposing two doctrinal extremes – antinomianism and Phariseeism.  We will make application of the Messiah’s teachings to the modern day Messianic movement, and examine some of the writings of popular Messianic teachers.

DITCH #1—ANTINOMIANISM

It is commonly acknowledged that Yeshua of Nazareth taught against lawlessness.  In Matthew 5:17-19 He said heaven and earth would pass away, but not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law of Moses until all was fulfilled.  Despite the fact that Yeshua emphasized that we were not to think that He came to do away with the Law, the official theology of all the mainline Christian denominations is that Christ came to do just that.  Does the fact that Yeshua fulfilled various types and shadows in the Law, and scores of prophecies, change our obligation with respect to the Law?  Let the Holy Spirit answer through the pen of the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:3-4,

Inasmuch as the law was impotent, because of the weakness of our flesh, Elohim sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh; so that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but in the Spirit.

The Mixing of the Law of Moses with Pagan Practices

In John chapter 4, Yeshua met a woman at Jacob’s well in Samaria.  Samaritans practiced the ultimate mixture religion.  Archaeology has unearthed a number of Samaritan synagogues with bas relief and icons of pagan gods inside and on the walls.  Yet they believed in keeping the Mosaic holy days and Sabbaths.[1] Yeshua told the woman “You [Samaritans] do not know what you worship; we [Jews] know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.” (John 8:22)  The Old Testament decries this mixing of pagan and Yahwistic practices.  Yet Christianity, due to its Catholic origins in the fourth century, has certainly followed in the footsteps of the Samaritans[2].  Catholics make prolific use of statues, pray to intermediaries other than Yeshua, and worship Mary as the ‘mother of God’. Most mainline Protestant denominations also follow syncretistic practices like worshipping a trinity patterned after the various pagan trinities, adopting the pagan holidays of the Gentile nations, and changing of Yahweh’s Sabbath to Sunday.

Thankfully, there are now hundreds of thousands of Christian believers in America who now have had decades of experience keeping Yahweh’s health laws, dietary restrictions, and His holy Days and Sabbaths.  They have studied various parts of His Law and realize that the Law is not such a bad thing, as many have been led to believe.  But for those who have been led to come out of antinomianism by means of a movement called Messianic Judaism, beware!  There is a ditch on the other side of the road that is very pro-law, pro-Sabbath and holy day, pro-unclean meat laws, etc. but whose precepts are, nevertheless, at odds with the New Testament and Torah.

DITCH #2—MODERN PHARASEEISM: THE COMBINING OF RABBINIC JUDAISM WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES

Modern Orthodox Judaism is the same religion as first century Pharisaic Judaism combined with rabbinic interpretations of the Law made during the Middle Ages.  It was the Rabbinate of Baghdad’s two academies that gained hegemony over doctrine and practice throughout world Jewry during the early Middle Ages (400-1100 AD).   Modern Messianic Judaism, together with the Church of God sabbatarian movement, has fostered a rather odd respect for various ancient rabbinic teachings, especially the patently unbiblical Jewish calendar.  These groups are forging a strange amalgamation of the New Testament with Phariseeism.  This is being done in the name of love for the Torah, the religion of Moses.  But as many people have pointed out, Orthodox Judaism is not the religion of Moses.[3]

Since we now accept the authority of the Torah, who has the authority to interpret the Law for the Believer?  Ultimately it is only those whose opinion agrees with YHWH and Moses.  But the authority of the Talmud does not rest on rightness, but strictly on majority opinion.  Nehemia Gordon[4] and Avi Ben Mordecai[5] have made abundantly clear from their experience in orthodox Judaism that the Jews have used their interpretation of Deuteronomy 17 (the decisions of the elders) to bully people into thinking that whatever the rabbis decide is authoritative.  If 1000 prophets of YHWH disagree with 1001 rabbis, you are obliged to obey the opinion of the rabbis.  Exodus 22 says “do not follow a multitude (a majority) to do evil.”  The rabbis twist that scripture completely around to mean that you are supposed to follow the majority.

The head of every man is the Messiah (I Corinthians 11:3); therefore, what a person believes and practices is a matter of conscience, not a matter of hierarchy.  I Corinthians 11:19 shows that differences and factions were tolerated among the brethren in order that those of sterling faith might be made manifest (Barclay’s NT).  The issue of Jewish authority or headship to determine the calendar and to interpret Torah and dictate practices in the New Covenant assembly must be addressed in the light of the New Testament and the Messiah’s teaching.  Some, like the Church of God Sabbatarian organizations (too numerous to mention), as well as the conservative Ortho-dox-leaning Messianic organizations (such as First Fruits of Zion) are misusing Matthew 23:3, Romans 3:1, and Paul’s self-identification as a Pharisee, to say that we are under the human authority of the rabbis, although the Church of God leadership would not put it so plainly.  They are basically agreeing with the rabbis in saying that the scriptures cannot be understood without an Oral Law to interpret them for us.

There is indeed a Melchizedek priesthood functioning and restoring all things in these last days before Messiah’s return.  Whether you will have grace, favor and the spiritual knowledge and discernment to receive their teaching depends on whether you are personally doing the will of Yahweh in your day-to-day life.  As Yeshua said,

If any man does His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself. (John 7:17)

This principle is the reason why non-theologians and lay people alike have a sixth sense, call it spiritual intuition, that tells them that the mainstream theologians of Christendom are wrong about the Torah and Laws of God.  Humble believers know the Laws that govern the universe and atoms, biological reactions and functions, etc. are as fine-tuned as any man-made watch.  That being the case, why would Yahweh’s revelation of social Law intended to optimize human government and individual health—laws regulating diet, agriculture, marriage, sexual boundaries, cleanness and uncleanness, quarantine laws and disease, etc.—why would these laws be any less perfect than the physical laws that have been discovered by science?  Responsible people who are working no ill to their neighbors and who love Yahweh God are always open to the sensibility of His laws rightly applied.

But leave it to false shepherds, pastors, teachers, theologians, rabbis, who are a dime a dozen, to pervert knowledge.  “They which lead thee cause thee to go astray.”  And who supports their folly and orthodox heresy?  Why, those with the most wealth and the greatest incomes in the Church and synagogues.  Which is to say those oftentimes in the most compromised and/or oppressive professions—doctors, lawyers, accountants, landlords, pharmaceutical industry and sales, politicians, insurance brokers, etc.   How can the truth flourish when you have that much money supporting the erroneous status quo?

The same is true today with those Yahweh continues to send to bring doctrine, prophecies, and knowledge.  Division in the body is not caused by the Melchizedek priesthood and their teaching, so much as by sin and lack of humility and meekness in the body of Christ, and shepherds trying to protect their flock and their paycheck.  And even if the Truth divides us, we must deal with what Yeshua said on this matter in Luke 12:51,

Suppose you that I am come to give peace on earth?  I tell you, NO; but rather division.

Woe to those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine of Christ (Romans 16:17, Proverbs 6).  And that is why this paper had to be written, to expose the doctrines of certain sectors of Messianic Judaism that are highly questionable, and bound to cause unnecessary division within the Body.  I understand they are trying, in some cases, to build a bridge between themselves and rabbinic Judaism.  But I will not stand idly by while the New Testament historical record is subjected to a revisionist agenda.

To establish how incredibly real the dangers are on the right side of the road (Phariseeism), I would like to shed some light on the works of authors and speakers in the modern Messianic and Sabbatarian movement having enormous influence over Yeshua’s people.

DID YESHUA TEACH HIS DISCIPLES TO FOLLOW THE ORAL LAW?

Many Messianic leaders take the approach that Yeshua taught his followers to adhere to the Oral Law and Rabbinic Judaism, with all its fences around the Law of Yahweh.  For support of this they turn to a translation from the Greek for Matthew 23:3:

The scribes and the Pharisees sat down[6] in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not.  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders…

Obviously, if one believes in the validity of the Talmud, this rendering of Matthew 23:3 is most helpful.  However, it is no longer a foregone conclusion that the Greek texts have the correct pronoun “they” in the above verse.  First of all, let us agree that if the Greek texts are correct, then this saying of Yeshua contradicts everything else He had to say about the leaven of the Pharisees.  This we can and will make abundantly clear in this paper, if we do nothing else.  But do we have another textual witness on the matter? Yes we do.  And that witness is in Hebrew, the language that numerous Church fathers[7] said Matthew wrote his Gospel in!  This source is called Shem Tov.  Let me give the background of this alternative to the Greek text of Matthew.  It dates to the time of the inquisitions in Catholic Spain[8], during the time of public debates held for the purpose of forcing Jews to convert to Catholicism.  A Spanish Jew named Shem-Tov made copies of Matthew in Hebrew for the purpose of enabling Jews to defend the keeping of Jewish customs in these public debates.  A number of Jews won their debates, and were not forced to convert.

In addition to George Howard’s groundbreaking work (see footnotes at the bottom of page), Nehemia Gordon has made a very strong case for the validity of readings in the earliest copies of Shem Tov in his book The Hebrew Yehshua. vs Greek Jesus. Shem Tov’s Matthew (which is dated 1380 A.D.) resolves the most critical, long-standing problem in the history of New Testament scholarship. More dissertations have been written trying to reconcile the word “they” of Matthew 23:3 with the balance of Yeshua’s teaching in Matthew 23, Matthew 15, Mark 7, Galatians, and Acts 15, etc. than any other single verse in the entire New Testament.  How does one explain Yeshua’s telling His disciples to do whatsoever the scribes and Pharisees bid them to do when every other section of the Gospels and Acts 15 plainly contradict this?

The solution lies in the Hebrew text found in Shem Tov’s Matthew 23:3.  Translated it reads:

Upon the seat of Moses the Pharisees and the sages sit. All which he (Moses) says to you keep and do; but (according to) their takanoteem and ma’aseem, do not do because they say and do not.

Whatever is read from the Torah of Moses by the hassan, who was often a scribe or Pharisee, DO THAT.  Note the Shem Tov pronoun is singular, not plural.  Yeshua is not telling his disciples to do whatever they the Pharisees say.  The plural pronoun they in the Greek texts is simply wrong. Pappias said around 90 A.D., everyone translated Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel “as best he could,” which is as if to say they did not know how to translate out of the Hebrew into Greek very accurately.  The student of Hebrew will note other instances in Shem Tov where the Hebrew pronoun is “he” where the Greek text has “they.”

Now let’s consider if the Shem Tov case were wrong.  Then you would have an immediate internal contradiction in the text.  Because Yeshua goes on to tell His disciples NOT TO DO according to the Pharisee’s takanotiym and ma’asiym.  These were the two most important categories of Oral Law, and in the first century had not yet been written down.  But they were considered as binding on the religious adherents of Judaism living in the first century as any command in the Law.  Hence, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that Yeshua is telling His disciples to do whatever they bid Jews to do, but in the next breath telling them not to do according to the takanotiym and ma’asiym.  For a fuller explanation of how important these two were to the Oral Law of the rabbis and what they comprised, you will have to read Gordon’s book[9] or Avi ben Mordecai’s Galatians book.  Suffice it to say, that since the early translators into Greek of Matthew’s Gospel did not understand what these terms meant, it looks like they simply conflated the two into one Greek word ergwn (works), which has a similar meaning to ma’asim (deeds).  These latter laws were based on deeds or customs that became precedents over time.  For instance, when, during the Middle Ages, the majority of Jewish men began to wear head coverings[10], this became a precedent which the rabbis made a ruling on (ma’asim), declaring it to be a binding law.

What is the upshot of all of this?  Is it not apparent that somebody very familiar with Jewish Oral Law had to have authored the Shem Tov?  Matthew, the accountant and tax collector, noted exactly those areas of Oral Law that Yeshua spelled out as having gone beyond and added to the Law of Moses. Therefore, Shem Tov cannot be attributed to pro-rabbinic sources, as credulous messianic teachers would like to do.  The details about takanot and ma’asim sharpen rather than blunt the attack on rabbinic authority.  These details are absent from the Greek texts.

Finally, the Shem Tov Hebrew in Matthew 27 makes much clearer than the Greek text the absolute culpability of the high priests, the elders, and the Jewish mobs in the trial of Yeshua.  It shows Pilate washing his hands before the mob and telling them “I am innocent (of the blood), Be careful what you do.” (Matthew 27:24)  Two verses later it says Pilate “released Barabbas (to them, i.e. the Jews), and delivered to them Jesus for beating and affliction that they might hang him.”  Shem Tov indicates that Pilate turned Yeshua over to the Jews for hanging on the tree.  As George Howard notes,

‘Hanging’ in reference to Jesus also appears in the Talmud perhaps because it, like the Hebrew Matthew, ascribes his execution solely to the Jews. [11]

Again, this is hardly the polemical work of Jews of the Middle Ages bent on exonerating their forefathers from guilt in the crucifixion.  Yet it is totally consistent with a Matthew who takes pains to highlight the antagonism of the Pharisees against Yeshua (Matthew 12:14—”Then the Pharisees took counsel and plotted to put Him to death.”).

In short, a reading of Howard’s translation of Shem Tov presents a very believable resemblance to the canonical Gospel of Matthew with which we have become familiar except that where the Greek is garbled and leads to unclear English translations, the Shem Tov often comes to the rescue.  For those who seek to truly know Matthew’s original intent, Shem Tov is an invaluable source of fresh insight.

At almost every turn in the four Gospels we find confrontation between the Pharisees-scribes and Yeshua over the Oral Law. Many passages cited below clearly show that Yeshua lambasted the teaching of the rabbis.  Actually, I consider it an embarrassment that I should have to even make these points, as they are obvious to everybody else in the world except certain Messianics and Church of God Sabbatarians who use the rabbinic calendar.

Prominent Messianic authors, following the erroneous views of skeptical scholars of the 20th century, have attempted to align Yeshua with the rabbinic schools of Hillel or Shammai. But the New Testament record does not agree with this.  Would the Jews in John 7:14-15 have asked the following question if Yeshua had been to a rabbinic academy?

“Now about the midst of the Feast Yeshua went up into the Temple, and taught.  And the Jews marveled, saying, “How knows this man letters, having never learned?”

In the book, The Jews in the Time of Jesus, the author Steven Wylen, an orthodox Jew, shows the absurdity that Yeshua was anything akin to a rabbi:[12]

Rabbis demonstrated their authority by quoting the law in the name of the teacher from whom they heard it…a rabbi’s exegetical ingenuity was limited by tradition.  He could not validate just any ruling with a proof text from scripture.   Rabbinic ruling had to be in line with current practice and the opinions of the sages in general…Jesus is never [presented] as a preserver and teacher of ancient traditions. (p. 163)…

Scholars of today, no matter how friendly to Judaism, would not agree with former scholars that Jesus was a disciple of Hillel.” (p. 160)

Yeshua, unlike any rabbi[13] before or since, amazed the crowds with the freshness and originality of his interpretations of Torah, and by speaking “with authority, not as their teachers of the law.” (Matthew 7:29)   Wylen says, “Jesus spoke with authority.  That is, he did not quote sources nor interpret scripture….Jesus own words have the authority of God.”[14] Yeshua used unprecedented phrases to introduce His teaching—such as “but I say to you”—to indicate that He was Yahweh in the flesh come to earth.  Even the greatest prophet Moses said “and YHWH spoke unto me” to introduce instruction.  “Jesus’ own words have the authority of God.”[15]

Yeshua had the best teacher ever: “My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me.”  He was taught by the Heavenly Father. Believe it or not, this flies in the face of the long-standing rabbinic teaching that even Heaven itself has no right to interpret the Torah, only the rabbis do.  In the Talmud there is a story that relates this principle in which God says, “The rabbis have defeated Me.” In fact the only thing they accomplished was to incur Yahweh’s anger and totally take Deuteronomy 30:12 out of context.[16]

Comparision of Yeshua’s Parables With Rabbinic Parable

Notice what Wylan, a devout rabbi, says about this:

Some have said that Jesus spoke rabbinically in his use of parable.  The rabbis did teach in parables, but our records on rabbinic parable show them to be a different type than Jesus’.  Rabbinic parable was nearly always a parable of a king, with the acts of God compared with those of human rulers.  Jesus has some parables of this type, but most of his parables are earthy, drawn from everyday examples of immediacy to his listeners…Jesus’ parables have a power and freshness which, in this devoted Jew’s opinion, formalized rabbinic parable cannot match…How ironic that in an age when so many are seeking to identify the new and original aspects of Jesus’ teachings, many Christian scholars have classified one of the most creative and original aspects of Jesus’ teaching as “typically rabbinic![17]

“The view that parables were a common method of instruction among the Jews does not seem to be well-founded…to Christ’s hearers they were a novelty,” according to Alfred Plummer.[18]

Another stark contrast between Yeshua and the rabbis of his time is that “I am among you as he that serves” (Luke 22:27); whereas a candidate for rabbinic ordination in Yeshua’s time “waited hand and foot on his master (thus the title ‘rabbi,’ ‘my master,’ which is the address of the disciple to his teacher.”[19] Yeshua was the first to teach that greatness comes from serving.

In conclusion, the suggestion that Yeshua wasted His precious youth sitting at the feet of another man, becoming the slavish follower of some great one,[20] is to turn the truth upside down.  The head of every man is Messiah (I Corinthians 11:3),[21] whose Bread was straight from the Father.  He had the unction of the Holy One, having no need that men teach Him. (I John 2:20)

THE LEAVEN OF DIVORCE UNDER THE PHARISEES

The Jewish historian Josephus, a priest of Pharisaic persuasion, was a divorced Pharisee who said that Jewish men were allowed to put away their wives for any reason (cf. Matthew 19:3), making divorce commonplace in his day and disparaging Jewish culture in the eyes of outsiders. It is evident from Matthew and Mark’s accounts that the Pharisees had largely contributed to this sordid state of affairs. Both Mark 10 and Matthew 19 show the Pharisees coming to Yeshua to tempt him on the matter of divorce.  When we realize that Hillel and his disciple Gamaliel taught a multitude of petty reasons for which a man might divorce his wife, it is not hard to see why Yeshua sought to distance Himself from their socially destructive teachings.  His attitude was the same as the prophet Malachi’s, that Yahweh hates putting away (Mal. 2:16).  However, Yeshua upheld the law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which protected the woman from being put out of her home without the bill of divorce being accorded her.  It did two things: 1) gave indication she had done nothing worthy of death, and 2) freed her to remarry.

As I indicate in my paper The Law of the Husband,[22] the Pharisees of that day were putting away their women without obeying the Deuteronomic requirement that they first render a bill of di-vorce. The Pharisees were also violating the principle of Exodus 21:10-11 against connubial fraud where the Law allowed the woman to go free from the “marriage.” The highly partial interpretations of the Pharisees never allowed a woman to initiate divorce proceedings.  But Torah legislation did, in fact, and is widely viewed by scholars as the most progressive in human history up to that time. It protected the interests of the women, but the Pharisaic/rabbinic tradition did virtually nothing legally to recognize that fact.

AN EXPOSÉ OF D. THOMAS LANCASTER’S KING OF THE JEWS

Some Messianic authors have implied that Yeshua, His disciples, and the Apostle Paul were not much different doctrinally than the Pharisees. One of the more popular writers in Messianic Judaism is D. Thomas Lancaster.[23] His book, King of the Jews, contains many insidious lies. It also contains many wonderful insights on the Judaism of that day. We should not be surprised to discover this mixture of truth with error.  Thus it always has been: error and lies are a parasite on the tree of truth.  In chapter 5, in the short space of two paragraphs, he takes the reader from the seven woes Yeshua pronounces upon the Pharisees in Matthew 23 to asking the preposterous question, “What would you think if you were told Yeshua and the apostles were essentially Pharisees?”  In between, we are told that vilifying the rabbis and their teaching is nothing more than “slightly reworked old anti-semiti[sm].”  This polemical boomerang has the effect of casting Christ’s indictment into nothing more than first century anti-Semitism.[24] Here is that quote:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Matthew 23:27

One thing is certain–it is not a stretch to say that the Messiah did indeed vilify the sect of the scribes, Pharisees and their lawyers[25] in Matthew 23, and it would be hard for any modern person to be more incisive in picking them apart “at the bones” than Yeshua.  Some commentators have said that Yeshua’s diatribes against the Pharisees in the four Gospels are the strongest denunciations of any group found anywhere in scripture.

But we must view his denunciations in the context of the gamut of Pharisaic history from the time of John Hyrcanus (when the Pharisees were punished for making additions to the law of Moses) down to Sa’adia Gaon in the tenth century. The evidence from Jewish history is that virtually every generation has taken issue with the rabbis with what they saw as Pharisaic additions to the law of Moses.  These additions are the subject of explicit attack in Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7.

It was Yeshua’s and Paul’s attitude that a little leaven leavens the whole lump.  Hence, He told His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:6, 11) and the Sadducees.  Since that leaven was very clearly their doctrine (Matthew 16:12), then the First Fruits of Zion’s understanding that Matthew 23:3 upholds the oral law of the rabbis cannot be correct.[26] It is terribly disingenuous for D. Thomas Lancaster to state that “Yeshua was, for all practical purposes, a Pharisee,”[27] and yet totally ignore this passage in Matthew 16, and a host of others which fly in the face of his revisionist theory. Lancaster ignores the blunt, easy to understand passages showing that Yeshua rejected the Pharisaic movement. An entire sermon recorded in Matthew 23 is devoted to condemning their deeds and doctrine.  This author needs to read again Matt. 16:12, “Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”  In Matthew 15:12, Christ quotes Isaiah 29:13:

This people draws nigh to Me with the mouth, and honors Me with their lips; but have removed their heart far from Me.  Their fear toward Me is taught by the precept of men.

He applied it to the Pharisees, making it plain that YHWH rejected their teachings and worship.  The Karaites of the Middle Ages, quite independent of Yeshua’s writings, understood Isaiah 29:13 in the same way as later Christian scholars and Yeshua Himself—“commandments of men in which they have been schooled: i.e. taught by rote.”[28] The Karaites and Yeshua were both well aware of the chief indictment of the Jews and Judah in Amos 2:4:

They have despised the law of Yahweh, and have not kept His commandment [but rather the commandments of men], and their lies caused them to err, after which their fathers have walked.

D. Thomas Lancaster engages in some very non-Hebraic logic that Brad Scott[29] calls ‘truth by default’—“since I’ve destroyed your argument, therefore I must be right.”  Lancaster sets up the Sadducees–a group with whom Yeshua definitely had doctrinal differences (not to mention their covetous practices at the Temple outer Court.[30])—as his straw man in order to highlight a few doctrinal areas that Yeshua had in common with the Pharisees.  But this no more makes the Messiah a Pharisee than my believing the dead sleep in their graves until the resurrection makes me a Jehovah’s Witness.  “In Judah Elohim is known” (Psalm 76:1), because to them were given the oracles of Yahweh (Romans 3:1); so, yes, we should expect Yeshua to share the knowledge of God that comes from the written Torah with many of his fellow Jews. However, according to Alfred Edersheim, the born-again scholarly English Jew of the late 1800’s and author of The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Yeshua’s teaching transcended rabbinic Pharisaic thought in every way.  He pointed out the need to transform the inner man, in order to affect what proceeds out of man:

“Rabbinism started with demand of outward obedience and righteousness and pointed to sonship as its goal; the Gospel started with the free gift of forgiveness through faith and of sonship, and pointed to obedience and righteousness as its goal.”[31]

The Pharisees were only interested in affecting the outward conduct in order to sanctify the man. That is the fundamental difference.  One was the administration of life, the other the administration of frustration and death.

CAN WE LET THE PHARISEES OFF THE HOOK IN THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF YESHUA?

What possible agenda could prompt Lancaster to make the radical, off-the-wall suggestion that the Pharisees were in no way responsible for the death of Yeshua the Messiah?[32] That question must be posed when we see the evidence contradicting Lancaster’s hypothesis.  One does not like to question motives, but at the very least, he is ignoring the scriptures bearing on this subject. But it is more than that. The subtle inference in King of the Jews is that John the Apostle is some kind of turn-coat sectarian who betrayed Judaism and black-balled the Pharisees.  On the other hand, if Lancaster’s purpose is 1) to build bridges of credibility between Messianic Judaism and Orthodox Judaism, or 2) to minimize anti-semitic prejudice, or 3) to promote ecumenical harmony and understanding for modern-day Pharisaic Judaism, then Lancaster must disregard major passages in the gospel accounts of the Savior’s death.  As Stephen Wylen, a devout Jewish rabbi cited earlier, puts it so well: “[Christian scholars] have made themselves credulous[33] (gullible) in their eagerness to defend the Jews from anti-Semitism.”[34]

The issues raised in this section are of great concern to those who wish to avoid the pitfalls of errant Messianism.  Our desire is a zeal for the Torah and commandment-keeping; the Devil is willing to give us a form of godliness and righteousness in the Law at the expense of New Testament truth.  In our pursuit of identity with Judaism, few are aware of the very real danger of offending Yahweh and His Son.  Yeshua suffered the most torturous, excruciating trial and crucifixion ever, and his visage was marred more than any man, according to Isaiah 52:14.[35] Therefore, if we deceitfully deny the historical accounts that squarely place the blame for His crucifixion at the feet of both the chief priests and the Pharisees, and then attempt to justify and build that system of religion that brought about this heinous act, we are in grave danger of incurring the wrath of Almighty Yahweh.  Nor should we expect right interpretations of prophecy, the Holy Days, Sacred Name, etc. to reside with those who maintain such a position.

This new-fangled theory can easily be refuted by studying the historical accounts in the New Testament, as well as in the Talmud (Tol’doth Yeshu, for example).  The Talmud (Tol’doth Yeshu) and the Shem Tov both indicate that Pontius Pilate handed both Barabbas and Yeshua over to the Jewish authorities, the one for freedom, the other for death. So even the Jews own Talmud does not absolve them in the execution of the Savior!

Pharisaic Cohort Implicated in the Arrest of Yeshua at Garden of Gethsemane

Next we turn to John 18 for the setting of Yeshua’s arrest in the garden of Gethsemane on Passover night.  Some very popular radio preachers try to say that Judas Iscariot brought a band of Roman soldiers to arrest Yeshua[36], but that is not what John 18:3 says:

Judas, therefore, having taken the band and officers out of the chief priests and Pharisees, doth come thither with torches and lamps, and weapons. (Young’s Literal Translation)

It is rather illogical to assume that Judas or the chief priests would have risked involving the Romans at this point.  Daniel Thomas Lancaster obviously has no fear.  He has taken the same position as secular scholars on this subject, and assumes the right to edit what you and I should and should not accept as historical in this eyewitness account.  John was from a priestly family. He was so well-known by the servants in Caiaphas court, that he was able to get Peter inside the outer court of Caiaphas palace where Yeshua had been led for His initial arraignment before the Sanhedrin (see John 18:15-16).   Worse yet, Lancaster has turned the “apostle of love” into a biased Jew-hater who selectively tried to make the Jews and Pharisees look bad.

It is clear from John 1:19, 24; John 7:13 and 9:22 that the term “Jews” is used by John as a metonym for the Jewish leadership, particularly the Pharisees (John 1:19, 24).  In John 7:13 many Jewish people at Succot were discussing their opinions, good and bad, toward Yeshua, but not openly, “for fear of the Jews.”  Likewise, in John 9:22 says the healed blind man’s parents were guarded in their response to interrogation by the “Jews”, because “the Jews” had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.  Therefore, when it says in John 5:18 and 7:1 that “the Jews sought to kill Him” it is talking about the Jewish religious and political establishment.[37] “All the land of Judea” [except the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 21:25-26)] went over to Jordan to hear, repent, and be baptized by John the Baptist (Mark 1:5). The Jewish elders and scribes refused to answer Yeshua when He asked them whether John’s ministry was “from Heaven, or of men.” They said “All the people will stone us” if we say it was of men (Luke 20:5-6).

John 4:1 is most informative about the Pharisees’ involvement in the death-plans for Yeshua:

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Yeshua made and baptized more disciples than John, He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

This verse tells us that Yeshua made and baptized more disciples than John, who had a veritable groundswell of support from the common people.  Yeshua’s popularity was even greater, becoming so great that people tried to take him by force and make Him king (John 6:15).  When Yeshua knew how the Pharisees had heard of the above realities, He left Judea and departed again into Galilee.  Why?  Because He knew it was not His time to die yet, and that the spirit of Cain that He had roused—the spirit of jealousy and envy which even Pontius Pilate could discern (Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10)—would lead to His early apprehension and death prior to the time appointed by the Heavenly Father.  The first murder (Cain vs. Abel) was over the issue of worship and resulting spiritual envy.  The last martyrdoms in the Bible in the book of Revelation are over the issue of worship. The murder of Yeshua was due to what the Jews perceived as blasphemy (John 10:33), which also involves the issue of worship. Spiritual envy and the fact that the Messiah’s teachings and actions at the Temple[38] undermined the authority of the religious establishment—these are the things that got Yeshua killed.  Yeshua was quite aware of this principle, and of the Solomonic proverb: “Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?” (Prov 29:4)

Yeshua was no fool.  He knew that even He would not withstand the plans of Cain’s spiritual heirs who were plotting His death.  In the end, no man took His life.  He laid it down by Himself (John 10:18).  He chose not to call down legions of angels to defend His personal safety (Matt. 26:53).  “I have authority (permission from the Father) to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again.”  But there are other scriptures that First Fruits of Zion and D. Lancaster would have us ignore in the matter of Pharisaic complicity in the death of Yeshua of Nazareth.

But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Yeshua had done (the raising of Lazarus from the dead).  Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said. (vs. 48)  If we let him alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.[39] (vs. 53) Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. (John 11:46)

John 11: 57 says, “The Pharisees had issued instructions that, if anyone knew where Jesus was, he should give information which might lead to his arrest.” (William Barclay’s Translation)

The council convened in John 11:47 was hardly the first council held by the Pharisees for the purpose of destroying Yeshua. Much earlier in his ministry, after he had healed a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath at a synagogue in Galilee, the Pharisees went out of the synagogue and held a meeting against Him (Matthew 12:14).  Both Mark and Matthew agree that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss how they might destroy Yeshua (Mark 3:6).  Luke implies this intent, saying they were “filled with burning anger and madness.”

The elders[40] of the people were not all of one sect or another.  Since the Pharisees were the sect with the greatest popular support among the people, and were selected partly by popular support of the people[41], it is probable the Pharisees were involved in the group convened to arrange the arrest of Yeshua, as the following reference shows:

…behold, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs came (to the Garden of Gethsemane) from the chief priests and elders of the people. (Matthew 26:47)

YESHUA and THE SACRED NAME

In King of the Jews, Lancaster claims that Yeshua, like the Pharisees, honored the man-made tradition of not pronouncing Yahweh’s name, and we should do likewise.

D. Thomas Lancaster states the following on page 74 (ibid.):

“Perhaps the best example of the Master’s conformance to Jewish tradition is in the matter of the pronouncing of God’s name…The tradition of sanctifying the name by leaving it unpronounced is still honored in Judaism and much of the believing Torah movement today.”

He then gives the Lord’s Prayer as an example of Yeshua setting aside the Father’s Name.  “Our Father, hallowed [sanctified, set apart] be your name.” But obliterating the name of God from hearers does not hallow that name. No human dictator was ever honored with a substitute for revering his name.  As we are going to see, Yeshua honored the Father by speaking and doing everything He did in the Name of His Father, and did so quite literally by mentioning His Name.

While the Torah did forbid the mention (SH #2142.=zahchar) of pagan gods’ names in a law found in Exod. 23:13, earlier in Exodus Yahweh told Moses that I AM (YAH) was His memorial (zehcher) name to all generations:

“And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM that I AM; Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, I AM has sent me unto you…this is my name forever, and this is my memorial [#2143=zehcher) unto all generations.”  (Exodus 3:14)

Zehcher is simply the noun form of zahchar, to mention. Therefore, it becomes impossible to memorialize Yahweh’s name by not mentioning it. The following examples of usage will confirm this.  Many, many more scriptures could be cited.

“Write this for a memorial [#2146=zikkarohn] in a book, and rehearse [7760] it in the ears of Joshua; for I will utterly put out the remembrance [#2143=zehcher] of Amalek from under heaven. Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Yahweh-Nissi.  For he said, “Because they have lifted up their hand against the  throne of Yah, Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”  (Exod 17:14)

This verse proves that memorials are to be rehearsed in the ears of the people.

“I will remember (zahchar=mention, #2142) my covenant.” Genesis 9:15

“Think on me (#2142=remember) when it shall be well with you again (JPS), and do me the kindness of making mention (#2142) of me to Pharaoh.” Genesis 40:14

Orthodox Jews are kidding themselves if they think they are honoring the Father by substituting surrogate names and titles.  But then why would we expect the people who have rejected the Son to honor the Father, when Yeshua said “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” (John 5:23)?  2 John 9 says:

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, does not have God [The Father]; he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

Yahweh inspired his name to be written down almost 7,000 times in the Old Testament alone.  Yahweh remembers (#2142=zahchar/mentions) His covenant with His people Israel when He hears their groaning in the land of Egypt (Exod. 2:24).

“Remember (#2142) the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Exodus 20:8

Do the Jewish faithful honor the Sabbath day by not mentioning it?  No.  Then how is it honor to NOT mention the God of Israel’s Name?  Messianics who imitate the Orthodox Jews by not pronouncing the Sacred Name have fallen into the trap of honoring men instead of Yahweh, and in so doing they are violating the third commandment. We challenge any Messianic believer to show us one covenantal prophet or patriarch in the OT who did not invoke the name of Yahweh.

Psalm 83:4 is a very popular scripture for lovers of the state of Israel,

“Lo thine enemies make a tumult; and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.  They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones, They have said, come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of ‘Israel’ may be no more in remembrance (2142).”

The modern ayatollahs and political leaders of Iran have indicated their great desire to fulfill this very scripture.  They would like to wipe out both the existence and the name of Israel.  Judaism’s ‘sages’ have been in this matter blind and inconsistent.  They don’t want their enemies to blot out the remembrance of their name, but they, in turn, have done their utmost to blot out the remembrance of Yahweh’s name, the very God who formed them.  It remains to be seen whether the worship of Yeshua will spare Messianics the judgment that accrues from following tradition-bound Judaism’s lies and deceptions.

D. Thomas Lancaster’s defense of rabbinic traditions concerning the Sacred Name is another hollow attempt on the part of those who believe in the authority of the Jewish Oral Law to identify Yeshua and the Apostles with the Pharisees.  The answer to this question requires at least a 3000 word dissertation.  We can give an abstract of the points that such a treatise would need to cover.

Four places in the Talmud (in the Tol’doth Yeshu, to be specific) the rabbis accuse Yeshua of doing his healings and His many miracles in HaShem’s Name!   Tol’doth Yeshu is well-known to be a parody of the Four Gospels.  It does not deny that Yeshua accomplished many healings, signs and wonders.  However, it invalidates them strictly on the basis that the Savior used the name of Yahweh to perform the miracles.  The fact that Messianics such as FFOZ are ignoring the Tol’doth Yeshu, claiming he did not use God’s Name, is remarkable.  The Gospel of John, however, agrees with the Talmud on this point! Yeshua four times in His intimate prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane said very significant things about His Father’s name.

I manifested (Gr.=efanerwsa, ‘to make known something previously hidden’[42]) Thy Name unto the men whom Thou gavest me from the world.… Holy Father, keep through Thy own Name which Thou hast given Me,[43] in order that they may be one as we are one. …while I have been with them in the world, I have kept them in Thy name. John 17:6

I have made known (Gr.=gnorizo, to impart knowledge)[44] Thy name unto them, and will declare it: so that the love You have loved me with may be in them, and I in them. John 17:26

When Yeshua declared “there is nothing hidden, which may not be brought to light [Gr. fanerwyh, same word translated ‘manifested’ above ],” there is no question that he had in mind the holy name of His Father, in whose name he performed all his mighty deeds.  At the end of the prayer (17:26), the Greek gnorizo (gnorizo) is used, meaning Yeshua had imparted objective knowledge to his disciples.  Yeshua links the revelation of the Name with the impartation of the Father’s love, as well as being a means by which the body of believers achieve unity (v. 12, point #2).  I believe this declaration of Yahweh’s Name by Yeshua to his disciples involves revelation of his character, grace and judgment, as well as unveiling the pronunciation of the Father’s actual name.  That pronunciation had been lost during the inter-testamental period (400 BC to 27 AD), when no prophet of Yahweh was present to speak in his Name. In this spiritual vacuum, interlopers such as the Pharisees invented rabbinic taboos and prohibitions which built a fence around profaning the Sacred Name.

FFOZ and other sacred name-rejecting Messianic and Church of God Sabbatarian organizations say they believe in observing the Torah literally; but not when it comes to this one precept.  The Third Commandment literally says “You shall not bear or lift up the name of Yahweh your God to falsehood or vanity.”  The KJV’s “take in vain” is derived from a Hebrew root word  שָׁוְאshav, which means desolation, nohingness, and destruction. BDBG Lexicon would translate Exod 20:7 “take up the name of God to no good purpose.” There are many ways this command might be violated—vain speech, deceit, unfulfilled vows, or simply the custom or work of translation that substitutes another term for Yahweh’s name, which certainly brings his name to nothing.  Strong’s also defines shav as “uselessness”.  Hence, not using the Name of Yahweh our God as the Bible does is rendering it useless.

The rabbis and D. Thomas Lancaster admit that Abraham, Isaac, David and Daniel (there are many others) actually uttered and used the name of Yahweh.  These great men of God praised not just Yahweh but the Name of Yahweh,[45] and that the Massoretes deliberately tried to cover up this fact with their 134 emendations.[46]

Finally, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,[47] called Shem Tov, has finally been published, translated, and thoroughly analyzed for the first time by Professor George Howard.[48] “The Divine Name occurs 19 times in the text.” Howard argues successfully that this is proof it existed in the original Matthew,

“The conclusion seems inescapable that Shem-Tov found the Divine Name already in his gospel text, having received it from an earlier generation of Jewish tridents.  He permitted the Divine Name to remain in the text perhaps because he was unsure himself about what to do with it.”[49]

It is inconceivable how Shem Tob or any Jewish scribe would have inserted the Divine Name into his text of Matthew.  As Howard aptly states, “No Jewish polemist would have done that.  It must have included the Divine Name from its inception.”[50]

There is some evidence to suggest concerted efforts were made during the fourth century to destroy Hebrew manuscripts of the NT and ones of the Septuagint containing the Tetragrammaton. This happened in conjunction with Constantine’s well-known effort to purge Christianity of Jew-ish customs such as Sabbath-keeping and Passover observance.  The fact that only non-Hebrew MSS and versions have come down to us should not deter us from examining the evidence that New Testament writers would have necessarily been meticulous in quoting Old Testament passages that contained the Divine Name in order to not violate the Third Commandment.  I have presented some of that evidence in this brief reference to George Howard’s work.  For those who have the time and the passionate pursuit, the literature is out there for your perusal.

WERE THE PHARISEES ON THE PATH OF TORAH?

In Luke 5:31-32, Yeshua says:

It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.  I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

On page 77 of King of the Jews, we get D. Thomas Lancaster and First Fruits of Zion’s explanation of this verse.  Yeshua “was less interested in the religious and righteous of Israel because they were already on the path of Torah[?]  He was concerned with the irreligious.”  Frankly, I know of no better way of putting the Torah in a bad light than teaching that the Pharisees were on the path of Torah.  It blatantly contradicts Yeshua (John 7:19): “Did not Moses give you the Torah, yet none of you keeps the Torah.”  There are quotes from Matthew 15, 23, Mark 7, John 9 and throughout the Gospels that show that the Jews were circumventing the Law, were full of covetousness and envy, threatening excommunication, and oppressing people right and left.  The ministry of the priesthood was so corrupt that John the Baptist forsook the Temple (where his father Zecharias had served) for a ministry in the desert eating locusts and honey.

D. Thomas Lancaster says Yeshua “regarded them [the Pharisees] as healthy and the righteous of the Israel.”(ibid.)  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Yeshua’s point is that you are not going to seek the Great Physician unless you see yourself as sick and spiritually blind.  I interpret Luke 5:31-32 by comparing it with the last verse of John 9:

Yeshua said to them, “If you were blind, you should have no sin: but now you say, ‘We see;’ therefore your sin remains.”

Quite to the contrary, the rabbinic writers began to call themselves, in the Talmud, by the term חָכְמִים  hakamim, “sages.”[51] A better translation of חָכְמִים would be “wise ones.” These religionists spent so much time contemplating each other’s opinions that they formed the world’s first mutual admiration society and began to think themselves worthy of the appellation “wise one.” The prophet Isaiah spoke of such sophists when he, moved by the Holy Spirit, pronounced “Woe to you who are wise in your own eyes!”

In Ab. 2:5 the rabbis see the people of the land, the am ha’eretz, as being incapable of being pious Hasidim. That is why they separated themselves from the common people in the first place. Chagigah 2:7 makes hasidim, an early designation for the Pharisees, an antonym for am ha’eretz. Strict Pharisees did not even stay in their fellow countrymen’s homes overnight! (Dem. 2:2) The condescending attitude of the Pharisees is illustrated by David Stern’s (Complete Jewish Bible) translation of John 7:49: “Then the Pharisees retorted, ‘These ‘am-ha’aretz do [believe in Yeshua], but they know nothing about the Torah, they are under a curse!’”

Instead of bringing out these points, Lancaster digs himself even deeper, citing Luke 15:4-6:

Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety nine and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? …I tell you there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Lancaster interprets this verse, “The ninety-nine remaining sheep are the righteous of Israel who don’t need to repent, present company of Pharisees and teachers of the Torah included.” It almost too much to fathom that a person and ministry that is so highly respected throughout the Messianic movement could make these kinds of statements.

THE DITCH GETS DEEPER WITH MONTE JUDAH’S LION & LAMB MINISTRIES

Just when you think things could not get any worse out there on the frontiers of Messianic Judaism, Monte Judah in his flagship magazine Yavoh (November 2005), casts doubt on the canonicity of the book of Hebrews. At the end of the article statements were made about the end-time Temple and altar in Jerusalem that everyone in Messianic Judaism needs to be aware of.  The article makes a rather weak case that Paul’s book of Hebrews contains mistakes concerning the Law and the tabernacle.  What we wish to highlight, however, is the rather strong case that can be made against Monte Judah’s views on the altar. This error is perhaps one of the most radically wrong theological ideas I have encountered in the last 40 years.

Monte Judah states that the altar sanctified the blood of Yeshua.  I quote from internet page 20 of the November 2005 issue of Yavoh magazine,

The altar in the temple in Jerusalem sanctified the blood of the New Covenant in accordance with the Law of Moses.

There can be no doubt that Monte Judah is referring to the actual blood of Yeshua the Messiah here.  The answer to his bold assertion may be found in Matthew 23:16-21, where Yeshua gives us the principle that the greater thing blesses that which is connected to it.  If anything, Yeshua’s presence would have sanctified the Temple building and the altar[52], not the other way around.  In Matthew 12:6 Yeshua said this of Himself: “But I say to you, that in this place is One greater than the temple.”  Since scripture says that the greater blesses the inferior (Hebrews 7:7), then how can it be said that the man-made altar blessed or sanctified the sacrifice of Yeshua on the Mount of Olives, as Monte Judah claims?

Powerful Recurring Signs From Heaven from 31-70 A.D. (Talmud-Documented) Demonstrated YHWH’s Rejection of the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood

Let us reason some more on this. Monte Judah goes on to say that “[the book of Hebrews] is the basis for the rejection of the entire temple/altar service in Jerusalem.”  But for someone as versed in the Jewish rabbinic writings as he is, he should be ashamed of himself for making such a statement.  The Talmud and Josephus document four major signs that began to occur and repeat themselves at the Temple 40 years before its destruction in 70 AD.  In other words, these signs began occurring the very year Yeshua was crucified.  They are attested by a respected figure in Judaism of that time, Rabbi Yohan Ben Zakkai[53], who lived on past the temple’s destruction.

I quote the following from my article Talmudic Evidence That Narrows the Year of the Crucifixion[54]

containing chronological proofs narrowing the year of the crucifixion to 31 AD:

Josephus and Jewish rabbinic writings in the Centuries after the fall of the Temple record phenomena at the Temple that began some forty years prior to the fall of the Temple.  Since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, these accounts are telling us that some very strange things began to happen there either in 30 or 31 AD.

Forty years before the fall of the temple (70 AD), the Sanhedrin no longer met in the Chamber of Hewn Stones adjoining the Southeast corner of the Temple.  Though the Talmud does not specify why, we know from Matthew 28:2 and Matthew 27:51-54 that there were separate earthquakes both at His resurrection, as well as at His mid-afternoon death on Passover day.  The rending of the veil is associated with the initial earthquake in Matthew 27:51. It is certainly probable that these earthquakes caused significant damage to the Chamber of Hewn Stones.

Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the doors of the Holy Place mysteriously opened by themselves during the night, even though they were locked each evening.  This was considered a bad omen by many.  R. Yohan Ben Zakkai rebuked the gates: “Hekel, hekel, why alarm thou us?  We know you are destined to be destroyed.  For of you has prophesied Zechariah Ben Iddo (Zech. 11:1): ‘Open your doors, O Lebanon [The Temple], and fire shall eat your cedars.’  (See Yoma 39b)

Alfred Edersheim believed that the miraculous opening of these doors was linked to the tearing of the curtain, since the doors were positioned directly behind the curtain itself,

We can scarcely doubt, that some historical fact must underlie so peculiar and widespread a tradition, and we cannot help feeling that it may be a distorted version of the occurrence of the rending of the Temple-Veil at the Crucifixion of Christ.  But even if the rending of the Veil had commenced with the earthquake, and, according to the Gospel to the Hebrews, with the breaking of the great lintel over the entrance, it could not be wholly accounted for in this manner…the rent of the Temple-Veil was… really made by the Hand of God.[55]

However, historian Ernest L. Martin[56] gives credence to an early second century account in “The Gospel of the Nazarenes”:

….the large stone lintel which supported the curtain (which no doubt had the inner doors attached to it for stability) split in two when the curtain was severed…there is no reason to deny the possibility that the collapse of the overhead lintel was the ‘natural cause’ of the curtain tearing in two[57]… and the means by which the inner doors next to the curtain were forced open.

The impression made on Temple personnel by these events helps explain why, just months later, “a great company of priests were obedient to the [new] faith” and “the number of disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly.” (Acts 6:7)  It was time to become Melchizedek priests.

The cumulative effect of recurring portents over several decades would have lent themselves to the idea that the Levitical system was “becoming obsolete and growing old, ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13).  If the head of the Sanhedrin knew the Temple was doomed, then Monte Judah is way out of line for blaming the book of Hebrews.

OMINOUS SIGNS ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT

In Leviticus 16:8, instructions are given to Aaron the high priest to cast lots upon the two selected goats—one lot was for Yahweh, the other lot was for the scapegoat. In Yoma 39b we read that during the 40 years leading up to the Roman destruction of the Temple, the scarlet thread from the Azazel goat did not turn white [signifying forgiveness of Israel’s sins] as it had in previous years. Furthermore, the lot for Yahweh continued to fall into the left hand every single year (from the Crucifixion year all the way down to the Day of Atonement 69 AD.)[58] Since the lot falling into the right hand was considered a sign of Yahweh’s favor, this was considered a very bad omen by leaders and people alike.  According to tradition, this meant that for the forty years between Yeshua’s crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple, Yahweh had rejected Israel’s sacrifices and their sins were not being forgiven. They failed to understand that with Yeshua’s death and resurrection, Yahweh no longer accepted the blood of bulls and goats for Israel’s sins.

Josephus speaks of the mysterious extinction of the chief lamp of the menorah (used to rekindle the menorah each evening), forty years before the destruction of the Temple. It would not stay lit.  He also refers to the supernatural opening of the great Temple gates, which were kept locked.

The odds against all these phenomena happening by chance have been calculated at many millions to one.  The truth, as Martin and others have concluded, is that these signs indicated Yahweh’s rejection of the Temple and the Levitical system.  Why, then would Yahweh be so keen on re-establishing something He destroyed in the first century?  Only one reason makes any sense, only so prophesy can be fulfilled.  The implication that somehow spiritual benefit accrues to the end-time Believer due to his respect for the Jewish Temple and resumption of animal sacrifices is a gross misreading of scripture, and a disparagement of the benefits of Yeshua’s sacrifice.  Does Monte Judah believe that the blood of bulls and goats takes away sin?  If not, then how can he construe the Temple and its altar as sanctifying the blood of a New Covenant whose priests are not even Levitical, and whose temple is Yeshua and His body of Believers, the Church.  Monte Judah, one of the greatest discerners and elucidators of shadows and types of the Messiah in the Torah, needs to contemplate His Savior’s statement:

Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up. John 2:19

Yeshua’s primary intention was to foretell his resurrection after three days of death, to give the Jews the sign they asked for (John 2:18) that He was Messiah.  Most of the Jews thought He was speaking of the actual Temple, whose destruction was indeed a judgment from YHWH, and a clear indication that a new priesthood was in order. Even the dominant sect after 70 AD, the Pharisees, had no interest in restoring a functional Levitical/Aaronic class of teachers.[59] A non-hereditary Melchizedek priesthood was needed to teach Christ’s body how to worship in Spirit and Truth wherever they might be on the earth.  Therefore, there is double meaning in what Yeshua said in John 2:19.  His body of Messianic believers was to provide the dwelling place for God and His Holy Spirit from now on.  Hence, the glory departed from the Second Temple, and will NOT be in the end-time Tribulation Temple.  The Second Temple was destroyed, thus fulfilling Yeshua’s detailed prophecies to the ‘T’,[60] but what remained was the body of Jewish and Gentile Messianic believers who the Apostle Paul called “the Temple of God.”  Many of them were living in Gentile lands, but they were YHWH’s Temple because of Yeshua and the sending of the Holy Spirit.  This identification was made by Paul in I Corinthians 3 at least a decade prior to the fall of the Second Temple.  Hence, the fall of the Temple provided no motive for the new identification.

Never have the descendents of Judah tried to live in the Holy Land under such precarious conditions as today. The state of Israel permits almost every form of moral license and wickedness.  The iniquity in Tel Aviv is palpable to all Christians who go there.  Homosexuality is rampant.  The youth hostels there depict some of the most sordid demonic activity and lewdness as to shock the sensibilities of all but the most callous and seasoned sinner.  Building a Temple for Adonai under these conditions will be a novel experiment whose outcome is not difficult to predict.  As the angel went on to say in Revelation 11:2,

But the court which is outside the Temple cast out and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot 42 months.

Furthermore, in John 4 Yeshua Himself makes it clear that the Father was looking for a people to worship Him in spirit and truth, and that neither Mt. Gerazim or Jerusalem would provide the focal point for worship in the near future, a future prophesied by Yeshua in Luke 21:6, Matt. 24:2, et. al.  These prophecies came to pass in 70 AD.

Finally, Monte Judah concludes his diatribe against the book of Hebrews with this assertion:

Soon another altar will be erected on the temple mount in Jerusalem.  It is prophesied to be.  God will measure us with that altar (Revelation 11:1).

However, Revelation 11:1 does not say YHWH will measure believers by that altar, but will measure those worshipping therein at that time.  To quote:

There was given me a reed like unto a scepter: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the Temple (Gr. naov, the Temple building itself, not the adjoining courts or buildings) of God, and the altar, as well as those that worship therein.

The Holy Spirit thus indicating that there is deficiency in this future Tribulation period Temple.  Daniel 8:12 is a prophecy about, not just Antiochus Epiphanes, but also the end-time anti-Christ or “man of sin, son of destruction” who will sit in this Tribulation Temple.[61] Daniel 8:9-12 gives some indication as to what this deficiency is:

[The little horn] waxed exceeding great…even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground…by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.  And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground, practiced and prospered.”

Though it is evident that the Jews will have their Temple, what is not so sure is whether it will meet the rigorous specifications of a Holy God as to location[62] and measurements.  Hence, Revelation 11:1, as E.W. Bullinger points out, is telling us that,

…this measuring reed is like a scepter, and measures for destruction, not for building.  See Lamentations 2:8: “YHWH has purposed to swallow up the wall of the daughter of Zion: stretched out a line, He has not withdrawn His hand from destroying.”

So when we allow Lamentations 2 to interpret Revelation 11:1, we see that Monte Judah has totally missed the point about Rev. 11, the context of which is the 1260 day ministry of the Two Witnesses.  These have authority to bring about the destruction of the great city (v. 8) where our Lord was crucified (as well as other Israelite lands).  The fact that John, projected forward in time by the Spirit into the yet future Day of the Lord (Revelation 1:10), calls Jerusalem “Sodom and Egypt”, certainly marks it for destruction.  This, together with the parable of the fig tree (Lk. 13) and Yeshua’s cursing of the fig tree (Matt. 21:29, Mk. 11:14), when rightly understood, is a plain indictment of anyone attempting to establish Jerusalem as the focal point of worship or a rallying point for the end-time believer.

Parable of the Fig Tree Linked to the Rejection of Judah/Judaism

In Luke 13, Yeshua speaks about judgment.  Many Galileans went up to Jerusalem to sacrifice unto the Lord some time after the middle Passover of Christ’s ministry, but somehow managed to have their blood mingled with their sacrifices they brought to the Temple.  I have no historical clue as to the situation that caused Pontius Pilate to do this. Report of this was brought to Yeshua.  He replied by saying “Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish.”  Then He mentioned how 18 people perished when the tower of Siloam fell on them. Yeshua asked, “Do you think they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?  Nay, but except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.” (Lk. 13:4-5)  In connection with this, and to enforce these words of warning[63], Yeshua gives the parable of the fig tree.  Yahweh God is pictured as having planted a fig tree in the midst of His vineyard.  Three years He came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.  Yahweh gives orders to the vinedresser to cut it down.  Matthew Henry says “this parable primarily refers to the people and nation of the Jews.”[64] The three years is referring to the ministry of Christ, and how He “came unto His own [people], and His own received Him not.” (Jn. 1:11)  Let’s face it, the Jews disappointed Yahweh and His Son’s expectations.

On Friday of Passion Week, Yeshua curses a barren fig tree full of leaves, despite the fact that it was not the season for ripe fruit (Mk 11:13).  By the following morning (a Sabbath), the fig tree had withered to its roots (Mk. 11:20).  Yeshua forbade any man from trying to eat fruit from whatever that fig tree represented.  It behooves the Messianic Movement[65] to ponder their love affair with Judaism as they soberly reflect upon the implications of this parable.  For there can be little doubt that Yeshua is using the fig tree to represent the Jews who have rejected the Messiah.

In this same vein, it is interesting that Yeshua again used the fig tree to illustrate the kind of faith His disciples would need to overcome the opposition they would experience at the hands of the Jews: “If you had faith as tiny as a mustard seed, you could say to this fig tree, ‘Be uprooted and replanted in the sea!’ and it would obey you.”[66] The sea being a metaphor for the Gentile nations in the OT, it is interesting that the Jews were judged and dispersed throughout the nations in 70 A.D. due in large part to their opposition to the Gospel being taken to the Gentiles.  I Thes. 2:14:

For you, brethren, became followers of the [Jewish Christian] congregations of God which in Judea are in the Messiah Yeshua; for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen [Macedonia], even as they have of the Jews: (15) Who both killed the Lord Yeshua, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us, and they please not Elohim/God, and are contrary to all men—forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved—to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost [a better translation than ‘uttermost’ would have  been’lately’].”

The foregoing passage is a verse of scripture that you are not likely to find read in any Messianic congregation.  Many scholars accuse the apostles Paul and John of making anti-semitic statements, and yet they themselves were Jewish to the core.  But they had learned to do something many Messianics have not: to distance themselves from their brethren and the rabbis who had rejected Yeshua.  The kippahs, being called ‘rabbi’, the substitution of Adonai for Yahweh’s sacred name, the refusal to call upon/worship Yahweh’s name, the use of patently unbiblical rules for determining the calendar, the setting of Shavuot on Sivan 6 every year instead of counting 50 days in order, to get there, and the 15th Passover, are all ways in which followers of Yeshua are slavish to rabbinic tradition instead of the plain instructions of Scripture.

Yahweh Will Yet Choose Jerusalem

Zephaniah 3:1-2 is a prophetic description of Jerusalem as it stood in Jeremiah’s day, in Yeshua’s day, as well as our day today:

Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!  She obeys not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in Yahweh.  Her princes within her are roaring lions, her judges are evening wolves…her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the Torah.

And yet Zephaniah’s contemporary Zechariah prophesied that “Yahweh will yet choose Jerusalem.”  Zechariah 2:12:

And Yahweh shall inherit His portion Judah in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.

I Corinthians 11:31 says that “if we would judge ourselves, we will not be judged.”  It is ludicrous to suggest, as Monte Judah does, that Christians and Messianics need to get their attitude right with respect to the Jewish revival of the old Levitical system and Temple ritual.  I say we are too preoccupied, in this generation, with the creations of man, and not enough with the Creator and His Son’s sacrifice.  I’ll take the great antitype over the type any day.

The believers who flock to Monte Judah’s feasts are a testimony to the exorbitant need for social life that motivates most human behavior.  But do we realize the seriousness of the error that we are winking at by our silence?  Apparently not.  Lemmings just follow the tails in front of them, and read right over the most outlandish statements in their leaders’ magazines.

Malachi 3 says some interesting things that bear upon the above.  Notice Verse 1 and following:

Behold, I will send my Messenger, and He shall prepare the way before Me, and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in; Behold He shall come, saith YHWH of Hosts. 2 And who may abide the Day of His coming?   And who shall stand when He appears. For He is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap;  3 And He shall sit (the language of Judgment) as a refiner and purifier of silver; and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto YHWH an offering in righteousness.  Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto YHWH, as in the days of Old, and as in former years.  And I will come near to you to judgment.

These verses show that Yeshua is going to enter into judgment with the Levitical service being practiced when He returns.  Only after Yeshua has thoroughly purged His threshing floor, and purified the sons of Levi, subsequent to the Second Coming, only then will the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant to Yahweh, and not before.

Is it possible that Monte Judah’s preoccupation with re-establishing the literal third temple in Jerusalem has caused him to discredit the book of Hebrews?  After all, this is the book which points us to the “city of the living Elohim, the heavenly Jerusalem…and to Yeshua, the mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaks better things than Abel[‘s sacrifice].”?  (Hebrews 12:22, 24)  Obviously these concepts are antithetical to Monte Judah’s philosophy, and he is looking to men to make Jerusalem a praise, instead of YHWH (Zeph. 3:20):

When that time comes, I will bring you in; when that time comes, I will gather you and make you the object of fame and praise among all the peoples of the earth–when I restore your fortunes before your very eyes,” says Yahweh.

That time has not yet come, otherwise we would not be talking about a Jewish nation that can’t even decide whether homesexuality is a sin.  No, these prophecies are talking about Messiah Yeshua personally taking a hand in the re-gathering of the dispersed of Judah whose final judgment is yet to come.   The Messianic prophet Arthur Katz taught the same thing, but was marginalized by the mainstream Messianic movement.

THE HEAD COVERING HALAKAH IN THE MESSIANIC MOVEMENT

The Talmudic period (200-700 AD) formulated no laws regarding the yamulka, or male head covering.  Yet later rabbis made a minhag [67] stating that a follower of rabbinic Judaism may not walk four cubits without covering his head.  It also states that a Jewish male is not to pray without covering his head.  David Berent, a learned Jewish man I once met who believed in Yeshua and who called upon the name of the Father (YHWH), once told me his research had uncovered that a famous medieval rabbi in Poland had formalized the yamulka for his followers there in order to differentiate Jewish men from their Christian counterparts.

This is quite interesting, because the Apostle Paul, who seems to have been ordained by Yahweh to address specific issues such as this one in his pastoral epistles, clearly forbade head coverings for the men in the Church (I Corinthians 11:4).  The Greek word used three times in I Corinthians. 11 (vs. 4, 6, 7) is katakaluptomai, literally signifying something down upon or covering the head.[68] He makes it quite clear that this is because the man’s head is the invisible Christ.  The custom for the women was the same as in the Torah [69], i.e. she was to have a visible sign of authority down upon her head in order to remind the angels, the demons, herself and the world that her authority was a visible human being, i.e. she was willingly submitting to the human authority of her father or her husband.  In I Corinthians 11, Paul is particularly concerned that the woman should demonstrate her submission to this order in the Church service if she wishes to prophesy or pray.  Nothing could be clearer.

Many modern religious leaders pretend that Paul’s teaching on head-coverings for women is not clear, or assume that the women’s hair is her covering (an interpretation which the Greek will not allow, since a completely different Greek word—peribolaiou—is used to describe her hair in I Corinthians 11:15).  The truth is that Paul teaches that it is very unbecoming for a women to NOT have a head covering during prayer; that she might as well be totally shaved or shorn as to have her head unveiled with the symbol of authority.  Paul defended this custom against those who wanted to be contentious by saying “we have no other custom.”  Amish and Mennonite groups who have upheld the validity of Paul’s teaching have a far greater harmony and stability in the home to show for it.  No matter how people interpret or apply Paul’s writings on women’s head-coverings, it is plain that men are to do the opposite and not cover their head.

One must ask Messianics the question, “Why is the rabbinic tradition requiring men to have a head covering adhered to, when Paul’s clear teaching on the subject is disregarded?”  The truth of the matter is that it all boils down to what we are willing or not willing to practice in our faith.  It is a willingness greatly affected by our human nature and carnality.

It is not hard to strip the Messianic male leadership of their excuses for not obeying the Gospel which Paul taught.  The simple truth is that the very same yamulka that rabbinic Judaism insists that its males wear is the same kind of covering that violates Paul’s injunctions to the males in his congregations.  For those of us who think figuratively, it becomes crystal clear that the visible (male) head covering of the Jews and many Messianics is the natural outgrowth of accepting visible human authority based on tradition handed down from their Christ-rejecting forefathers. I suppose there is a certain comfort, especially if one is female, in being under the headship of a human hierarchy, instead of simply using the scriptures to interpret the scriptures.  In short, the headship of the men in the Messianic movement who wear head coverings is not the invisible Messiah, but other men. the tradition of the elders.

The Tradition of the Elders

The Pharisaic Paradosis” is the name of a very insightful and scholarly article by renowned Jewish historian A.I. Baumgarten.[70] Paradosis sounds like a disease, but it is much more than that.  It is a spiritual malady that has affected countless well-meaning believers in the Torah of Moses for 2100 years.  It is a religious tradition of laws going back to the time of the Maccabees that many Jews recognized as being extra-Biblical, as adding to the Torah of Moses.  The Greek word used to refer to these traditions is paradosiv (paradosis), which means “customs, laws, ideas, or traditions handed down or transmitted from one generation to another.”  What we wish to look at is how this parallel[71] tradition gained respectability in the eyes of the masses of Jewry by the time of the Second Temple, and specifically the kind of methods that Pharisees used to equate their teaching with that of Moses.  But first it is necessary that we establish that these Pharisaic paradosis were the subject of serious disputation.

The Sadducees rejected it. In Antiquities of the Jews, written by first Century history Josephus, the two sects are described as engaging in “controversies and serious differences” over these traditions.[72] Why?  Because the Sadducees received only those laws hand down in the written law of Moses.  The paradosis were not. Secondly, the Sadducees felt that the traditions of the Pharisees led to pointless self-denial.  Pointless, that is, if you don’t believe in an after-life.  Why give up pleasure unnecessarily in pursuit of an illusion of righteousness when there may not even be a resurrection of the just anyway, according to the Sadducees?  Philosophically, the Sadducees were only interested in the here and now, particularly in acquiring political power and wealth.

The Essenes rejected it.  According to Baumgarten, when the Pharisees are accused of following obl twryrs in the Qumran scrolls[73], it is attacked as human willfulness rather than divine law.[74]

The Herodians rejected it.  Herod’s biographer and closest advisor—Nicolaus of Damascus—the one who defended his will before Augustus Caesar—disliked the Pharisees, accusing them of “pretending to observe the laws of which God approves.” These were no doubt laws they themselves had devised.

And of course Yeshua of Nazareth rejected it.  In Mark 7 is an explicit attack upon the tradition of the elders, brought on by the Pharisees confrontation over Yeshua allowing the 5000 to eat bread without washing their hands:

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?”

What we wish to focus on here is the term paradosin twn presbutérwn, translated “tradition of the elders.” Josephus uses the same phrase in Ant. 10.4.1 § 51.  Baumgarten is correct in concluding that carefully crafted terminology was one of the means by which the Pharisees vaunted themselves into the religious center-stage of first century Judaism.  It was a way of claiming great antiquity for their paradosis. Notice that Yeshua rejects their terminology and calls their traditionalism the “commandments of men.”

Before the time of the Maccabees, the elders were members of the gerousia of Jerusalem.  Stating that their traditions were twn presbuterwn–of the elders–might have been an attempt by the Pharisees to connect their traditions with the leading center of power in pre-Maccabean Jerusalem.[75] Stating that their teachings were “of the elders,” of the gerousia, would have significantly enhanced the prestige of their traditions, according to Baumgarten.[76]

Call No Man Father

Laying aside, for the time being, the blatant violation of Matt. 23:8, 10 by the vast majority of Messianic congregations who indulge in calling their pastors ‘rabbi’, I would like my readers to turn their attention to Matt. 23:9 and realize that Pharisaic Judaism had a several hundred year head-start on violating the Savior’s injunction to “Call no man your father upon earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”  The negative in this verse is conditional (mh), not absolute (ou), therefore it has nothing to do with what you call your physical father.  The context of the passage is that we all have one spiritual Father, YHWH; no one else is entitled to that designation.  This is a sound and reasonable principle.  But what if you’re a sect of Judaism trying to gain credibility, a foothold as it were, with other unaffiliated Jews, in, let’s say the second century B.C.  Baumgarten suggests that this is when the Pharisees started calling their prominent teachers and rabbis “father,” in order to equate them with the patriarchs and Moses.

Since the Pharisees were not priests, they had no lineage or family ties to the priesthood.  Most ancient cultures, especially the Jews, accepted religious traditions handed down from father to son (see Amos 2:4b).  The Apostle Paul spoke in Gal. 1:14 how he had advanced in the Jews religion above many of his peers, being exceedingly zealous of the traditions of his fathers (Gr. patrikóv= paternal ancestors). These traditions had been handed down to him through his own father, for Paul tells us he is the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). Most scholars assume a link between Gal. 1:14 and the Pharasaic paradosis.    In the context of the strength of Jewish tribal tradition, and the importance placed upon patriarchy, it is doubtful that the schools of the Pharisees had displaced the family as the main instrument for transmitting Jewish tradition from one generation to another.  By the second century of the common era, however, all eyes did begin to look to the Pharisees for authority in religious matters.

The handing down of traditions was particularly true of priestly traditions (C. Apion 1.7 § 36).  The Jewish arguments for Jerusalem over against Mt. Gerizim as the legitimate place where men ought to worship mostly hinged around the high priests having received their office from their father.[77] The Pharisees, on the other hand, were scholastic, similar to Hellenistic schools, headed by scholarchs.[78]

“The notion [in the 1st Century B.C.] that such a school possessed traditions concerning the religious laws to be observed by the nation would have been revolutionary in all the ancient world…Pharisaic tradition, as a nonpriestly school tradition, was therefore extremely vulnerable.”[79]

So what did the Pharisees do?   They engaged in a piece of legal fiction that must have seemed quite brash to the first generation of Jews who saw them do it.  Returning to Baumgarten’s article on the Pharisaic paradosis:

When the Pharisees chose trom (masorōt) as the name of the laws they observed not written in the Bible, they were investing those traditions with the prestige of the written word [because the term] means the written text of the Bible even in rabbinic sources.

Baumgarten sees this as part of the Pharisaic response to early Sadducaean[80] charges that the Pharisees had attempted to attach “the questionable to the unassailable.”[81]

The term masorot ’Abot—traditions of the fathers—is the name of a tractate of the Talmud.  In it, the founders of rabbinic Judaism of the first century B.C.–Hillel and Shammai—are called ‘Abot ha olam, or “fathers of the universe,” or alternately, “fathers of eternity.”[82] R. Akiba and other prominent rabbis are also called fathers.  Students of rabbis were called their b’nai, or “sons.”

Calling the Pharisaic tradition that “of the fathers” was a very clever way for them to make a statement to the Jewish community worldwide: “Our rabbis are ‘abot just as Moses and the prophets were.”[83] To quote Baumgarten:

“The status of Pharisaic leaders as ‘abot seemed so obvious to the heirs of the Pharisees that they called the tractate that began with the old list of scholarchs Abot.

As for calling Shammai and Hillel “fathers of eternity/universe,” that is just the kind of blasphemous title one would expect from a religion emanating from Babylonia.[84] The fact that they held contradictory opinions on every matter except “the washing of the hands” did not inhibit the Talmudic rabbis from saying–“the words of both are the words of the living Elohim.”[85]

“The Scribes and the Pharisees Have Seated Themselves in Moses’ Seat.”

That is how the New American Standard Bible translates Matt. 23:2.  They must have read Baumgarten or else really have done their homework to have put it so succinctly.  We have learned that the terms paradosis of the elders and ‘father’ as a spiritual title for the rabbis was a deliberate attempt by the Pharisees to aggrandize their movement and their schools.  In defending their traditionary law, they hoped to raise it from that of mere schools of men to the patrimony of the nation.  As Yeshua indicated, they did whatever they did, “to be seen of men.”  Any suggestion on the part of Messianic or Worldwide Church of God leadership that somehow Yahweh placed them in Moses’ seat is spiritual insanity in the light of the truths presented in this booklet.  There is One Lawgiver who is able to save or destroy, and He gave but one Law to His servant Moses.

Those who honor this parallel tradition to the holy writ by wearing yamulkas, calling their leader ‘rabbi’, and keeping the Jewish fixed calendar, are also supporting a whole host of questionable and contradictory practices outlined above and many, many more, some of which dishonor our Messiah in very direct ways.  Coming out of Babylon means much more than coming out of Rome and all her daughter churches.  It also means coming out of Babylonian Talmudic torah practices that do not line up with Moses’ Torah.   The Karaites during the Middle Ages accomplished this feat without Yeshua and without holy Spirit.  Messianic Jews and others who believe in Yeshua the Messiah must do no less by the Holy Spirit.  After all, John 16 says the Counselor[86], the Holy Spirit, will lead us into all truth.

This reliance on human interpretations has manifested itself a number of ways.  Those in the Messianic movement wishing to heed this call to repentance should take a look at the following errors:

  • Sivan 6 Pentecost.  This requires the waving of the barley Wavesheaf offering on Abib 16.  But this, in turn, prevents Yeshua from fulfilling the sign of His Messiahship given in Matt. 12:40, that He would be in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights, since there is only 1½ days between sundown on the 14th (when Yeshua was entombed) to the morning of the 16th when He had to fulfill the Wavesheaf (if one reckons by the Pharisees).  More than one teacher supporting the Sivan 6 Pentecost and ‘three days and three nights in the tomb’ believes that Yeshua does not need to fulfill the Wavesheaf!  Our answer to that is that if Yeshua was not accepted by the Father as the first of the Firstfruits, then none of us can be received or accepted by the Father either.  His fulfillment of the Wavesheaf is as important as His resurrection from the dead.  We must believe in both if we hope to be among the barley harvest firstfruits. Yeshua is “the firstfruits of them that slept,” as Paul so aptly put it.  This is why I have spent so much scholastic effort endeavoring to discover the year (31 A.D.) when Yeshua could be a full 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb to fulfill the sign of Jonah, and then fulfill the Wave Sheaf offering (after those 3 days and 3 nights had been completed).  Thanks to powerful modern astronomy software, and the increase of knowledge in the latter days (Daniel 12:4), that search for the crucifixion year can be truly ascertained.  All the details provided by secular and Gospel historical accounts can be accommodated by that year, and that year alone.

Before moving on to the next point, it is important that we correct one additional error of the rabbis, who teach that the Law was given on Sivan 6 (Exod. 19-20).  But Exod. 19:1 says they arrived and camped in front of Mt. Sinai on the third day of Sivan (the 3rd mo.). This day (LXX has shmeron), tomorrow and the day following—i.e. the 5th of Sivan—the children of Israel washed clothes and sanctified themselves.  The Law was given on that Third Day (Sivan 5), not on the 4th day, which would indeed have been Sivan 6.  Therefore, the rabbis have added to the Word of YHWH here in order to arrive at a Sivan 6 date for the events of Exod. 19, obviously in order to justify their false method of counting the weeks to Pentecost.

  • Calling the Feast of Trumpets “Rosh Hoshanah” (the head of the year despite the fact that Exodus 12:1 calls the first day of Abib in the spring the head of the year).  The entire Jewish calendar is built around the molad of Tishri, not around Abib at all.
  • Making Feast of Trumpets the Second Coming when the scriptures very clearly show a springtime return of Messiah during a full moon moed.  But here again, the problem is that those who follow the rabbinic calendar end up with no leading of the Holy Spirit for understanding the fulfillment of the Holy Days, whose dates are determined by Yahweh’s calendar, not the rabbinic calendar.  Connecting the Feast of Trumpets with the coming of Messiah is a rabbinic interpretation.  Yeshua told the thief on the cross: “[On] this day [Passover] you shall be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).   The day Yeshua was speaking to him was Passover.   If he was coming back on a fall holy day, then why does Yeshua tell the thief they will be together on a day [Passover] that is six months after His coming?  Then of course there is the paradoxical reference to unripe figs falling from a fig tree given as representing the extreme meteorite shower that will occur at the second coming (Revelation 6:13).  These unripe figs line up coincidentally with Yeshua’s parable of the fig tree which is given as the key to understanding when He would return (Matthew 24:32-36). Yeshua is describing a springtime fig tree, “when it shoots forth its tender branch and green leaves.”  Fig trees do have green figs prior to Passover here in the South, and presumably in Jerusalem.
  • The folly of  15th of Abib Passover observances (the Bible says it early on the 14th of Abib).The Jew’s Abib 15 Passover has become so befuddled with rabbinic obfuscation that the entire emphasis is on the Exodus, instead of the passing over of the Death Angel. There is no clearer fact in the synoptic gospels than the fact that Yeshua ate the Passover with His disciples early on Abib 14th (Mt. 26:18, Mk. 14:12, Lk. 22:16).  Further, it is evident that the Pharisees and Jewish leaders did not eat the Passover until the 15th of Abib, as per the account in John 18:28.  So who do the Messianic Jews follow?  Why the Pharisees, of course!  They observe the Passover on the 15th, despite the fact that the Torah states that the lambs were killed at dusk, not mid-afternoon.

THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER

We, therefore, conclude that those who teach such things have an agenda.  It is not just to make the disciples of Jesus more Torah-observant, but turn them into the sort of good Pharisees that they believe Yeshua and His disciples were.  No one can be seeking to exonerate the Pharisees of complicity in the trial and execution of Yeshua, fail to cite the plain indictments against the Pharisees by Yeshua that their teaching was leaven, fail to acknowledge they were a movement not planted by the heavenly Father, and then turn the scriptures on their head by saying that Yeshua and His disciples were, for all practical purposes, Pharisees, unless they are bent on making Torah-leaning Christians into disciples of orthodox Judaism and the Oral Law.  In light of the foregoing, the modern Messianic movement in some respects makes more sense when seen as an ecumenical movement promoting acceptance of Jews, of Judaism, of the state of Israel, and of the upcoming Temple, its construction and Levitical services.  However, Paul said, whatsoever you do, do it unto Yahweh.  If, in our effort to keep Torah, we get side-tracked by the false purveyors of Oral Torah, we end up with the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, and will in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew. 5:20).  Yeshua continually emphasized that his teachings were from the heavenly Father, from ABOVE, and in John 8:23 said,

“You are from beneath.   I AM FROM ABOVE.  You are of the world.  I am not of this world.”

Too many Messianic Jews seek to make Yeshua a product of His own generation and Jewish culture.  In doing this they are re-molding the Messiah into someone who is more acceptable to modern Judaism, but YHWH cannot bear fruit through such prevarication.

The purpose of this exposé is not to malign Messianic leaders, or to say their writings are not profitable.  Messianics have profound insights into the Hebrew roots of the Gospel.  This article is a warning to separate the wheat from the chaff in their teachings and say “Beware of the leaven.”

Does any of this really matter?  For most Messianic believers, the main concern is that doctrines about the Jewishness of Yeshua, the typology and importance of the Jewish festivals, the Sabbath, the unclean meat laws—are all held in common.  It is true that it is important to find areas of commonality so believers can come together to worship.  While it is important to respect differences of opinion, we should not be so anxious for unity that we overlook blatant disregard for scriptural truth.  Errors such as the ones highlighted in this paper can, and do, lead to gross mis-reading of the Gospel message.  Like Yeshua’s opening words in the Olivet Discourse in Matt. 24, we should “Take heed that NO MAN deceive you.”  Let us hold fast the Word of YHWH, not man.

Todd Derstine

601-519-2486

www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

derstinetodd@yahoo.com


[1] Samaritan religion used lunar conjunction to start the months, instead of the crescent used by Jews and Babylonians; they kept Sunday for Pentecost, agreeing with Sadducees and Karaites.

[2] Origen, the great scholar and linguist of the early third century, taught that Simon Magus was from Samaria, and took his version of Christianity to Rome, where he gained a strong following.  The Enc. Britannica 11th Edition has a very long article covering this topic and the influence of Simon Magus.

[3] The first to point this out were the conversos in Spain who informed Catholic authorities that the Talmud had perverted the law of Moses into traditionalism, the religion of rabbinic Judaism.  This led to the first systemic effort to persecute Jews in opposition to the approach which had been followed during the previous thousand years, when Church policy was based on Augustine’s advice, in essence—“leave them alone, so that their lives will be an example to Christians of the curse that accrues from rejecting Christ.”

[4] The Hebrew Yeshua vs.the Greek Jesus by Nehemia Gordon, Hilkiah Press,  www.HebrewYeshua.com

[5] Galatians: A Torah-based Commentary in First Century Hebraic Context by Avi ben Mordechai

[6] Notice the passage does not say that Yahweh put them in Moses seat, but that they simply “seated themselves” in Moses seat [see the NASB], and presumed to interpret Moses to the people.  “Moses seat” was also an actual stone chair in the 1st C. synagogues from which the Hassan read from the Torah.

[7] Papias (100 A.D.), Origen (220 A.D.), Eusebius (330 A.D.), Julius Africanus, Jerome (400 A.D.), et al.

[8] George Howard’s book the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew compares unique variant reading in the Shem Tov Matthew with rabbinic quotes of the same verses which date to the early Middle Ages to prove that Shem Tov’s source dates to the early Middle Ages.  My opinion from reading Howard’s translation of Shem Tov, is that there is nothing that bars Shem Tov from being a close reflection of the original Gospel as written by Matthew in Hebrew!

[9] The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, Nehemiah Gordon. Hilkiah Press, 2005.

[10] Messianic Jews would be hard-pressed to find a precedent during the Talmudic period for the practice of men wearing a yamulka.  It cannot be found in the Talmud, according to Nehemia Gordon, who was raised to become a rabbi by next of kin who were themselves rabbis.

[11] Howard, “A Primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,” Journal of New Testament Studies 34 (1988) 63.

[12] Wylen, The Jews in the Time of Jesus, 164.

[13] Although here Wylen says it was not until after 70 A.D. that teachers were called “rabbi.”  However, there are passages in the four gospels that contradict this, especially in Shem Tov’s Matthew (Mt. 23:8,10).

[14] The Jews in the Time of Jesus by Stephen M. Wylen, 164.

[15] The Jews in the Time of Jesus, page 164

[16] This commandment is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off;   it is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’

[17] The Jews in the Time of Jesus, page 164

[18] The Gospel According to St. Mark, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. (1982), p. 124.

[19] Ibid. page 165.

[20] “Rabbi” literally means “my great one”, hence, “my master.”

[21] Who amazed the teachers of Torah at the Temple with his knowledge at the age of 12 (Lk 2:47).

[22] The Law of the Husband may be read at www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

[23] Education Director and Editorial Board of Messiah magazine, Board member of First Fruits of Zion.

[24] One is left scratching one’s head and wondering if that was not the actual intent of the author.

[25] The lawyers were experts on the Oral Law and its rabbinic interpretation.

[26] The Sabbath-observant Church of God groups also depend on this text to support following the  rabbinic fixed calendar.

[27] King of the Jews, Page 71.

[28] See marginal note by E.W. Bullinger in Companion Bible for last phrase in Isa. 29:13.

[29] Scott is a major messianic linguistic scholar who attacks Western/Greek modes of thinking that establish dualistic either/or paradigms, instead of what Scott calls Hebrew block logic.

[30] The Bazaar of Caiaphas, i.e. the tables of the moneychangers, which Yeshua overthrew two, possibly three times, during two separate Passover seasons, in order to cleanse His father’s house, the Temple.

[31] P. 74—Edersheim.

[32] King of the Jews, Pg. 70, Lancaster says “[The Sadducees] were the sect responsible for the crucifixion.”

[33] Webster’s defines credulous as “willing to believe or trust too readily, esp. without adequate evidence.”

[34] The Jews in the Time of Jesus, Stephen M. Wylen, page 160.

[35] The Talmud says Yesu (their derogatory term for Christ) was hung on a tree and stoned to death for the crime of blasphemy.  John 10:31-33 confirms this fact.  Prestigious scholar Ernest L. Martin makes a strong case that Jesus was stoned in his book Secrets of Golgotha, and cites other authors who knew this was true.

[36] Even the NAS translation assumes that the cohort here implies Romans soldiers.  Our opinion is that we are talking of the Temple police.

[37] Failure to note this point, so evidently set forth at the beginning of John’s book (Jn. 1:19, 24), has led to scholarly fables accusing the Apostle John of becoming anti-Semitic.  He was anti-establishment, however, because the Jews’ religious leadership was greedy, blind, hypocritical and murderous (just for starters).

[38] Yeshua single-handedly prohibited commercial activity in the huge outer court of the Temple on no less than three occasions during His ministry, as we demonstrate in our book Chronology of the Passion Week.

[39] Strange, isn’t it, how that which we seek to preserve and protect by our own will, we end up losing.

[40] From the Greek presbyteros, meaning an older head of household having reputation for integrity and knowledge in the local community.

[41] See Acts 13:27.  Also, Albert Baumgarten has shown that the Pharisees deliberately chose the term “elders” to enhance the prestige of their traditions and leaders.  See page 22 of this paper.

[42] Aorist tense of Gr. fanerwsa= to bring to light, to reveal, make known.

[43] See The Companion Bible, Bullinger, marginal note on John 17:11.

[44] See footnotes 1 & 2.  Bullinger’s marginal note confirms that Gr. gnorizo means made known.

[45] Abraham and Isaac “called upon the Name of Yahweh.” (Gen. 12:8, 13:4, 21:33

[46] Appendix #32 in Bullinger’s Companion Bible list all 134 places where the Hebrew text was changed from ‘YHWH’ to ‘Adonai’ by the sopherim scribes.  They make for an interesting study on how doctrine can affect transmission of the text.  At least the sopherim noted exactly where they made the alterations. However, to justify this kind of activity, is to incur guilt under the 3rd Commandment, as well as Deut. 4:2, 12:32, Prov. 30:6—“Do not add to His Words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

[47] Preserved by the Jewish community in Spain during the Middle Ages.

[48] See Howard’s ground-breaking work in The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer Univ. Press, 1995.

[49] Cf. the famous rabbinic passage, Tosefta Shabbath, 13.5: “The margins and books of the minim (Chris-tians) do not save.”  The debate then follows about what to do with heretical books that have the divine name in them.  R. Jose suggests the divine name should be cut out and the rest of the document burned.  R. Ishmael and R. Tarphon say the entire books including the divine name should be destroyed.

[50] For additional evidence that the Tetragrammaton was used in the Greek New Testament, see “The Tetragram and the New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96 [1977], pp. 63-83, and “The Name of God in the New Testament,” Biblical Archaeology Review, Mar. 1978, 12-14.

[51] Samuel Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).

[52] Since “no man has ever seen God the Father” (I John. 4:12), Yeshua was the Lord of the Old Testament.

[53] This man was the highly respected High Priest at the time of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

[54] www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

[55] The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, p 894.

[56] Chapter 7 of his book Secrets of Golgotha, goes into great detail about these events.

[57] cf. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, The New Testament Apocrypha, vol. I, pp. 150, 153).

[58] The odds against this being happenstance are astronomical.

[59] Seeing how the Pharisees had just spent the last two centuries establishing the legitimacy of their authority in the face of the established authority of the Levitical priesthood.

[60] Luke 21:6

[61] II Thes. 2:4 says he will “sit in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

[62] See Ernest Martin’s The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, available from Assoc. for Scriptural Knowledge.

[63] See Matthew Henry Notes for Luke 13:7.

[64] Ibid.

[65] The same warning applies to all the Torah-observant, sabbatarian, Church of God organizations who cannot think their way out of the rabbinic Jewish calendar and rabbinic interpretations of the holy days.

[66] Luke 17:6–Complete Jewish Bible, David A. Stern.

[67] A minhag is new law based on a custom or precedent practiced by the majority over several generations.

[68] Definition taken from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and Testament Words, p. 252.

[69] The book of Numbers has a law of jealousy where the wife has to uncover her head when she drinks the water mixed with dust from the Temple to test her fidelity.  In Genesis 24 Rebecca covers her head when coming into the presence of Isaac, her betrothed.

[70] Harvard Theological Review 80:1 (1987).

[71] Running parallel, or alongside the law of Moses, and competing with it for people’s obedience.

[72] Ant. 13.10.6  § 298.

[73] 1 QH 4 7, 11

[74] The Pharisaic Paradosis, HTR 80:1, p. 71.

[75] It is to that period of Jewish history we must look for the origin of this terminology.

[76] Ibid. page 74

[77] Ant. 13.3.4 § 78

[78] Elias Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, p. 259-69.

[79] A.I. Baumgarten, “The Pharisaic Paradosis”, Harvard Theological Review (1987), p. 72

[80] Strong arguments could be brought forward at this point that Essene, Samaritan (and later Herodian) groups were leveling similar charges against the Pharisaic ‘laws’ as early as the 2nd Century B.C.

[81] Ibid., p. 73.

[82] Page 148 of Wylen, ibid.

[83] Baumgarten, ibid. page 74.

[84] The rabbis who compiled the Babylonian Talmud were concentrated around their academies in Baghdad.

[85] Page 51 of Wylen, ibid.

[86] The Greek word parakletos can mean comforter or counselor.

The Jubilee is the greatest instrument of economic freedom ever conceived. An entire doctoral dissertation such as Geoffrey Allen Fager’s of Vanderbilt University would be required to give the reader an appreciation of the impact the Jubilee would have on the wealth of the middle class in this country, but. This brief chapter will be devoted to proving when the Jubilees fell.  Suffice it to say that if every head of household was ensured a landed estate beyond the city walls of each city, the ability of families to be self-sufficient, food-producing entities who could dictate to employers their salary rather than the other way around, would be multiplied many times over.  The well-being of the middle class is the key to the stability and continuance of democracy and republican govern-ment, something which wealth has the money brokers almost destroyed in this country during the past 100 years.  Geoffrey Fager demonstrates lamentably how identical our land policies are to those of the Canaanites, and the extremely deleterious effect this has had on our economic well being.  In addition, it must be pointed out that Latin American societies, intuitively realizing how wrong it is for their aristocracies (comprising less than 2 % of the population) to control and own 95% of the land, have periodically risen up in rebellion to reclaim the use of their own land.  Latifundia is the propensity of peasant land to be swallowed up by the wealthy into large estates.  Failure of government to respect the need of the working class people for land is perhaps the prime cause of revolutions throughout the world. The greatness of the Jubilee law can be inferred from its inscription on our Liberty Bell in Philadelphia:

Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof…

Thanks to our secular educational system, and equally ignorant churches, only a tiny percentage of Christians are even aware that the word “liberty” here refers to debt forgiveness, and restoring people back to the landed estates of their grandparents.  This is a centerpiece of Yahweh’s wise and thoughtful solution to homelessness, poverty and a whole host of social ills.  But of course greedy patrician class of America’s oligarchy would never let such an institution be implemented, despite the fact that America, with its plethora of arable watershed, is in a better position per capita to put into effect this divine legislation than any other country.  Richard Kelly Hoskins, in his academically acclaimed book War Cycles, Peace Cycles, showed that the economic depressions in this country have occurred approximately every 50-60 years, a cycle which has spawned the onset of the politics of war, because it is accelerated government expenditures during wars that have pulled America repeatedly out of Jubilee period depressions brought on by mountains of private and public debt.  The brain trusts that run this country are fairly aware of these economic laws and cycles, and the power of war to head off recessions.

The Jubilee legislation in Leviticus 25 goes on to prohibit the sale of rural land in perpetuity.  “The land is mine, saith Yahweh…you may not sell it forever.”  Why?  Because “a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.”  Proverbs 13:22. Selling one’s house/estate for one’s own immediate benefit without consideration of heirs is self-centered and covetous.

Jewish Observance of the Shemittah

The Jews have historical records indicating when the land Sabbath (shemittah) was kept. They were all seven years away from each other.  Amazingly, this cycle has been maintained from the time of Joshua. Biblical history has preserved a sequence of Jubilees that can be pinpointed with accuracy, as we shall soon see. Though the Jews did not observe the shemittah prior to the Babylonian captivity, the seventy years in Babylon taught them a valuable lesson about the importance of letting the land lie fallow, about avoiding idolatry, and about the need to diligently keep the weekly Sabbath.  Since that exile only lasted seventy years, spanning eleven shemittot, it is likely they kept track of the land Sabbaths through that period.  That period spanned 604-534 B.C.

The Land Sabbath was similar to Jubilee in that the land lay fallow, and personal indebtedness was forgiven.[1] Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati has published a number of scholarly articles by Ben Zion Wacholder, a prominent Judaic historian, proving from history when the shemittot occurred.[2] He has documented ten land Sabbaths. All ten are multiples of seven years away from each other, indicating an uninterrupted cycle the priests, the scribes and Jewish people kept track of.  His cycle is only one year removed from Schurer’s[3] and other historians in the nineteenth and twentieth century who came close to establishing when the shemittah occurred.

One of Wacholder’s ten historically-documented land Sabbaths runs from 27 to 28 A.D.  He believes, as I do, that John the Baptist’s messianic ministry naturally began on this land Sabbath. Wacholder and other scholars show conclusively that Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem took place at the end of the Land Sabbath year in 36 B.C.  This is precisely nine land Sabbaths prior to the start of John the Baptist’s ministry.  When it is realized that 27 A.D. was the seventh and last land Sab-bath of a Jubilee cycle, it is all the more remarkable, then, that Eusebius (the ‘father of the church history’), says 28/29 A.D. was a Jubilee year!  This makes Yahshua’s reference to the Jubilee in Luke 4:16 all the more literal.  He truly was proclaiming “the acceptable year of YHWH.”[4]

It is recognized by Jewish scholars that the Jews did not observe the Jubilee, at least after the fall of Samaria in 718 B.C.[5] The reason for this is given in the Talmud, which states that since “all the in-habitants of the land” were no longer “in the land,” therefore the Jubilee law no longer applied.  Since the ten tribes were removed from the land in 718 B.C., the conditions for keeping the law were no longer extant.  Wacholder made no attempt to determine when the Jubilee years fell.  But the time has come to unveil a chronology that has its basis in historical fact, building on the foundation of Wacholder and Ernest Martin, whose reconstruction of Herodian history was accomplished with the help of Wacholder’s land Sabbath cycle.  My chronology hinges on one reference to an historical Jubilee in the Old Testament during the reign of King Hezekiah, and upon the one referred to by Messiah Yahshua at the start of his ministry in 28 A.D., which was 15 Jubilee cycles (to the exact year) after Hezekiah’s.

It is surprising that so few scholars, including Wacholder, have paid any attention to Hezekiah’s Jubilee, mentioned in the accounts of Sennacherib’s (king of Assyria) attack on Jerusalem, despite the fact that it is mentioned and dated in three places in the Old Testament—II Kings 18, II Chron. 32, and Isaiah 36.  Though scholars have been concerned over the past century or more with problems over the exact year for the fall of Samaria and the end of the Northern Kingdom, I argue here that the synchronicity between the Jubilee cycle and the later date of 718 B.C. may be useful to Assyriologists in solving this problem.  This information is derived from Assyrian annals as well as document on cuneiform tablets, where the carrying away captive of some 28,000 Israelites from bit-Humria is mentioned in the records of Sargon II.[6] Omri (Humria), the father of Ahab, and builder of Samaria, is recognized as a reference to N. Israel.  The fall of Samaria is one of the most clearly attested dates of ancient history.  II Kings 18: 9 links the 4th year of Hezekiah (721-720) with the seventh year of Hoshea, last king of Northern Israel.  This was the first year of the siege. The last year of the siege (719-718 B.C.) was the sixth year of Hezekiah, the ninth year of Hoshea.  Therefore the siege of Jerusalem by Assyrian King Sennacherib, during Hezekiah’s 14th year (II Kg. 18:13), must be 711-710 B.C.  Isaiah makes the reference to the 49th year land Sabbath and 50th year Jubilee in II Kg. 19: 29:

And this shall be a sign unto you, Ye shall eat (this) year such things as grow of themselves (Heb. xypo), and in the second year the self-produced; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof.

The Hebrew lexicons[7] are in agreement that xypo (Strong’ # 5599) is growth from kernels poured out accidentally… serving as food when no grain could be sown during sabbatical year.  Careful comparison of this verse with Leviticus 25:11 will show the reader that Isaiah definitely had a 49th year land Sabbath and 50th year Jubilee in mind. This sign was given in connection with assurances that the king of Assyria would not succeed in taking Jerusalem.

However, our chronology of the Jubilee (see chart in Appendix 2) would have these back-to-back sabbatical years fall two years later if the Jubilee of 708-707 B.C. is to be part of a 49 year cycle that is predictive of the start of Messiah’s ministry in 28/29 A.D in the 15th year of Tiberius. We propose two possible solutions to this discrepancy.  Martin Anstey[8] has shown that the first two years of Hezekiah’s reign he was co-rex with Ahaz his father.  The 14th year then of Hezekiah’s sole reign would be 709/708 B.C., the year we have computed as the 105th land Sabbath.  Alternatively, since technically Isaiah did not say ‘this’ year Hezekiah and the Jews would eat the self-growth of an immediate sabbatical, he may have been referring to the upcoming sabbaticals two years hence, and Yahweh’s promised provision during the sabbatical year as being the sign that Sennacherib had not been successful.  In any case, it is difficult to imagine how a two year span of eating what grows of itself in the field could be any kind of sign ahead of time that Isaiah’s prophecy was a true, since the story indicates there was no delay between the prophecy itself and the destruction of the enemy camp.  Therefore, Isaiah, knowing how important the land rests were in the mind and economy of their Covenant God, and how large a factor their desecration would play in the judgments that awaited a mere century away, used his awareness of the upcoming sabbatical year as a sign of why YHWH was sparing Hezekiah and Jerusalem at this time:  Keep YHWH’s [land] Sabbaths, or in fifteen more, Judah shall be no more!

It is quite probable that the knowledge of exactly when the sabbatical years fell was known only to Isaiah (and perhaps a few other prophets and priests).  Therefore it would have been only at this time that Isaiah instructed Hezekiah in the necessity of honoring YHWH’s sabbatical and Jubilee laws by way of completing the restoration which Hezekiah had begun so successfully fourteen years earlier. The failure of the Jews to continue the precedent set by Hezekiah, including the sabbatical years, is listed as one of the main reasons for forcing the land to rest for 70 years under the boot of Babylon:

In order to fulfill the word of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths; all the days of the desolation it kept the Sabbath, to the full measure of seventy years.

In fact, might it not be said that the two-year land rest was a two way sign, pointing back to the fact that Sennacherib had been turned back by the faith of Judah’s righteous king, and pointing forward to the dangers that lay ahead if Judah did not keep the Shemitah.

Judah was in dire straights as a result of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem and the plundering of dozens of Judean fenced cities.  How was Judah to be provided for after the faithful resistance by her righteous king?  It would seem to have been a most inopportune time for a double land Sabbath to come along, in the midst of such undue external hardship.

It is right after Isaiah gives the sabbatical sign when an angel of Yahweh went out and killed every mighty warrior (185,000)[9] in the camp of the Assyrians.  Sennacherib not only had to return in shame to his own land, but had no one to carry away the booty from months and months of successful plundering of other nations.  All of Sennacherib’s spoils of war fell into the hands of faithful Hezekiah.[10] One way or another, YHWH-Yirah provided for Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

The 49th year land Sabbath ran from the fall of 709 to the fall of 708 B.C., and the Jubilee was the following year–708-707 B.C.  Since there are 735 years in 15 Jubilee cycles, 28 A.D. is easily cal-culated as the 15th Jubilee from that of Hezekiah’s day, and the 30th Jubilee since Joshua.  These dates correlate perfectly with the chronological clues given in scripture that point to the years when the Exodus and the crossing of the Jordan took place. In the concluding section it will be demon-started that the conquering of Canaan and the year of the Exodus correlate with this chronology.

There is enormous significance to Hezekiah’s fifteen-year life extension, which was conferred upon him shortly after the vanquishing of the Assyrian army. Why 15 years?  Why not 10 or 20 years?  These things happened to Hezekiah because he was a type of the Messiah.  His name meant “he who YHWH has strengthened.” His life extension foreshadowed two things: 1) given as it was right after the Jubilee sign, it was a shadow picture of the fact that 15 Jubilees remained until the appearing of the Messiah (28-29 AD) 2) But it should be noted that there remained fifteen land Sabbaths after 709-708 B.C.—the first year of Isaiah’s sign—until the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (604 B.C.), when he carried away the first Jewish captives to Babylon.  This captivity under Babylon was partly due to Judah’s negligence in keeping the land Sabbaths.[11] Hence, Hezekiah’s fifteen year life extension contained both a negative foreshadowing—i.e. that there remained only 15 more land Sabbaths before His people would begin their punishment under the Babylonians—and a positive one–fifteen Jubilee cycles before our 30-year old Savior began His ministry at the onset of the 30th Jubilee.  It was in this same context that Isaiah came to Hezekiah and reproved him for showing the Mesopotamian emissaries all the gold in his treasury and in his palace.  Isaiah told him the day was coming when all of it would be carted away to Babylon.  Hezekiah said, “Your prophecy is good, since it is not coming in my day.”  But now it appears that Hezekiah’s 15 year life-extension was an indication that only 15 more land Sabbaths would transpire (unobserved) before Yahweh would force the land to rest by the hands of the Babylonians.  That period was 105 years, from 709/708 to 604-603.

The Jubilee Cycle—Was it 49 or 50 Years in Length?

The Book of Jubilees, written around 200 B.C., was one of the most important books to the sectarian Qumran communities.  It says that the Jubilee cycle was 49 years.[12] The Talmud has a difference of opinion on whether it was 49 or 50 years long.  Can we know for sure, aside from the historical coincidences I am about to be pointing out?   Yes!  The key lies in Jubilee’s similarity to the 50-year count to Pentecost.  Both involve seven sets of perfect sevens in the count toward a 50th day or year.  Let us look at Pentecost first.

Leviticus 23 tells us to count 50 days from the morrow after a Sabbath, unto the morrow after a seventh Sabbath seven weeks later.  Seven Sabbaths are to be complete.  Since the word “complete” is tamiyd, which means perfect, Sunday to Saturday sevens are insinuated.  A seven day period extending from Monday through Sunday would not warrant the adjective tamiyd. The clincher is that the 50th day of the count is said to be the morrow after the seventh Sabbath (Lev. 23:16).  Now Sunday Pentecost was understood by no less than four different Jewish groups: the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Samaritans, and the Jewish Karaite sect of the Middle Ages.  Only the Pharisaic rabbis succeeded in twisting the people’s understanding of these simple facts.  For the purposes of this discussion, the main focus is that Sunday Pentecost is not just the 50th day, but also the first day of the week during the eighth week from Passover.  Also of paramount importance is the fact that the perfect weekly cycle of Sabbaths is not broken or interrupted by Pentecost.  The analogy to the Jubilee count is inescapable.  When one counts seven sets of seven years from a beginning point, which we will get to in the next section, one arrives at a 50th year.  Leviticus 25:8 stipulates how to count years to get to Jubilee:

You shall number seven Sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of seven Sabbaths of years shall be unto thee 49 years…and ye shall hallow the 50th year.

The scripture declares that the space is to be 49 years between Jubilees.  The 50th-year Jubilee is analogous to the day of Pentecost, a fiftieth day but also a first day of the following week.  Those who insist on excluding the Jubilee year from the count toward the next land Sabbath, end up with eight years between the 49th year land Sabbath and the next land Sabbath (in year 57).   This is wrong.  Since Jewish history shows all the land Sabbaths were a multiple of seven years away from each other[13], it follows that the Jubilee year had to be year one toward the next land Sabbath, in order that the seven year cycle not be interrupted.  Also the one-to-one correspondence between Jubilee and Pentecost is not destroyed by this interpretation.

Let us now turn to the messianic Jubilee prophecy in Isaiah 61 which Christ said He fulfilled.  We will see the tremendous overlap in meaning between Jubilee and Pentecost.

The Spirit of Adonai YHWH is upon Me: because YHWH has anointed Me (Mashiach) to preach good tidings (gospel) unto the meek; He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.  (v. 2) To proclaim the acceptable year of YHWH.

Yahshua interrupted the prophecy, because it was not the time to proclaim vengeance, or the Day of Vengeance.  The acceptable year of YHWH was the Jubilee, as E.W. Bullinger (The Companion Bible) and many other scholars have pointed out.  He told his friends and relatives in his hometown synagogue where He read this prophecy “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”

Eusebius (bishop of Caesarea, the father of Church history) states that 28/29 A.D. was the 15th year of Tiberius.[14] In Helm’s edition of Eusebius’ Chronicles, the marginal note reads “the 81st Jubilee according to the Hebrews.”[15] Is it not curious that if we add the span of 735 years to 708-707 B.C., we come up with 28-29 A.D.?  (735 years is the span of 15 Jubilee cycles, as 15 X 49 = 735.)

There can be no doubt that the giving of the Holy Spirit to the assembled believers on Pentecost of 31 A.D. was Yahweh’s means of bringing about deliverance from prisons of both literal and figurative nature.  Healings, signs, and wonders were wrought by Yahshua and His apostles as Pentecost was fulfilled under the aegis of the spiritual Jubilee proclaimed by Yahshua in the first year of His ministry, the fall of 28 A.D.

Ernest Martin points out that the reading of Isaiah 61:1-2 is specified for the day of Pentecost in second year of the triennial cycle.[16] This is an indication that “the day of Sabbaths” in Luke 4:17 was a Pentecost Sabbath.  Hence we have evidence that Pentecost and Jubilee were joined at the hip liturgically and spiritually. Refer to chart in APPENDIX 1: THE EXACT CORRESPONDENCE OF THE COUNT TOWARD THE JUBILEE AND PENTECOST.

Does Hezekiah’s Jubilee Dovetail with a Plausible Year for the Exodus?

Next we wish to calculate the date of the Exodus based on Hezekiah’s Jubilee (working backwards). Let us see if the date arrived at comports with the Biblical record.  735 years prior to 708/707 takes us to 1443/42 B.C.  But we must add one because there are fifty years to the first Jubilee.  Hence, 1444/43 is the year from which we would have to start the count to the first land Sabbath.   Since it took six years for Israel to conquer the Canaanites under Joshua,[17] the crossing of the Jordan would be 1450 B.C.[18] Since those six years were spent warring against the Canaanites, not in planting and sowing, it makes no sense to start counting toward the land Sabbath until the land had rest from war, i.e. six years later.  More importantly, the count could not begin until the land was apportioned to families by the casting of lots, which did not take place until the six years of war had ended.

The science of astronomy can help us to rule out most years proposed for the crossing of Jordan.  Leviticus 23:10-11 says that when they would come into the land they were to perform a ceremony before eating the new grain in the spring.  This wave-sheaf ritual was carried out every year there-after during or after[19] the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and was carried out on the morrow after the weekly Sabbath (rabbinic misinterpretations notwithstanding).  Joshua 5:11-12 tell us they ate the produce[20] or new yield of the land on the morrow after the Passover.  Therefore, Joshua’s entry into Canaan had to take place in a year on which the 14th day after the lunar crescent (Passover) fell on a Saturday.  This fact is well known among some Sabbath-keeping groups and has been noted in the Talmud.

Using Starry Night software, we determined that in 1450 B.C. the moon set 1½  hours after the sun on Saturday March 26th (being un-viewable the previous evening), plenty of time for viewing the crescent.  Therefore the 14th Passover did indeed begin on Friday evening April 8, 1450 B.C.  Israel ate the Passover on the Sabbath, and offered the Wave Sheaf Sunday morning, allowing them to eat of the new produce of Canaan on the morrow after the Sabbath.

Next, we must figure back forty years to the year of the Exodus, i.e. 1490 B.C.  Thankfully, we have a double check for the year of the Exodus that limits the parameters of that year.  It is this:   the fifteenth day of the second month must fall on a weekly Sabbath, a Saturday, as per Exodus 16:1.  There it tells us that the children of Israel encamped on this day, a Sabbath, as the rabbis in the Talmud also realized.  YHWH sent quail on Saturday night, and manna the next morning–Sunday morning (the first of six successive days of manna) in order to show the Israelites which day was the holy Sabbath, upon which no manna came.

With the help of Starry Night[21], it has been possible to determine when the conjunction of the moon occurred for that second month in 1490 B.C., and when the crescent would be viewable for starting that second month.  It was clear that the crescent would have been visible 31 hours after the lunar conjunction, i.e. on Friday night April 16, making Saturday April 17th the first day of the second month.  Therefore, the Sabbath would also have been on the 15th day of the 2nd month (which was on May 1).[22] Therefore, 1490 B.C. is eminently workable as the year for the Exodus.  The Sabbath of Exodus 16:1 was on May 1st, and the manna fell on Sunday May 2nd.

The fact that 1490 B.C. and 1450 B.C. coincided so perfectly with previously determined years for Hezekiah’s Jubilee (708/707 B.C.) and the start of Messiah’s Jubilee ministry (year 28/29) A.D., is a discovery that warrants critical examination by other scholars.  The fact that 1450 and 1490 accommodate the details given in their respective chapters (Joshua 5 and Exodus 16) provides hard evidence that these were the years for these pivotal events in Israelite history.  Any alternative chronology would have to provide a similar span accommodating these details.  However, the years given above are the only ones which will allow there to be a Jubilee at the start of Messiah’s ministry.  All of this confirms what Daniel prophesied for our days in Daniel 12:4:

But you, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.  Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Mysteries of Time in the Jubilee Cycles

Unlike many other subjectively derived Jubilee cycles, especially ones that purport to go back to Creation[23], the above chronology actually starts with dating the one historical Jubilee in the Old Testament under Hezekiah during the time when Sennacherib of Assyria was trying to conquer Jerusalem, and then extrapolates from there backwards and forwards to arrive at a number of historical coincidences which we find it to hard to ascribe to mere chance.  Was it mere happenstance that Hezekiah’s was the fifteenth Jubilee occurring somewhere near the fifteenth year of his reign, and that the king was given a fifteen year life extension that foretold fifteen more land Sabbaths before the House of Judah would be no more, but which also foretold of fifteen more Jubilee cycles before Yahshua would inaugurate the most important ministry of all time in 28 AD?  Hezekiah was one of Israel’s most righteous kings, possessing not only moral and spiritual greatness, but also humility to listen to YHWH and His prophets.  The scriptures record one great failure in his life and it is related to the fifteen year life extension he was granted.  When Isaiah prophesied to Hezekiah that he would die, Hezekiah “wept sore” before YHWH, and Isaiah was sent to him with another prophecy:

I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years……And this shall be a sign unto thee from YHWH, that YHWH will do this thing that he hath spoken.  Behold I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.  So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. (Isaiah 38: 5-8)

The King of Babylon sent a letter and presents to Hezekiah because he had heard he was sick and recovered.  No doubt these sun-worshipping Chaldeans were also very curious about the sign that accompanied Hezekiah’s cure: the sun moved backwards!  This was no small miracle, and YHWH performed it to call attention to something very significant.  If Hezekiah had humbly sought to understand this mystery, and prayed as earnestly as Daniel, perhaps YHWH would have revealed the understanding that fifteen more Jubilees would extend until the Messiah. Hezekiah would have been able to witness to the gentile nations about YHWH’s miraculous care and provision for Israel during the fifteen Jubilee cycles since the entrance into the Promised Land.   He would have been able to give glory to the Elohim of Israel by sharing this with the Babylonian emissaries.  Not only did he miss this opportunity, but proudly showed the Babylonians his material wealth.  After the Babylonians departed, Isaiah brought Hezekiah word from YHWH that after his death, all that was in his house would be carried away to Babylon and his sons would be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

There are even more numerical signs connected to Jubilee cycles. It can be demonstrated that John the Baptist’s message and ministry of “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has arrived,” was part and parcel of Yahshua’s very own message and ministry[24], and that John’s work began fifteen 49-year cycles after Isaiah gave Hezekiah and Judah the sign of not planting, sowing, or reaping their fields.  That message and sign was given by Isaiah at the start of the 49th year land Sabbath, 735 years before 27 AD.  In addition to that, 27 AD was 69 prophetic weeks of years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem mentioned in Daniel 9:27[25], which the Jews of the first century all under-stood to be a Messianic prophecy whose fulfillment was to be in their generation.

Is it mere coincidence that John’s messianic ministry began in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, somewhere near the start of the 210th land Sabbath, that 210 = 7 x 30 or 15 x 14[26], and that the man he designated that year as the Lamb of Elohim was about 30 years old[27], and would begin his ministry shortly, near the 30th Jubilee?  I think not.  The pattern of fifteens signifying fullness of grace (3 x 5) is just the surface of a kaleidoscope of numerical and other fabulous patterns that reflect the purpose and design of the Great Watchmaker in the heavens in whose hand are all the times and seasons.

THE EXACT CORRESPONDENCE OF THE COUNT TOWARD THE JUBILEE AND TOWARD PENTECOST
COUNT THE YEARS TO JUBILEE

“You shall count off 7 Sabbaths of years, Seven times seven years; and the space of the seven Sabbaths of years shall be unto you 49 years.” Lev. 25:8

COUNTING THE DAYS TO PENTECOST

“You shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering: seven Sabbaths shall be complete:

Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days.” Lev. 23:15-16

Israelites cross Jordan under Joshua
Israelites spend 6 years conquering the Canaanites; then distribute land, at this point there are six years of planting. Sabbath

First weekly Sabbath during Feast of Unleavened Bread

Year 1—1444 B.C.–Began at the beginning of the seventh year after Joshua crossed the Jordan. Year six was 1439/1438 B.C. Day 1 (Sunday) Wavesheaf Offering:

”Ye shall wave the sheaf before YHWH to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.”  Lev.23:11

Year 7—1438/1437 B.C.

First Land Sabbath

Day 7

First Sabbath after Passover

Year 14

Second Land Sabbath

Day 14

Second Sabbath after Passover

Year 21

Third Land Sabbath

Day 21

Third Sabbath after Passover

Year 28

Fourth Land Sabbath

Day 28

Fourth Sabbath after Passover

Year 35

Fifth Land Sabbath

Day 35

Fifth Sabbath after Passover

Year 42

Sixth Land Sabbath

Day 42

Sixth Sabbath after Passover

Year 49

Seventh Land Sabbath

Day 49

Seventh Sabbath after Passover

Year 50 (1394/93 B.C.)

JUBILEE

The year of rest will be followed by five years of planting, years 51-55.

Day 50

PENTECOST

Followed by five days of work, Monday-Friday.

Year 56

First Land Sabbath of the next Jubilee cycle. Uninterrupted seven year cycle.

Day 56-

Eighth Sabbath

Note uninterrupted weekly Sabbath cycle

CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUBILEE

EXODUS TO THE START OF THE MESSIAH’S MINISTRY IN 28 A.D.

YEAR

MAJOR EVENTS CORRESPONDING TO BENCHMARK JUBILEES

1490 B.C. Year of the Exodus.  In this year, the 15th day of the 2nd month must fall on Sat. Sabbath (Ex. 16:1) Using the lunar crescent, it does.  Calculated using Starry Night.
1450 B.C. Crossing of the Jordan under Joshua.  In this year, the Passover must fall on Sabbath (Sat.), because the new grain of the land could not be eaten until the wave sheaf had been offered.  Josh. 5:12 says they ate the new produce of the land the morrow after the Passover.  This only happens in years where the Passover falls on Saturday.  Warfare against Jericho and Canaanites ensues.
1450-1444 B.C. Six[28] years of warfare leads to subduing of Canaanites.  “The land rested from war” (Josh. 11:23)  First year of planting comes when land is apportioned to families by lot, after the warfare is finished.
1438-1437 B.C. This is the first land Sabbath under this reckoning–Fall to fall
1394-1393 B.C. 7th land Sabbath=49th year
1393-1392 B.C. First Jubilee=50th year from distribution of land by Joshua.
724 B.C. First year of Hezekiah, 2-year co-rule with Ahaz his father.  Revives the keeping of the Passover. Sends messengers to N. House of Israel to compel them to worship YHWH in Jerusalem.  They mock. This happens three years in a row.
721-718 B.C. N. Israel’s refusal to repent leads to Assyrian captivity under Sargon II

(4th-6th year of Hezekiah), who besieges Samaria from 721- 718 B.C.

711-710 B.C. 14th year of Hezekiah. Fenced cities of Judah seized by Sennacherib. Jerusalem besieged, testing Hezekiah’s faith.  Isaiah comes to Hezekiah to give sign that Sennacherib will not be successful: when the land Sabbath and Jubilee come around in two years, Judah will still be in the land eating what grows of itself
709-708 B.C. 105th land Sabbath. Compare Lev. 25:5, 11-12 with Isa. 37:30.

708-707 B.C. 15th Jubilee, prophetic 15-year life extension afforded Hezekiah.

604 B.C.

120th land Sabbath

15 land Sabbaths after Hezekiah’s 15-year life ext., Nebuchadnezzar takes the House of Judah into captivity.  But the count is on toward the 30th Jubilee and the zenith of redemptive history in 28 A.D.

28/29 A.D. 30th Jubilee, 15 Jubilees after Hezekiah’s 15th Jubilee, Yahshua the Savior (age 30) claims fulfillment of Isa. 61:1-2a. (Lk. 4:16)–“Acceptable year of YHWH”–  Eusebius’ Chronicles refers to 28/29 A.D. as “81st Jubilee of the Hebrews.”
1988/89 A.D. 70th Jubilee.  Non-compliance always brings judgment in the form of drought, crop disasters, and stock market crashes (Black Monday was Oct. 19, 1987), some of which was prophesied for these years.

2037/38 A.D. 71st Jubilee.  The cycle we are currently in represents 7 x 10, or completion of Judgment, i.e. America’s last hurrah.  The final seven years of this age, will be taken up by the events of the book of Revelation, by which the table of the earth will be cleaned to start anew with YHWH’s Kingdom,[29] during which every man will dwell under his own vine and fig tree.  So we anticipate that 2030 will see the 6th and 7th seals opened.

The formula for calculating the total numbers of years spanning ‘N’ number of Jubilee cycles is   (N x 49) + 1

www.americaspropheticdestiny

derstinetodd@yahoo.com


[1] This is the basis for the seven years it usually takes a person to emerge out of bankruptcy so they can have this blotch on their record removed and be able borrow money and purchase a house again.

[2] “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the 2nd Temple and Early Rabbinic Period” Hebrew Union College Annual, 1973.  Also “The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles” in the 1975 HUCA, pp. 201-218.

[3] Schurer was the most influential chronologer of the 19th Century.

[4] The Day of Atonement is called “the acceptable day to YHWH” in Isa. 58:5.  Lev. 23:11 says the wave-sheaf is accepted on our behalf.  Yeshua fulfilled the wavesheaf when He was accepted by the Father the day after He was raised from the dead.  Many other things could be said about the favor, grace, and acceptance which Yeshua’s ministry procured for the believer beginning in 28 A.D.

[5] E. R. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 163, argues for the 722 B.C. fall of Samaria.

[6] Thiele argues that Sargon took credit for this accomplishment from his predecessor Shalmaneser, who II Kg. 17:3-9 seems to give credit for the punishment of Samaria.

[7] BDBG Heb-Eng. Lexicon, p. 705, and WTM Morphology in Bible Works.

[8] Page 196 of Chronology of the OT.

[9] II Chron. 32:21.

[10] In II Chron. 32:29 it says Hezekiah had immense riches and honor. And he made for himself treasuries for silver, gold, precious stones. Etc.

[11] II Chron. 36:21—“To fulfill the word of YHWH by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths; for as long as she lay desolate, to fulfill seventy years.”

[12] The Essenes also taught the Jubilee Cycle to be forty-nine years in length.

[13] See Hebrew Union College Annual, 1973, “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the 2nd Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period” (pp. 183-196) and Hebrew Union College Annual 1975 “The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles” (pp. 201-218).

[14] Technically speaking, he says it was the 4th year of the 201st Olympiad, which was year 15 of Tiberius.

[15] See Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Bible Chronology, page 340.

[16] See article “Triennial Cycle” in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Funk & Wagnalls, 1906 and Martin’s The Star that Astonished the World, page 246.

[17] See Appendix 50 in Companion Bible, Bullinger.  This six year figure is well-known to most scholars.

[18] This is only one year after the year indicated by Bullinger for the crossing of Jordan (1451).  However, Bullinger mistakenly counts the land Sabbaths from the crossing of Jordan, instead of six years later.

[19] See Julian Morgenstern, ‘Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel’, HUCA X, p. 12.

[20] See Brown, Driver, Briggs Gesenius Hebrew-English lexicon for Strong’s # 5669 = rwbu.

[21] Astronomy programs that tell us on exactly what dates conjunctions of the moon and planets occurred.

[22] The official full moon was Friday night (April 30), when the moon rose only 3 minutes after the Sun set.

[23] The Jubilee Law was not needed before there were nations.  It was a law given to Israel to prevent the accumulation of debt, poverty and landlessness being passed on to Jacob’s grandchildren.  It only makes sense in the context of an organized nation.  Taking the Jubilee cycle back to Adam is abstract idealism that finds its basis in the hyper-religiosity of Qumran and the Essenes, whose favorite book was The Book of Jubilees.

[24] It is wrong to try to separate the two ministries, as the one was simply the introduction to the other (see Mark 1:1-11 and Acts 10:36-37 for confirmation of this point), John prepared the way for the Messenger of the Covenant.  Together they comprised 3 ½ years, from the fall of 27 A.D. to the Passover of 31 A.D.

[25] Both Adventists and various Church of God organizations understand the Daniel 9 prophecy (which begins with Artaxerxes decree of 457 B.C.) is carried forward in time by 69 weeks of years, or 483 years, down to 27 A.D. and the start of John the Baptist’s messianic ministry.

[26] Roman history shows Yahshua was born after Caesar Augustus’ 14th Triumph (Triumphs were conferred by the Senate after major victories in the provinces) in 8 B.C. but before his 15th Triumph in 1 A.D.

[27] The minimum age for serving at the Temple as a priest.

[28] Josh. 14:10 tells us Caleb was 40 years old in the second year of the Exodus at Kadesh-Barnea (Nu. 13).  Nu. Chap. 9 is the second Passover, therefore Numbers 13 is in the second year.

[29] Yeshua the Messiah cannot build His Torah-based civilization on man’s cities and system.

The entire doctrinal basis of Western Christianity’s observance of weekly Easter, i. e. Sunday, is built around eight places in the New Testament (NT) where the phrase “first day of the week” occurs.  We are going to take a fresh look at the Greek words used by no less than five major writers of New Covenant scriptures, and question whether they have been translated properly.

The KJV translates Acts 20:7 as follows:

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples gathered together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the morrow and continued his speech until midnight.

We are going to analyze the phrase mia ton sabbaton, translated “first day of the week”, and see why various authorities on the scripture prefer the literal meaning of these words.  An example of a literal translation of this verse may be found in the Concordant Literal New Testament (CLNT)[1]:

Now on one of the sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton) at our having gathered to break bread, Paul argued (dialegetai=had a dialogue, or discussed) with them, being about to be off on the morrow. Besides, he prolonged the word (ie. his teaching) unto midnight (Saturday night).

In Vol. 35 of Word Bible Commentary (p. 1188), admission is made that “the first day of the week” literally means “one of the Sabbaths” in the Greek.   The truth of the matter is that there is no Greek-speaking linguistic scholar or professor who would deny this fact.  I myself have consulted numerous professors of Greek at prestigious universities (such as Dickenson College in Carlisle, PA) who have confirmed the literal meaning of this phrase.  We will prove in this chapter that “first day of the week” is a misrepresentation of the Greek.

Therefore, the mass hypnosis that intellectually transforms this phrase into something other than its literal meaning happens on the presumption that it is an idiomatic expression– “mia/one” being used for “first,” and “sabbaton” being using for “week,” and “day” being thrown in just so they can make sense out of their non-literal invention.  However, I have yet to find one commentary or lexicon citing an example of mia ton sabbaton being used idiomatically outside the Bible in other Greek writings.  Therefore, if it is a figure of speech, prove it.  The burden of proof is on the translators.  This they cannot do lexicologically.  They must resort to arguments based on Church traditions that were not in place until Constantine.

By going with non-literal suppositional words “first” and “week,” they are left with the nonsensical “first week.”  Since this makes no sense in the light of contexts that demand a particular day of the week, they throw in the word “day” as though they are sure it ought to be there, and hocus pocus, we now have an entirely different phrase referring to an entirely different day of the week.  Had those translating out of the Greek not engaged in this imaginative word-play, the myth of a Sunday morning resurrection would never have gained a foothold.  No less is at stake here than the basis in Western Christianity for replacing the seventh day Sabbath with Sunday as the day of worship, because, as scholars too numerous to mention have pointed out, Sunday is nothing other than the weekly celebration of the resurrection.

Mia Means One, Protos Means First

First we consider the Greek word mia.  It means one, as any Greek person will tell you.  I have received the same answer from Greek professors at prestigious universities.  Protos is the Greek word for first.  It is confusion to suggest that the former is used for the latter.  A study (using an Englishman’s Greek Concordance) of the many places where mia occurs, would show any diligent inquirer that mia always, in context, means one, a certain one, one singularity, the quantity one.  It does not have the meaning first.  In other words, if one were to substitute “first” in every other place where the word occurs (some 72 times), you end up with nonsensical phrases. How is that mia is only trans-lated “first” where it occurs with sabbaton?   How could they translate “mia” as “first” when they knew that “protos” was the Greek word for “first”?

Again the answer has to be that the translators brought their preconceived notions into the equation.  But to come up with the plausible construction “first day of the week”, they had to make three other gratuitous assumptions.

“Day” Is NOT in the Phrase Mia Ton Sabbaton

The translators, bringing their a priori ideas about the phrase to the translating table, assume that the word “day” needs to be supplied in order to help the reader understand the expression.  But this is true only if the three words in question actually refer to the first day of the week.  If it means one of the Sabbaths, then the word day obviously is not there because it did not need to be there in the first place.

The word “day” is used hundreds of times in the N.T. to refer to various and sundry days, the Sabbath day(s), the third day, the seventh day, the eighth day, the day of Unleavened Bread (Luke 22:7), and even “first day of Unleavened Bread (Mk. 14:12).”  In this latter verse, protee heemera is behind the English words “first day.”  So if we take the Holy Spirit to be the power that moved the writers, we see that there is precedent for including heemera (day) with “first” to indicate the first day of something.   So the absence of heemera/day in the expression mia ton sabbaton is a strong indication that we are not dealing with a figure of speech, nor with a phrase that requires the word “day” at all in order to be understood.  Instead, it is simply “one of the Sabbaths.”  It makes little sense for the Greek word heemera to be left out of a reference to the first day of the week, but supplied in the expression “First Day of the Unleaveneds (Mk. 14:12).”  This is especially true since none of the days of the week have names in the Bible, except the 7th day Sabbath.

There are at least two more presumptions that the lying[2] majority of translators have made that we shall address to prove that the Concordant Literal rendering of this Greek expression is correct.

Sabbaton Is an Imported Word from Hebrew

All scholars, without exception, recognize that sabbaton is not native to the Greek language.  Because the Greek culture despised the Sabbath, and did not even have a seven day week prior to the Romans taking over, they had no word Sabbath, or sabbaton.  In fact, I have yet to find the word used in the Septuagint (LXX) or writings of the ante-Nicene fathers to refer to first day of the week.  Nor can it be found in any extra-Biblical literature, such as Plato, Socrates, or a plethora of other ancient Greek writings referring to Sunday.  Hence, it was imported from Hebrew by Jewish writers of the New Testament.

Imported Words are Necessarily Transliterated Words

But imported words always retain the sound of that word in the original language.   Proper names are an example of this.  My name is recognizable phonetically no matter what country I travel to.   And if I listen to the broadcast news in Moscow, I will recognize many names such as George Bush, Washington, D.C., dollar, America(n), etc. because of this principle of transliteration.

Now if a word is imported because it has no equivalent in that language, its meaning in the new language is invariably going to be consistent with the meaning in the original language.  This linguistic truth is axiomatic.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon the translator to ask what the meaning of the imported word was in the original language, and what the writer’s attitude toward that word was.  To this end, we are going to launch an investigation into sabbaton.  Apparently, it has not occurred to the illustrious translators and erudite commentators to do this.   Had they done so, they never would have imagined that it meant week.

What Was Sabbaton’s Meaning in Hebrew?

The Hebrew word sabbaton is used of weekly Sabbaths (Lev. 23:3), for annual Sabbaths–Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and first and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:24, 32, 39)—and of land Sabbaths in Lev. 25:4-5).  It has the same pronunciation in Hebrew as the 3rd declension of the word in Greek.  In other words, its plural usage in Greek sounds the same as its original in the Hebrew.  It essentially means to cease or pause in Hebrew.   The idea of ceasing in order to rest and be refreshed spiritually, mentally and emotionally is the essential purpose of all Sabbaths.  Hence it was this word, sabbaton, used only 11 times in the O.T., that was brought over to refer to weekly and annual Sabbaths to mark the activities of our Savior, His apostles, and believers throughout the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and in First Corinthians chap. 16.

What Was the Attitude of the New Testament WritersToward the Sabbaths and Holy Days?

There is no repudiation of the commands to keep the Sabbath or holy days anywhere in the N.T.  Modern research into the historical Jesus admits that Christ Himself upheld every jot and tittle of the Law (Mt. 5:17-19), even claiming (somewhat erroneously) that Yeshua had few differences philosophically with the Pharisees.  Paul said in Hebrews 4:9 that “there remains…the keeping of a Sabbath (sabbatismos) to the people of God.”   Paul told his Colossian converts:

“Let no one judge you in [your] eating and drinking, or in respect of a festival, or of a new moon, or Sabbaths, which are shadows of things to come (Co. 2:16).

If they had been done away, then he would have said they were shadows.   Since they were Gentiles before Paul converted them to “Pauline theology,” then we don’t need to speculate about them having been Sabbath, New Moon, and Holy Day keepers prior to his evangelizing them.  Obviously they became that as a result of His converting them to Yeshua the Savior and His strict requirement of maintaining the paradosis/traditions which Paul delivered to them (I Cor. 11:2, II Thes. 2:15, et al.).

Besides, in I Corinthians chapters 5 and 11, we have explicit language indicating that the Corinthian Church was keeping Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread.  The Church itself was born on Pentecost in Acts 2, and the rest of the book is a chronology based on Sabbaths and various Jewish holy days throughout.  IF THE HOLY SPIRIT WERE TRYING TO LEAD THE CHURCH AWAY FROM KEEPING THE SABBATHS AND HOLY DAYS, THEN WHY USE THEM AS THE CHRONOLOGICAL BACKBONE FOR THE MISSION WORK OF PAUL AND THE OTHER APOSTLES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS.  The same question might be asked of Yahweh’s delaying the birth of the Church and the pouring out of His Holy Spirit until Pentecost, a full fifty days after Christ’s Resurrection.  This would be highly unusual, to say the least.  Rather, the attitude of the writers inspired by the Holy Spirit is that these special days are still in force, still being regarded highly by the apostles and the Church.  And there are scholars of various persuasions who recognize this fact, i.e. that the Sabbaths and holy days represent the definitive time markers of Luke’s writings and Paul’s missionary endeavors throughout Asia Minor and the Mediterranean. Similar dissertations have been written about Matthew and the book John.

Where did they get this attitude?  Obviously from Matt. 5:17-19 and Yeshua’s pro-Torah teaching.  None of this was changed as a result of Paul’s three years in Arabia (Mt. Sinai) with Yeshua.  Rom. 3:31:

“Do we nullify the law through faith?   May it never be coming to that (God forbid)!  Nay rather, we establish the Law [through faith, an ellipsis of syntax].”

“Yahweh sent Yeshua in the likeness of sinful flesh, so that He might condemn sin in the flesh, in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature, but according to the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:4)

Considering that the Sabbath and Passover continued to be observed up until the 4th Century in the Western Roman Empire, throughout the British Isles until the 7th Century, and among various Churches in Asia Minor and the eastern Roman empire for centuries beyond that, and considering that this reality was based on people’s understanding (though in many places these people were in the minority) of the apostolic attitude toward the Fourth Commandment and the Law of Moses, it becomes rather impossible to suggest that the Jewish men who wrote the four gospels could take the strictest word for sabbatizing and use it to refer to Sunday, the worship day of most pagan religions.  Sunday was nothing to them but a work day.

A Fourth Translational Assumption:

Sabbaton — Is It Plural or Singular?

The question we are trying to answer is whether the phrase mia ton sabbaton can possibly mean first day of the week.  As we focus on the word “sabbaton” and its meaning, we must also note that it is used in the plural in the passages under consideration.  When referring only to singular Sabbath days, it never has the letter “n” on the end of it.  As noted in The New Englishman’s Concordance and Lexicon, sabbaton is the plural form of a noun that is either in the singular (2nd declension) or plural (3rd declension). In all of the seven places where mia ton sabbaton occurs–Mt. 28:1 (mian sabbaton), Mk. 16:2 (mias sabbaton), Lk. 24:1, Jn. 20:1,19, Acts 20:7, I Cor. 16:2 (these five all have mia ton sabbaton)—the word sabbaton is in the third declension of the noun, meaning it is plural.   This means that if the word meant week at all, then it would have to be in the plural, weeks.

But since the translators are insistent on bringing their preconceived notions to the phrase, i.e. that the phrase must mean first day of the week, they know that first day of the weeks would not make any sense.  So they simply ignore its proper declension, and pass over the fact that the word sabbaton is plural.

This makes for very nice historical fiction, but very poor scholarship.  It would not be so bad if we were dealing with an event on par with whether or not George Washington crossed the Delaware on Christmas Day or some other day, but instead we are dealing with whether Christ arose on a Sunday or a Saturday, thus either establishing sol invictus venerable (the day held to honor various  pagan Sun gods), or Saturday, the day hearkening back to Yahweh’s renewal of the face of the earth in Genesis chapter 1, and the creation of Mankind in His image and likeness.   In short, we are dealing with a subject of the utmost magnitude, one that either legitimizes the decisions made by Constantine and His bishops in the 4th Century, or legitimizes Passover and the Sabbath of Yahweh God.  The diligent student of Church history will know what is at stake here; the modern television Christian who comes once a week Saturday or Sunday morning to suck on his bottle will have no clue.  That is why when this thesis finally makes the rounds of academia, and when this dissertation is circulated among the halls of theological seminaries far and wide, I predict there will be a hew and cry of disbelief and emotional objection.   And the antagonism will be palpable.

The Greek Word for Week—Known in the 1st Century

How would the Jewish authors of the N.T. have gone about conveying the idea of a seven day week in Greek?  If you were a Jewish religious writer composing one of the books of the N. T., what Greek word would first Century readers and writers have been familiar with that would have conveyed the idea of a week?  The answer to that question is found in the Septuagint (circa 280 B.C.), a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that was widely available in the time of Yeshua.  The Septuagint uses the word hebdomadas (os) to translate the Hebrew word for week, which is shavua.

  • Hepta hebdomadas is used in last part of Lev. 23: 15 for the seven weeks you are to number to get to the 50th day, called Pentecost.   Until the morrow after the last week (eschatees hebdomados) shall you number 50 days.
  • Deut. 16:9–Hepta hebdomadas exarithmateis (seven weeks shall you number), and you shall keep the feast of weeks (heopteen hebdomadon).
  • The seventy weeks prophecy of Dan. 9 also uses this word hebdomadas a number of times.

There can be little doubt that this Greek word for week would have been chosen by John, Matthew, Mark, Paul and Luke had they sought to convey the idea of the first day of the week.  How do we know this?  Because the Septuagint (LXX) was used in all the synagogues of Asia Minor, Achaia, and Macedonia, and Greece.  We are confident of this fact because of the large number of Hellenistic Jews, Greek proselytes, and God-fearers among the Gentiles who attended synagogue in these places, as is evident in the accounts throughout the book of Acts.  We know that the word sabbaton was used in the LXX in the same way as in the N.T. to refer to weekly and annual Sabbaths.  It is logical to assume that had they desired to mention “the first day of the week,” they would have used hebdomados.  The fact that these same N.T. writers do not use hebdomados anywhere in the New Testament, indicates they had no intention to convey the idea of “week.”

It was throughout these synagogues that Paul preached from Sabbath to Sabbath.  The thousands of Greek-speaking believers that were converted to the Gospel would have been familiar with the language of the Septuagint. It must be argued that the motivation for putting the story of Yeshua’s life and ministry into Greek largely came from the needs of all these congregations.  Not only did they need to be able to read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in Greek, but there would have naturally been widespread interest in a chronicle of the early Church, the Acts of the Apostles, and particularly their “father” in the faith, i.e. the Apostle Paul.  And when Paul wrote the brethren in Corinthians, it needed to be in Greek.  It would have been very confusing indeed to refer to Sunday by nomenclature foreign to   the LXX, but which had hitherto only been used therein to refer to the Sabbath(s) of the Lord.   Thus the six books that contain some variation of mia ton sabbaton –Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and I Corinthians — were intended for a Greek-speaking Church that had taken on Jewish customs and nomenclature, as we have seen.   The use of sabbaton to refer to the first day of the week would have been without precedent.

The first day of the week is never called “Sabbath” in the N.T.  On this point, there is no controversy among professors and students of the N.T.  Why, then, do they imagine that the writers of the N.T. used the imported word sabbaton and applied it to the first day of the week??  This is a non-sequitur whose damage has run its course, but whose heyday will be soon be over, if I have anything to say about it.

The Definitive Sunday thru Saturday WEEK of Luke 18:12

Does this mean that the writers of the N.T. never wished to convey the idea of a week?   The one place where it is fairly certain that a Sunday through Saturday week was meant (Luke 18:12), the words “tou sabbatou” are used.  It is important to note they are singular (2nd declension).  Notice the Pharisee prays with himself, saying, “I fast twice a week (tou sabbatou).” (Wm. Barclay’s N.T.)

The Concordant Literal is equally accurate:  “I fast twice of a Sabbath.”  In this instance, Sabbath is being used metonymously to represent the seven day period for which it is the culmination.  There is a well-known precedent for this in the Old Testament–the unique method (as compared to the other holy days) given for counting to the Feast of Firstfruits (Pentecost) in Lev. 23.  When one counts toward Pentecost Sunday in Lev. 23:15-16, seven Shabbats were counted.  “Seven Sabbaths shall be complete” is how it is phrased in Lev. 23:15.  The Hebrew word here can only be construed as the weekly Sabbath.  It was called the Feast of weeks (shavuot) in Exod. 34:22 and Deut. 16:10, but those weeks were perfect seven-day periods ending with Saturdays.  The morrow after the 7th Sabbath was the 50th day, which constituted the total number of days to be counted (Lev. 23:16).  Based on this, the Pharisee of Luke 18 is saying he fasts twice per weekly Sabbath period, Sabbatou being used by metonymy for the week it consummates.

But the fact that the Holy Spirit uses the singular words “tou sabbatou” in Luke 18 when intending to convey the concept of a week, leads us to question why Luke would not also use the singular in Luke 24:1 and Acts 20:7 [mia ton sabbaton (plural) occurring in both verses] to convey “the first day of the week,” if that is what he had meant.   The contrast between singular and plural usages of tou(on) sabbatou(on) by gospel writer Luke, proved that when the Holy Spirit wanted to convey a single week, as in Luke 18:12, the singular was used, but when he wanted to convey “one of the Sabbaths”, he used the plural (ton sabbaton).  These facts may be confirmed by checking with the Englishman’s Greek Concordance.  We will see further confirmation when it is shown that Yeshua rose from the dead at the beginning of a weekly Sabbath.

The Concordant Literal N.T. has translated the word sabbaton correctly as “sabbaths” in the seven places where mia and sabbaton occur together.  The Concordant Publishing Concern has absolutely no doctrinal axe to grind, since their other literature in no way promotes the Sabbath.  They have stuck to their literal guns, as it were, and our investigation is going to show just how justified they were in translating these expressions literally.

The Inconsistency of the Translators Highlighted by Their Treatment of Sabbaton

In none of the other 60 places where sabbaton (pl.) occurs in the N.T. do the translators translate it week, but only where it is part of the phrase mia ton sabbaton.  That in itself is quite telling on the translators.[3] This inconsistency belies a remarkable willingness to buttress the Friday-Sunday mythology which undermines the sign of Christ’s Messiah-ship–that He would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:40).  The confusion comes from one blind scholar following the rest of the blind scholars unwilling to submit to the righteousness of the Sabbath command.  Their lack of understanding stems from their rejection of the foundation of wisdom, which is Yahweh’s Law.  Notice Hos. 4:6:

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you rejected the knowledge, I also reject you as My priest; Because you have spurned and forgotten the teaching/Law [Heb. is torah here] of your God, I, in turn, will spurn and forget your children. (translated from JPS and Green’s Int.)

If the scholars and translators sincerely do not understand, then we cannot ignore the root cause.  Ps. 111:10 tells us:

The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do His commandments.

The Implications of the Correct Translation of Mia Ton Sabbaton

In this study, it will be demonstrated that in each of the eight places where “first day of the week” occurs, it makes more sense that each of the passages is referring to a weekly Sabbath. Later we shall demonstrate a different way to configure the three days and three nights (from Tuesday through Friday) in the actual year of the crucifixion of Christ (31 A.D.).  A new chronology will be proffered–one that accommodates our newfound understanding of mia ton sabbaton, but also jives with the facts of the Mosaic calendar in that year.  In so doing, we will have finally harmonized the passion accounts of scripture with the demands of Yahweh’s calendar, in a way that the sabbatarian Church of God’s Wednesday-Saturday scenario failed to do.

Acts 20:7: Paul’s Meeting in Troas on Mia Ton Sabbaton

Now we are ready to go back to the start of this chapter, and Paul’s meeting with the brethren in Troas.  It was here that Paul had a vision to go into Macedonia to preach the gospel (Acts 16:8).  In 20:6 Paul arrived there early in the week (on Sunday, as we shall see), and abode there seven days.  V. 7, quoted at the head of this paper, says:

Now on one of the sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton) at our having gathered to break bread, Paul argued (dialegetai=had a dialogue) with them, being about to be off on the morrow. Besides, he prolonged the word (ie. his teaching) unto midnight (Saturday night). (CLNT)

There is substantial lexicological and linguistic analysis up to this point to substantiate that this meeting was on a weekly Sabbath, and there is plenty of contextual evidence in the book of Acts to prove that these formal get-togethers throughout Paul’s missionary journeys were on Sabbaths.

The Preponderance of Sabbath Meetings in Paul’s Ministry in the Book of Acts

Acts 17:2 says:

Paul, according to his manner (etho = customary habit), went into them (in the synagogue), and reasoned three Sabbath days with them out of the scriptures.

Luke used the same identical words to describe Yeshua’s custom of entering into the synagogue on the Sabbaths in Luke 4:16.  So Paul was no different.  Many theologians and the more erudite radio preachers realize that Paul spent three years in Arabia with Christ, and got His teaching directly from Yeshua there.  There is not a scintilla of evidence that meetings were switched from Saturday to Sunday in the book of Acts.  On the contrary, Paul preached Christ in the synagogues immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20)

At the conclusion of the first Apostolic Conference in Acts 15, James said that the new Gentile converts to the Way would be able to grow in righteousness by having Moses read to them in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

At the start of their commission from the Holy Spirit, Paul and Barnabas came to Salamis (Acts 13:5), the first port they reached on the east end of Cyprus. They preached the word of Yahweh in the synagogues of the Jews.  In Acts 13:14 Paul and his company entered into a synagogue with a sizable Gentile constituent in Antioch of Pesidia.  The Jews largely rejected the forgiveness of sin that was offered them through Paul’s powerful presentation of Yeshua, but the Gentiles received the Word gladly, and besought Paul that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath (Acts 13:42).  The following Sabbath, almost the whole [Greek] city came together, to the chagrin and envy of the Jews.  In Acts 14:1 Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue in Iconium and spoke so powerfully, that Yahweh made Believers out of a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 16:13-15 described Sabbath worship with Lydia and those accustomed to praying by the river side near Philippi in Macedonia.  In Acts 17:10 Paul and Silas went into a synagogue in Berea, and many honorable Greek women and men believed.  In Acts 18:4 Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath at Corinth, reasoning with the Jews and the Greeks.  The same story was repeated in Ephesus (Acts 18:19 and 26; 19:8).   According to Dr. John Lightfoot, in towns where there were many Jews and where they had a synagogue, the Jews established Divinity schools.  Such a school, that of Tyrannus, is mentioned in Acts 19:9.[4] He may have been a Rabbi who converted. The teaching and miracles at the hands of Paul that occurred here during two years caused virtually everyone in Asia Minor to hear the word.

Virtually every significant evangelistic opportunity delineated by the Holy Spirit in these accounts took place either on a Sabbath, and/or in a synagogue, or at a rabbinic school.

Why then, in Acts 20:7, is it logical to conclude that all of a sudden there was a Sunday meeting?  On the contrary, one would be completely justified in assuming the mia-ton-sabbaton meeting mentioned here was just another “one of the [many] Sabbaths” already described at every other city where he witnessed.  Here, however, Timothy, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus, Aristarchus, Secundus and Sopater were all waiting at Troas for Paul to arrive.   Paul was finished preaching in Greece and Macedonia, and it was time to celebrate the fruits of his labor via a fellowship meal with the disciples in Asia Minor who partly owed their eternal life to Paul’s efforts.

Luke’s Use of Mia Ton Sabbaton in Luke 24:1 Proves Sabbath Resurrection

We now commence our investigation into the resurrection narrative contained in the four gospels.  We pick it up where we left off—with the writings of the same beloved physician who wrote the book of Acts—with Luke, who also wrote the Gospel account bearing his name.  Having proven that the evangelistic activity in Acts centered around the synagogue and Sabbath meetings, and having proven that mia ton sabbaton in Acts 20:7 was just one such mikra kodesh (holy convocation) on “one of the Sabbaths” after Unleavened Bread, we now turn our attention to Luke’s use of mia ton sabbaton in Luke 24:1.  I quote from the CLNT:

1)  Now in the early depths (wee hours of the morning) of one of the sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton), they, and certain others together with them, came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they made ready.  2)  And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.

They could not have prepared these spices before having bought them.  To discover when the women bought the spices, we must turn to the last chapter of Mark’s Gospel.  But before we do so, it is important to note one other important detail in Luke’s narrative, in the verse right before Luke 24:1.  He tells us the women “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment” after preparing the spices and ointments.  Thus, they finished the laborious work of preparing the herbs and oils prior to the start of the Sabbath, which began at Friday sundown.

The Gospel of Mark Gives Important Details on When Spices Were Purchased (Mark 16:1)

Since Matthew and Luke seem to use verbatim many of the same stories about Yeshua’s life that are found in Mark, most scholars consider Mark to be the earliest gospel.  And so we will continue our investigation of the resurrection narrative in Mark 16:1:

At the elapsing of the Sabbath (we will demonstrate thoroughly that this Sabbath had to be the First Day of Unleavened Bread), Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, buy spices, that coming, they should be rubbing (anointing) His body. (CLNT)

“Buy” is the correct tense of the verb in verse 1.  “Had bought” of the KJV is recognized by all commentators and Greek scholars to be incorrect.  Even the New KJV corrects “had bought” to “bought.”

Flagrant Mistranslation of “Bought” by KJV Indicative of Pressure From Anglican Church Hierarchy and King James

We know from the forward to the 1611 King James Bible that its translation committee performed their work under a certain amount of duress, charged as they were from the outset by King James and the Anglican authorities WITH UPHOLDING THE OFFICES AND INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.  Chief among those institutions was Easter Sunday (and its resultant switch from Saturday to Sunday as the day of worship), and “Good Friday”.

The fact that the King James translators deliberately put the action of buying the spices into the past perfect tense (as an action already completed prior to that Sabbath), shows blatant disregard for what they knew was the tense of the Greek word “bought.”  They knew there was a problem for the institution of Good Friday and Easter Sunday if the text showed them purchasing spices AFTER THE SABBATH.  They knew that if the Passover were on Friday, then there was virtually no time to have bought the spices, nor time to prepare them (Lk. 24:1)!  Matt. 27:57 shows that Joseph of Arimathea got permission to take Yeshua’s body off the cross and place Him in the tomb as evening was approaching (i.e. at the end of Passover Day).  There would have been no shops open for purchasing anything in and around Jerusalem this late on the 14th, as Alfred Edersheim and Jewish writings show. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is out of the question, as all the Jewish businesses would have been shut down for the Sabbath.  Luke 23:54-56 proves that the spices were prepared by these women prior to resting on the weekly Sabbath.  Thus when we combine Mark 16:1 with the account in Luke 23, we prove that the spices were bought on the work day following the annual Sabbath, but prepared prior to the weekly Sabbath.   Hence, there had to be some work days in between the two Sabbaths mentioned. It was during these interim days of Unleavened Bread that the women prepared their sweet spices.

The same things could be said with their presumptuous translations of mias sabbaton (one Sabbath) in Mk. 16:2 and protee sabbatou (first Sabbath) in verse 9 into “first day of the week.”  In this they sycophantically prostrated themselves before the erroneous translation work of everyone before them, especially Jerome and the Latin Vulgate.  Even though they were not the first to engage in this lame linguistic carelessness, it nevertheless remains one of the most egregious cases of eisigesis in the history of translation.   To say that they were afraid for their lives is not an overstatement.  Had the translation been allowed to cast doubt upon the switch from Saturday to Sunday as the day of worship), and upon the Easter tradition of “Good Friday,” there would have been serious repercussions from the educational/religious establishment, not  to mention King James Himself.

It would be another couple of centuries before the hegemony of the Anglican Church waned, allowing for enough intellectual freedom to explore a better resolution of the insurmountable problems presented by the Friday-Sunday quandary of orthodoxy.    Chief among these solutions was the work of E.W. Bullinger.[5] In Appendices 144 and 156 of his Companion Bible, he lays out his explanation of the three days and three nights that Christ was in the tomb.  He believed they stretched from Wednesday sundown to Saturday sundown.  While this was a great improvement over the Good Friday/ Easter Sunday hypothesis of mainstream Christianity, there were other factors Bullinger did not consider when choosing Wednesday as the day of the crucifixion.  Several factors that must be considered are:

1.      Astronomy

  • Because of the nature of the Hebrew calendar, the science of astronomy limits the years in which you can have a Wednesday Passover.

2.      The facts of the true, Biblical Hebrew calendar

  • The true Hebrew calendar, and consideration of the lunar cycles (upon which the holy days are based), make a Wednesday Passover in 31 A.D. fall on April 25, which is almost a week too late.  We explore in a later chapter the various reasons why April 25 is wrong, and why a Wednesday Passover in 30 A.D. utterly fails to incorporate the facts of the Hebrew Calendar.

3.      The truth about mia ton sabbaton (and protee sabbatou).

·         The resurrection was discovered on a Sabbath/Saturday morning.  Since a Wednesday crucifixion forces the resurrection to be on late Saturday,  we would be forced to ignore all the facts brought forward in this chapter, which require the women at the tomb no later than a Saturday morning.

Many of the Sabbatarian Church of God 7th Day, Armstrong, and Sacred Name groups relied heavily on Bullinger’s appendices when putting forward their explanation of the fulfillment of Matt. 12:40.  And as Bullinger states, it was a lack of awareness of the High Day Sabbath at the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (and the fact that this High Day was a different day than the weekly Sabbath that year) that led to much of the confusion about the chronology of the Passion Week.   Until the waning years of the 20th Century, it seems almost no one tried to reconcile Bullinger’s chronology for the Passion week with the realities of the Hebrew calendar.  In other words, God’s calendar greatly restricts the years that will accommodate all the facts.  These competing realities led to this present work.

What Was Involved in the Preparation of Spices and Ointments?

Many in America today use high quality essential oils for deodorizing their houses and for therapeutic rubbing onto the skin.  These oils are very expensive, often running anywhere from $40.00 to $150.00 per ounce.  The ointment that was poured on Yeshua at Simon the leper’s house, just days prior to His arrest, was very costly.  It was worth more than one year’s wages.  The extravagance lies not just in the cost of the spices and ground herbs, but in the time and process used in the preparation.  Preparing essential oils involves extracting the essence of the bark, leaf, or root.  This requires laborious grinding of the raw material, and then soaking same in strong alcohol solution.  Alternatively, it requires boiling steam up through the spices to extract the oil, condensing the steam, and separating the water from the oil.

Since the quantity of spices necessary for anointing burial wrappings of a human body is considerable, it would have required a large amount of time to prepare them in this way.  Had Luke told us that the women brought spices already prepared by someone else, we could possibly account for a Saturday night purchase (still quite unlikely).  But when Mark 16:1 tells us that they bought them on the 16th of Aviv, and then Luke tells us they personally prepared the spices, we are looking at time parameters that probably required two work days in between the High Day 15th and Friday sundown, when the women ceased and rested according to the Commandment (Lk. 23:56).  This is but one of several objections to the Wednesday sundown–Saturday sundown scenario, which allows only one work day (Friday) between the burial and resurrection [Thursday being the High Day].

Women Came to the Tomb Early on the Sabbaton in Mark 16

Continuing with our investigation of the resurrection narrative, we go to Mark 16:2, where mias sabbaton occurs:

And very early in the morning on one of the Sabbaths [mias sabbaton], they are coming to the tomb.   At the rising of the sun they said to themselves, “Who will be rolling away the stone for us out of the door of the tomb?”

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away…And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe, and they were overawed.  Now he is saying to them, “Be not overawed!  Ye seek Yeshua, the Nazarene, the Crucified.  He is risen!  He is not here!  Perceive the place where they laid Him!   But go, say to His disciples and to Peter, that He is preceding you into Galilee.  There you shall see Him, according as He said to you.”  And, coming out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement had filled them.  And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

(v.9) Now, having risen [Greek is in the aorist tense, that is, it is here describing an action completed at a time in the indefinite past, i.e. prior to Mary arriving at the tomb], early first Sabbath (Protee sabbatou) He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.(CLNT)

Translating protee sabbatou into “the First day of the week” is gratuitous, for three of the four reasons already discussed.  I have left out “on the” because there is no prepositional phrase.  “Early first Sabbath” is telling us when He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, who probably separated from the other women as they fled from the tomb.

Question: Why call it “first Sabbath”?  First Sabbath after what?

Answer:  Protee sabbatou simply refers to the first weekly Sabbath after Passover.[6] See footnote.

Should the Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Mk. 16:9-20) Be There?

The last twelve verses of Mark provide important details about events after the resurrection, but most modern critics are in agreement that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are not an integral part of his Gospel.  Modern translators question the authenticity of these twelve verses because they are omitted by two of the three oldest uncial manuscripts in our possession today—Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus.  There are, however, 18 other uncials (a MS. using all CAPS) and some 600 cursive MSS., none of which leaves out these twelve verses.

Jerome, who had access to Greek MSS. older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses in the Latin Vulgate version, which was largely his effort in the early 5th Century.  But Jerome’s Vulgate was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which dates to the 2nd Century, which also contains these twelve verses. There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices:  and two hundred additional writers between 300 A.D. and 600 A.D. who all refer to these twelve verses.  The Gothic Version (A.D. 350), the Coptic and Sahidic Versions down in Egypt (4th C.), The Armenian Version (5th C.), the Ethiopic (Cent. 4-7), the Georgian (6th C.) all bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.[7]

In addition, we would be remiss if we did not mention the thorough-going mathematical analysis of the letters (consonants, and vowels), nouns, proper nouns, etc. done by E.W. Bullinger’s contemporary, Ivan Panin, which proved a kaleidoscope of numerical patterns in the text of Mark 16:9-20 similar to all the other scriptures.  These numerical patterns are unique to God-breathed scripture, and cannot be found in the literature of mere mortals unmoved by the Holy Spirit.  Ivan Panin was uniquely qualified to make such an assessment, having taught the classics, English and Russian literature at Harvard in the late 19th Century.  He was also an accomplished mathematician.

What Theological Problems Did Mark 16:9-20 Give To Theologians?

So why did some of the monks and professional copyists make the decision to leave out vss. 9-20?  That is a very good question.  I offer three reasons which will bring us back to our original thesis:

1.      4th Century orthodoxy was hell-bent on shoving its brand of religion down the throat of every sect that named the name of Christ.   Part of that orthodoxy was the Trinity, and baptizing using the Trinitarian formula of Matt. 28:19, which can be shown to be a doctored verse of scripture.[8] Mark has Yeshua saying “these signs shall fully follow in those who believe: In My name they shall be casting out demons”, etc.  After Nicea, to emphasize the new-found equality of the tripartite Godhead, all sacraments were pronounced in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), which Eusebius recognized to be a specious interpolation of copyists.

2.      Unfortunately, the signs which Yeshua promised would accompany His True Believers were not forthcoming for the state-church or any of the other Torah-hating, Jew-hating, woman-hating sects, orthodox or not.  Yahweh afforded the orthodox nothing to confirm their glorified heresy.  No doubt, due to the lack of signs and healings in the marcionized, anti-Law, anti-Jewish, anti-Sabbath, anti-Passover quarters of the Church world where Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus originated, there was concern that Christ’s words in vss. 16-18 made them look bad.[9]

3.      But why truncate the gospel beginning with verse 9?  I believe it was done for theological reasons.  The establishment of Easter was at stake.  It is here in Mk. 16:9 that we have perhaps the most incontrovertible evidence Christ did not rise from the dead on a Sunday morning.  Here, and here alone (as we explained above), the two words protee Sabbatou [first Sabbath (after Passover)] are used to tell us when He first appeared to Mary Magdalene.  But by then, He had already risen at some point in the indefinite (aorist) past.  Protee Sabbatou simply cannot be what the translators so desperately want it to be (“first day of the week”).

If the true understanding of the text of Mark casts a shadow over the possibility of a Sunday resurrection, how then, thought Constantine and his bishops, would they be able to draw all the Mithra-worshipping, Sun-venerating, sun-worshippers of the empire into the new fold?   How unify the disintegrating Empire?   Nicea and its aftermath made for good politics, lousy theology, as many scholars have come to realize.

If this is true that He rose on a Sabbath, then there goes your Easter Sunday resurrection. There goes everything the so-called “Fathers of the Church” lived and died for. There goes Constantine’s Council of Nicaea, there goes the primacy of the Roman see, and the coerced unity of the Roman Catholic Church.  And if Christ rose on a Sabbath, then the same reasons that were used to supplant the 7th Day Sabbath, i.e. the weekly celebration of the resurrection on Sunday, must now be used to glorify the weekly Sabbath, of which Christ said He was Lord.

And consider what was at stake if Mark 16:9 could be allowed to stand casting its aspersions on the “first day of the week.”  I quote Encyclopedia Britannica’s summation of the importance of the Council of Nicaea to the Catholic Church:

The Council of Nicaea marks an epoch in history of the conception of the Christian Religion, in that it was the first attempt to fix the critieria for Christian orthodoxy (by means of definitely formulated pronouncements on the content of Christian belief)—the acceptance of these criteria being made a sine qua non of membership of the Church.  Moreover, it admitted the principle that the State might employ the secular arm to bring the Christian subjects of the Roman Empire under the newly codified faith.  [In other words, if you want to be a Christian, this is what you must believe.]

The Nicene Council represents an important stage in the development of the state-Church.

Yeshua and the Apostle Paul forbade anyone lording it over the believers’ faith. Only Bible illiterates (like Constantine) were/are ignorant of this truth.  So we will not belabor the point.  But when we ponder the benefits that Constantine bestowed upon the orthodox bishops and their Churches at Nicaea and via the state welfare system, plundering the gold and wealth of the pagan temples for the benefit of the state-church, etc., we scarcely wonder that the more erudite among them would have looked with a jaundiced eye at the threat posed to them by protee sabbatou in Mk. 16:9.  So it is with suspicion that we ponder the coincidence of the 4th Century origin of Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and their convenient omission of Mark 16:9ff.

Frankly, it is not a stretch to suggest that Constantine was like Satan offering the Church the whole world and the dominion thereof, as long as they did his bidding, and the Church said, “That sounds like a good deal.”   Before Constantine was dead in 337, the bishops already had way too much to lose. But as Burkhardt says in The Era of Constantine the Great, the Church lost its soul in the process.

Mark 16:9-20 represented a threat to the authenticity of the state-church in so many ways.  Seen through the eyes of the literary criticism, it does not make sense that Mark would end his book with verse 8.   The women are told here to go and tell Yeshua’s disciples what they have seen (the empty tomb), that Yeshua is risen.  But instead they tell no one because they are afraid.  In contrast, in chapter one the book begins with a leper who is expressly forbidden from saying anything to anybody about his healing; Christ tells him to report directly to the priest at the Temple, and bring for his cleansing what Moses commanded (Lev. 14:3-13).  Instead, he blazes abroad the word, violates Christ’s charge, which in turn causes havoc in all the towns round about, preventing Yeshua from entering into any city.  How ironic is it to have a leper, who Yeshua was very angry with [casting him out of His midst (Mark 1:41-44)], do exactly what the women failed to do due to fear, and have the book end in this way.  If Mark ends the book with verse 8, then he makes the women out to be the opposite of what they are in the three other gospels.  Some of these women who followed Christ had given of their possessions to sustain Christ’s ministry early on (Luke 8:3).  Those familiar with the resurrection accounts know the women were the heroes of the story.  They were:

1.      the first to note where He was laid.

2.      the first followers to see, speak to, and embrace the risen Christ.

3.      the first to notice the stone rolled away and observe an empty tomb.

4.      the first to believe in the resurrection.  It took hours and, in some cases, days before the male disciples believed, even after they heard first-hand testimony.  Yeshua berated them for their unbelief and hardness of heart (Mark 16:14).

5.      possessed with the courage and faith that they will be able to sneak past the authorities in the wee hours of the morning with their prepared spices, and be able to get inside the tomb, despite knowing ahead of time that a very great stone had been rolled into place (see Mark 15:46-47).

So how can you end the gospel (which means good news) with these same women disobeying an explicit command of an angel to go tell the disciples.  It make no literary or common sense whatsoever, especially when verses 9-20 are the most powerful, upbeat, positive, encouraging twelve verses anywhere in the four gospels.  They are the heroes of the resurrection story.  But the celibate monk/copyists of the monastery at Sinai, with their warped view of women and the sanctity of marriage, took their orders from like-minded Church authorities, and made their damnable deletions and alterations of the text to deprive them of their rightful place in this story.  They deleted perhaps the most important verses in the entire book.  In verse 10 Mary does go and report to the mourning, lamenting disciples. “And they, hearing that He is living, and was gazed upon by her, disbelieve.”

Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 Confirmed By Best Scholarship

On page 539 of Word Bible Commentary for Mark we have this significant analysis.

The last phrase of v. 8 is ephobounto gar—“for they were afraid.”

…Mark begins rather than ends, new sections or paragraphs (pericopes) on a note of fear (5:33, 36; 6:20, 50; 9:6; 10:32; 11:32).  Only 10% of the time (6 out of 66 times) does Mark conclude a story, paragraph, or section with gar, ‘for,’”  [Thus, the facts] “favor the view that the last part of v. 8 begins a new pericope rather than ends the one that precedes.  Books ending with gar, the preposition “for,” are a rarity indeed.”

Burgon (Last Twelve Verses) 19th C. argues these verses are authentic.  One could take volumes of time and space refuting all the disbelieving Higher Critics who are paid to vindicate codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus[10], but why waste the time.  I have said enough.  Protee Sabbatou (first Sabbath) stands.  And “first day of the week” vanishes as a figment of brainy men’s imaginations.

Were the Women Who Came to the Tomb on Sabbath Morning Violating the Tradition of the Elders (the Oral Law)?

The Encyclopedia Judaica says “The Law says relatively little about burial, and where it treats the subject, the concern is to avoid defilement by the dead (Num. 19:16; Deut. 21:21-23). There is a law in the Mishah (23:5), however, which states “People may do [on the Sabbath] all that is required for a corpse:  They may anoint and rinse it…”

Page 315 of Edersheim’s The Temple: Its Ministry and Services says the following:

The Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. 5, b) expressly declares it lawful on Sabbath and feast-days to bring a coffin, graveclothes, and even mourning flutes—in short, to attend to the offices for the dead—just as on ordinary days.”

The Sabbath-Law of R. Meir, by Robt Goldenberg gives us valuable information on Jewish burial customs in the 2nd Century, a time when the political situation in Palestine tended toward stricter Sabbath regulations by the Jewish religious authorities than in the previous Century. Meir was a leading member of the Palestinian rabbinate following the fall of Bar Kokhba rebellion in 135 AD.  He was a student of the two masters Aqiva and Ishmael. His Mishnah is said to have formed the basis for the later work of Judah the Patriarch, who redacted the canonical Mishnah still extant today.  Meir was one of the leading rabbinic authorities of the 2nd Century.  On page 39 of Goldenberg’s book we find this mishaic reference–T. Shab. 12:8-14a concerns the preparation and use of medicines on the Sabbath:

17J.A.1.  People may anoint the sick with unguents on the Sabbath.   B.1. R. Meir used to permit mixing wine and oil, and anointing the sick on the Sabbath.

Pg. 170 of the above book:  “The principle of Sabbath-rest does not apply to the Temple.”  In this regard, the women understood from Christ’s earlier statements (Matt. 12:5-6) that One Greater than the Temple was among them, and also how Christ lauded the two women who anointed Him with precious oil on separate occasions just prior to His death.  One of those occasions was at Lazarus’ house (John 12:1), where a number of these women were present.  Anointing Yeshua’s body was a priority in these women’s hearts and minds.  It was not going to take a back seat to rabbinic Sabbath strictures, which in any case, did not have the force of Law.   The Temple, when rightly understood by Paul (I Cor. 3:16 and the entire book of Hebrews), is nothing more than a type or foreshadowing of the Messiah Yeshua.

P. 189–Public offerings override Sabbath and defilement.  In Emanuel Feldman’s book Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology (p. 6), we find the following elucidation and commentary on this principle:

If the defilement law were merely hygienic precautions, it is difficult to explain how it was that precisely at crowded festivals—at which congregational offerings were brought—those very corpse-defilement laws were set aside in order not to postpone an offering.  When the time of that offering arrives, and it happens that the majority of the congregation bringing the offering is defiled by a corpse, the offering is not postponed; it is brought while the congregation is in a state of defilement.  In fact, it is exclusively corpse defilement which is overridden, and not defilement of emissions, creeping things, carrion, etc.  “Corpse uncleanness alone was allowed to be set aside,” according to Maimonides.

A Guide to Jewish Religious Practices, by Klein,  P. 101 states this: “The burial of the dead is the main exception to this rule [against Sabbath work].  For those who are occupied with burial, all work connected with a burial is permitted…”

Some might object to the women walking from their domicile in Bethany to the garden tomb on the Mount of Olives.  The phrase Sabbath-days’ journey is only used one time in the scriptures (Acts 1:12), only to denote a distance (approx. one half mile).   There is no explicit restriction on how far one may walk in the Torah, though reason would limit one’s physical activity.  In reality, however, both Bethany and the place of Yeshua’s tomb were both on the Mt. of Olives, and likely within a mile of each other.  But for inquiring minds, we cite the following from page 566 of Encyclopedia Judaica’s article “Sabbath”.

The rabbis placed no restrictions on freedom of movement within one’s town, but they prohibited any walking outside the town beyond a distance of 2,000 cubits (a little more than a half mile). This boundary is known as the tehum Shabbat (Sabbath limit). It is, however, permitted to place, before the Sabbath, sufficient food for two meals at the limits of the 2,000 cubits; then, by a legal fiction known as eruv, this place becomes one’s “abode” for the duration of the Sabbath, so that 2,000 cubits may be walked from there.

It is this author’s opinion that the disciple’s of Yeshua felt no obligation to please either the Pharisees or the rabbis when it came to tradition of the elders.  Yeshua re-oriented everyone’s focus back to keeping the spirit and letter of the written law.  Where the Law was silent, we should be silent.  That is how strict constructionists take God’s Word.  However, in order to avoid offence and risk social and perhaps legal consequences at the hands of the ruling religious authorities, the women chose to embark on their labor of love very early in the morning, while it was yet dark (according to John’s gospel (Jn. 20:1).

Matthew’s Contribution to the Resurrection Narrative

At the outset of our dissection of Matt. 27:66 (the last verse of chap. 27) and the beginning of chapter 28, we must note that chapter breaks and verse numberings have absolutely no authority.   They were introduced many hundreds of years after the originals were penned.  There are not even any spaces between the words in the uncial texts.  In Matt. 27:65, Pilate ordered the Jews to secure the tomb with these words:

You have a detail.  Go, make it secure, as you are aware [aware of what Christ had said, that He would arise after three days (vs. 63)].

(27:66)  Now they (the Pharisees and chief priests), being gone, secure the sepulcher, sealing the stone, with the detail.  (28:1a) Now it is the evening of the Sabbath (end of the 15th). CLNT

This rendering by the Concordant Publishing Concern constitutes a major clarification. Matt. 28:1a belongs in the previous chapter because it was put there by Matthew and by the Holy Spirit to tell us when they finished securing the tomb, which is an important detail to the narrative.  It was a full twenty four hours after Yahshua was in the tomb before this was done, ie. the evening of the Unleavened Bread Sabbath (the 15th).

There are two time modifiers in the first half of Matt. 28:1.  But they describe different parts of a day.  Opsi de sabbaton at the beginning of 28:1 and the next phrase–tee epiphosoutee eis sabbaton–are mutually exclusive terminologies.  The first means “evening of the Sabbath”, whereas the latter means “at the lighting up into one of the Sabbaths,” as the Concordant Literal has it.    The KJV rendering of the latter—“as it began to dawn” is essentially correct, though we prefer the Concordant as being more descriptive and indicative of early dawn.  This comports with the Greek used by Luke in 24:1 (very early), where we have a complementary description of how and when the women came to the tomb.  Matt. 28:1 (CLNT) says:

At the lighting up into one of the sabbaths [mia ton sabbaton (pl.)] came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to behold the sepulcher.

The phrase “at the lighting up into” is tee epiphosountee eis, is a time modifier telling us what part of “one of the Sabbaths” the women came to the tomb.  Consistent with Mark, Luke and John, we are told that it was well prior to sunrise, at dawn’s early light.   That is why the CLNT translates the Greek here as “at the lighting up into one of the Sabbaths.” The only other time this word is used in the N.T. is Luke 23:54.  Its use here requires some explanation, because it is used quite differently than in Matt. 28:1.  Notice in Luke 23:

(v. 52) [Joseph of Arimathea] begged the body of Yeshua…wrapped it in linen, and laid Him in a rock-hewn tomb…(v. 54) and that day was the preparation (the 14th) and the Sabbath drew on (epiphoskein).

According to Word Bible Commentary, epiphoskein in Lk. 23:54 literally means “to dawn.”  Luke’s particular use of epiphoskein “has not been paralleled.”  The usage could represent a Greek-speaking Jewish adoption, for use in relation to a Jewish reckoning of the day, of language originating from and better adapted to expressing the dawning of a new day reckoned to being at first light.  However, William Barclay translates this verse and the Sabbath lamps were just beginning to be lit.”  Epiphausko is used three times in the Septuagint:

Job 25:5—He gives an order to the moon, and it shines not… (kai ohuk epiphauskei…).

Job 31:26—do we not see the shining sun (heelion ton epiphauskonta)  or the moon waning.

Job 41:9—At his (leviathan’s) sneezing, a light lights up (epiphausketai) his eyes.

These three uses of epiphosko in the LXX are similar to the literal use of the term in Matt. 28:1, where the lighting up of the early dawn sky is meant.  Therefore, the only thing that is lit up at the end of a preparation day such as you have in Luke 23:54 would be the Sabbath lamps that are lit at that time by the Jews in Jerusalem.   In fact, every evening at dusk (between the two evenings) the high priest Aaron went into the tabernacle to light up the lamps (Exod. 30:8).   William Barclay, no doubt, has deciphered the correct meaning of epiphoskein in Luke 23, and we are indebted to his insight.

John 20:1

Now, on one of the Sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton), Mary Magdalene is coming to the tomb in the morning, there being still darkness, and is observing the stone taken away from the door of the tomb.  (CLNT)

She goes and tells John and Peter that the Lord’s body has been removed, and goes back to the tomb with them, lingering there after they left it.  She is the first to see Yeshua and report to the disciples that He is risen.  In vs. 19 it is now evening (opseos) of that same day, and the Holy Spirit emphasizes that it is still mia ton sabbaton.  The CLNT renders it this way:

It being, then, the evening of that day, one of the Sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton), and the doors having been locked where the disciples were gathered together, because of fear of the Jews, Yeshua came and stood in the midst.

It is important to note that the Saturday evening appearance of Yeshua in John 20:19 is dictated by the same language (mia ton sabbaton) as in Acts 20:7 at the head of this chapter. There we took considerable space proving that all the many other sabbaton meetings in Acts had been on weekly Sabbaths, so when Paul prolonged his discussion of scripture until midnight, it was well into the evening of that mia ton sabbaton (i.e. Saturday night).  The same time parameters apply in John chapter 20.  In this area, the Church of God Sabbath-keeping groups have been most inconsistent, allowing the John account to be a Sunday evening, while insisting that Acts 20 is a Saturday evening.

Combining details from the Luke 24 narrative, we are able to see when Yeshua ascended to Heaven to fulfill the wavesheaf offering after His resurrection.  In Luke 24:16, he appeared in an unrecognizable form (see Mark 16:12 where it says He appeared in various forms) to two disciples who were heading back to Emmaus (7 miles West of Jerusalem) late on a Saturday afternoon.   When they arrived at their domicile in Emmaus, they urged Yeshua to dine with them, for the day was far spent, and evening was coming on.  Only after they broke bread did they recognize Him.  But He vanished at this point without explanation.  They hurried back to Jerusalem to tell the disciples in the upper room, which brings us to the account in John 20:19.  In the two hours it took them to return to Jerusalem, Yeshua went to the 3rd Heaven to appear before the Father, and to be accepted on our behalf as the first of the firstfruits.    As a spirit being, it would have taken almost no time for Yeshua-God to go from earth to Paradise in Heaven.  So I speculate that He spent three to four hours reuniting with the heavenly Father, and then returned immediately to the disciples in the upper room perhaps around 10 PM.   For those who question whether the first omer of barley was cut on a Saturday evening, you will have to consult Edersheim’s book The Temple: Its Ministry & Services.

I Cor. 16:1-2

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have made arrangements in the Churches of Galatia, so do ye.  Upon every (Greek=kata) one of the Sabbaths (CLNT), let every one of you lay by him in store as God has prospered him, that there be no collections when I come.

Paul abruptly introduces the subject of the collection for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (see Rom. 15:26).   He devoted a significant amount of time and energy to this charitable project—close to two years—in order to promote unity and love between the Gentile and Jewish quarters of the budding Church.   First we want to establish how the preposition kata is used in I Cor. 16:2, so that we understand that Paul intends each believer, by himself, to set aside and store up every one of the Sabbaths, according as he is prospered.

This construction sometimes signifies “in every . . .”

  1. Acts 2:46—Continue steadfast with one mind day by day (kath’ heemeran), breaking bread in every house (klontes te kat’ oikon).
  2. Acts 5:42– house by house (katoikon) they ceased not teaching and preaching the gospel
  3. Acts 14:23—in every church (kat’ ekklesian) picking leaders by the stretching forth hands (hand-picked, also used of taking a vote), they committed them to the Lord.
  4. Acts 15:21—For in every city (kata polin) from ancient generations Moses has those proclaiming him.
  5. Acts 20:23—city by city (same as 15:21) the Holy Spirit testifies that bonds await me [Paul],
  6. Titus 1:5—appointed elders in every city (kata polin)
  7. Acts 22:19— in every synagogue (kata tas synagogas) I was imprisoning and beating the saints.
  8. Luke 8: 1—“throughout every city” (kata polin) and village.
  9. Luke 8:4—A great crowd coming together and those in each city (kata polin) to Him, He spoke through a parable.
  10. Rom. 12:5—each one, individually, members of one another (kath’ heis alleelon).

The preposition Kata, down, is sometimes found governing a noun, in the  sense of “every.”   Examples of this include:

  1. Luke 2:41—“every year” (kat’ hetos) His parents went to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover.
  2. Luke 16:19–there was a certain rich man making merry day by day (kath’ heemeran) in luxury.
  3. Heb. 9:25—the high priest enters the holy of holies year by year (kat’ heniauton=every year)” [on the Day of Atonement].
  4. Heb. 10:3—there is a remembrance of sins year by year (same as above).
  5. I Cor. 16:1-2—As I charged the churches of Galatia, so also you do—every one of the Sabbaths (kata mian sabbaton)–each of you lay aside by himself in store that in which he should be prospered.

Hence, we see that kata mian sabbaton in I Cor. 16:2 is a very common mode of expression signifying “every” single Sabbath.  This fact may be verified on page 384 of The International Critical Commentary.  Paul wanted the brethren to set aside in store that which he intended to contribute to his brethren the Jews in Palestine, so that there need be no collections when he arrived at Corinth.  Listen to the comment on this verse by The New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. X, p. 996):

[it is] a regular setting aside so that when Paul arrives they will already have the [presumably substantial] collection ready.  A couple of features are noteworthy:

The reference in the Greek is to a regular practice of each person setting apart contributions every SabbathFrom such nomenclature of days, WE SEE HOW COMPLETELY RE-SOCIALIZED THESE GENTILES WERE TO THE WHOLE SENSE THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE FAMILY OF GOD, WHOSE ROOTS ARE TRACEABLE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL.

In other words, we have scholars admitting here that the nomenclature being used here (every one of the Sabbaths) is evidence that Paul had completely changed the social customs of these Corinthian Christians.  Paul–via the power of the Holy Spirit, miracles, healings, and teaching directly from Yeshua–made spiritual Jews out of Gentiles.   They adopted the Sabbath, Passover (I Cor. 5:7-8; 11:24-26), Days of Unleavened Bread, and the New Moons (Col. 2:16), and contributed very generously (throughout the Greek-speaking churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Philippi, and Achaia) to the welfare of their new-found brothers the Jews suffering in Palestine.

Concluding Remarks Concerning Mia Ton Sabbaton

If, as scholars say, the first day of the week is never called the Sabbath  anywhere in scripture, then why do they imagine that the writers of the New Testament used the Hebrew word sabbaton to refer to the first day of the week??  Anyone zealously keeping God’s Holy Sabbath Day should wonder out loud at how ludicrous this sounds at the outset.

When translators deprive Yahweh of His opportunity to speak literally, they arbitrarily alter His Word.  This is why skeptics have the attitude “Well, you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.”  But this is only true if you allegorize, and take words out of context, or assume figures of speech where there are none.  Men have transformed mia ton Sabbaton from “one of the Sabbaths” into “first day of the week” by refusing to take it as it literally stands and by forcing it to conform to Church traditions.  They assumed the authors meant “first”, but did not use protos.  The translators supply the word “day” when it is not there, and this, despite the fact that Protos heemeras was used by these same authors to refer to the First Day of Unleavened Bread.  Thirdly, that they meant “week” but used the Hebrew and Septuagint word for Sabbath instead.  They had the familiar word hebdomados, the LXX word for “week“, available to them, had they wanted to refer to week.  The translators and interpreters assume the inspired writers chose not to use the accepted Greek word for “week,” and chose to use sabbaton in an unprecedented way to totally confuse their Greek readers.  No, I think not.  Say what you mean, and mean what you say.  The Lord has tried to do just that.  But the Truth will not be found by them who refuse to keep His Commandments, by those who are not savvy enough to discern the lying pen of the scribe (Jer. 8:8), and who prefer television and sports and pastimes to diligent inquiry into the original language of scripture.  Let them go back to nursing at the breast of their spiritual Momma Babylon, for the “people that doth not understand shall fall (come to ruin-NIV).”(Hosea 4:14)

Greek was the lingua franca of the First Century Roman Empire. The gospel writers were trying to communicate the life and ministry of Christ Yeshua to Greek-speaking believers at synagogues and home churches in Asia Minor, Achaia, Macedonia, and elsewhere.  When it comes to fundamental religious terminology such as sabbaton, it is more than likely that they would have used this word in the same way it was used in both the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Septuagint.   The great bulk of the early believers came out of the Jewish synagogue, where they had heard the scriptures read in Greek.  Sabbaton is the word used throughout the LXX for the weekly and annual Sabbaths.  It is never used of “week.”   Taking advantage of this familiarity, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul all used sabbaton just as it had been used in the LXX.  In singling out the particular Sabbaton upon which Christ was resurrected and discovered by the women disciples, the earliest of these writers, Mark, used protee sabbatou to signify that it was the first Sabbath after Passover.

The practical theology in the minds of most mainstream Christians tells them that all of the Ten Commandments are still relevant and binding.   Nobody questions the need to literally abstain from adultery, or not bear false witness against one’s neighbor, and not steal his property.  But when they get to the 4th Commandment, the pastors transfer the sanctity of the 7th Day to Sunday.  They have only one idea that allows them to do this, the illusion that Christ rose on the first day of the week.  The fact that the Sabbath and holy days are mentioned no less than eighty times in the New Testament should have been enough  to cause any serious believer to remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.  For the past century and a half, the truth about the Sabbath has been disseminated far and wide by the Adventists and other Sabbatarian, Church of God, or Sacred-Name groups.  Until now, however, the Sabbatarian movement has failed to identify the Achilles heel of  mainstream orthodoxy, which is the amazing truth that “first day of the week” does not occur anywhere in the New Testament Greek text.

This piece in the puzzle must now be considered part of “the restoration of all things” which Christ promised:

And He answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things. (Mark 9:12 KJV)

The process began with Martin Luther in 1519, who exposed the corruption of the Roman Catholic system, and showed Christians, among other things, the primacy of scripture over tradition.  The remnant that Yahweh is perfecting must find the basis for all their practices and beliefs in scripture:  the Law of Moses, the prophets and Psalms, the sayings of Yeshua,  and the letters of Paul.  Yahweh’s agenda has been moved forward by Adventists (Sabbath and unclean meat laws) and Church of God 7th Day and Armstrong Church of God groups (Passover and God’s Holy Days), the Assemblies of Yahweh (restoration of God’s proper name in order to fulfill and not violate the 3rd Commandment, where the literal Hebrew says “don’t bring the name of Yahweh Elohim to oblivion/nothingness”).   The charismatic movement, pro-family Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, Messianic Jewish movement, and Davidic praise and dance movement have all had vital roles to play in restoring all things in Yahweh’s vast agenda of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children (and vice versa) prior to sending His Son Yeshua back to this earth.  I now submit that undoing the havoc caused by Constantine and his bishops at the Council of Nicea (Easter Sunday, etc.) is also high on Yahweh’s to-do list.

Paul and Yeshua are the two most important figures in Western Civilization, and yet neither of them ever mentioned the first day of the week, if I Cor. 16:2 is understood correctly.   One would think that the cornerstone doctrine of orthodox Christianity (Easter Sunday and its weekly celebration) would have required some formal discussion of the changeover from Saturday to Sunday somewhere in Paul’s writings or the Gospels.  The silence of the New Testament on this topic is deafening.

The last leg supporting Sunday sacredness is being removed by a correct understanding of mia ton sabbaton. The truth about mia ton sabbaton is necessary to wean the Church from its moorings in pagan traditions.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt. 15:9).

Acts 3:19 is very relevant to our concluding remarks on this subject:

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Acts 17:30:

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but is now commanding men everywhere to repent, forasmuch as He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world [and the Church] in righteousness by that Man Whom He has ordained.  He has given assurance of this to all, by raising Him from the dead.

www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

derstinetodd@yahoo.com


[1] Throughout this article, “CLNT” is used when citing the Concordant Literal New Testament, published by the Concordant Publishing Concern, Canyon Country, CA.  It is one of the most helpful, literal, and scholarly translations of the New Testament available.

[2] See Jer. 8:8 where it talks about “the lying pen of the scribe”, i.e. translator or transcriber of scripture.

[3] The exception among the translators is Green’s Interlinear, which flirts with the proper rendering of sabbaton (Sabbath) and mia (one).  Green is a perfect case in point of the ambiguity with which scholars have dealt with this expression.

[4] See marginal notes in the Companion Bible.

[5] Bullinger was an unorthodox Anglican scholar who taught at Oxford University up until his death in 1913.  He was a man of considerable knowledge, whose Companion Bible is among the best study Bibles available today.

[6] Significant in the Torah as being the Sabbath the morrow of which one counts from in order to get to Pentecost (Lev. 23:15).  It could probably be argued that since mia means
”a particular one” or “a certain one,” that every one of the occurrences of mia sabbaton and mia ton sabbaton are referring to this particular Sabbath of prime (protee) importance in starting the count to the important pilgrimage Feast of Pentecost.  Hence, Mark calls it protee sabbatou.

[7] See Appendix 168 of Bullinger’s Companion Bible for further corroboration on this point.

[8] Eusebius quotes this verse 18 times prior to the Council of Nicea, omitting our current reading “baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”  It says “baptizing them into My name.”  After Nicea, on pain of exile Eusebius capitulates, acknowledging a reading that he knew had been changed by copyists.  He complained about changes being made in various texts.

[9]Things got so desperate that the bishop of Alexandria, the great Athanasius, was accused by his opponents in the Egyptian clergy [at the Council of Tyre (335 A.D.)] of hewing off the hand of Arsenius, a bishop from an opposing sect, for the purpose of using it for magic.

[10] I do not mean to imply that these codices are useless in the textual criticism of the N.T.  Their variant readings elsewhere must be weighed due to their antiquity when considering what the original said.  What we are taking issue with here is not the professional, precise nature of the copying that took place in Sinai and Alexandria, but the doctrinal bent, the heresies they were trying to combat, and pressures from Church authorities that influenced what they included or excluded.

Where, pray tell, is the Church today whose leaders lead and “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints”? (Jude 3)  In this dialogue, I wish to challenge not only the many churches who have followed the tradition of Rome in excluding Passover observance, but also demonstrate that its correct observance may be critical to Holy Day observers in properly preparing for the Second Coming of our Lord.

Polycarp, the apostle in Asia Minor who succeeded John the Apostle in the leadership of the churches there, contended with the bishop of Rome (in 154 A.D.), who tried unsuccessfully to get him to stop keeping the Passover.  Irenaeus tells us that Anicetus was unable to persuade Polycarp “not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated.”

Bishop Poycrates succeeded Polycarp.  He and his Asian churches were excommunicated by Victor, the Bishop of Rome, because they refused to stop commemorating Christ’s death on the 14th day of Abib, the first month of the Hebrew calendar.  [Their followers became known as the sect of the Quartodecimans in Church history.]  Polycrates wrote a letter to the brethren throughout the world, saying, “I, therefore, brethren, who have lived 65 years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words.  For those greater than I have said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”  Polycrates thus echoed the words of John and Peter when forbidden (in Acts 4:18-19) by the Sanhedrin from teaching in the name of Yahshua.

Church, in your reflections upon yourself, you should think it rather odd that you do not consider the Passover a matter concerning your obedience to God.  Well has Hosea prophesied of the Church (Ephraim): “I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.”  How can we claim to know God when we relegate Yahweh’s most important institutions to the ash heap of history?

Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century passed laws which made it a capital offence for any Christian to keep the Passover in remembrance of the Lord’s death.  He did so in the name of Christianity.  I quote [with emphases] from his post-Nicean letter, so you can see the kind of perverse mind that spawned the anti-Semitic heritage of Western European Chrisitianity:

Constantine, the August, to the churches. …

When the question arose concerning the most holy day of Easter, it was decreed by common consent to be expedient, that this festival should be celebrated on the same day by all, in every place. … it seemed to every one a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted wretches! having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds. It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order, which we have kept from the first day of our Lord’s passion even to the present times. Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews. We have received another method from the Savior. A more lawful and proper course is open to our most holy religion. In pursuing this course with a unanimous consent, let us withdraw ourselves, my much honored brethren, from that most odious fellowship. … As it is necessary that this fault should be so amended that we may have nothing in common with the usage of these parricides and murderers of our Lord; and so that order is most convenient which is observed by all the churches of the West, as well as those of the southern and northern parts of the world, and also by some in the East, it is judged therefore to be most equitable and proper, and I pledged myself that this arrangement should meet your approbation, viz. that the custom which prevails with one consent in the city of Rome, and throughout all Italy, Africa and Egypt, in Spain, Gaul, Britain, Lybia, the whole of Greece, the diocese of Asia, Pontus and Cilicia, would be gladly embraced by your prudence, …  and to have no fellowship with the perjury of the Jews. And, to sum up the whole in a few words, it is agreeable to the common judgment of all, that the most holy feast of Easter should be celebrated on one and the same day (A Historical View of THE COUNCIL OF NICE; with a TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS by Rev. Isaac Boyle, D.D.

First of all, this decision was not arrived at democratically, or unanimously, as Constantine would have future generations believe.   Rather it was shoved down Christianity’s throat by fiat, although it must be admitted that the bishops of the vast majority of these Gentile, so-called orthodox churches, were of the same spirit with Constantine.[1] But there were still thousands of Christians, especially in Asia Minor, Antioch, and throughout the East for whom Passover was still the chief cornerstone in their liturgical year in the 3rd and 4th Century.  Even in the West, research by Samuele Bacchiochi in his doctoral dissertation—From Sabbath to Sunday—he shows how up until this time many fellowshipped all weekend, calling Saturday the Sabbath and Sunday “the Lord’s Day.”[2] His research at the Vatican archives shows that Biblical institutions such as the Sabbath and Passover were still held in high regard in Italy at this late date. All of this changed when Constantine the demigod became the chosen instrument of Lucifer, the adversary of Israel, in putting to death sincere believers who still clung to these cherished institutions.

Secondly, Constantine’s attitude is that if it weren’t for the Jews, Christ would have never been crucified, and that he himself bears no responsibility for the torture and death of the Holy Lamb of Yahweh.  A truly converted Christian never loses sight of the fact that he personally was as responsible as anyone else for putting Yahshua up on that cross.  Furthermore, Christ said in talking to the Gentile woman from Samaria in John 4 that “salvation is of the Jews…we know what we worship”.  Constantine succeeded in totally divorcing[3] Christianity from Judaic institutions.  Even Eusebius, the father of Church history who presided at the Council of Nicea, despised what Constantine made the Church into, ie. an image of the Roman Empire itself.

Anyone who thinks that Constantine was a noble Christian man who legalized Christianity and made it a state religion is a fool.  The fact that both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Churches hold this man in high esteem is prima facie evidence of their reprobate foundation. In 324 AD Constantine gave permission to the Jews to rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem. After the Council of Nicea, the anti-Semitic (which is to say, anti-Old Testament) sentiment fostered by that conclave led to a reversal of this directive.  But instead of just ordering the Jews to cease work on the project, he ordered their ears cut off because he knew the Torah forbade anyone from working on the Temple who was dismembered in any way.   How’s that for an exemplary icon of early Christendom.[4]

But his attitude goes hand and hand with his thinking that his is the most holy religion.  This is laughable when one realizes that “Easter” was none other than the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (pronounced the one and the same as Easter), a fertility goddess.  I will not go into

the lurid details of phallic and vaginal symbols and obsession with sex attendant with her worship.[5] The worship and practices of the heathen incited the wrath of Almighty Yahweh against our ancestors and was explicitly condemned from one end of the scriptures to another.  It never entered the mind of any of the apostles to keep Easter, in that the Lord commanded us to remember His death in the new emblems of the Passover, not His resurrection via some kind of weekly Easter.

We see how Constantine lies about Easter having been observed since 31 AD by Christ’s followers (another joke).   Worse, he uses “we” as though he has anything in common with the Jewish founders, disciples, and Apostles of the 1st Century.  But his devilish, subliminal purpose is to hijack Christianity and tote it on his pagan, sun-worshipping back.   Many church historians cite evidence that he remained a sun-worshipper until his death in 337 AD.  But historians tell us that it was the bishop of Rome or his top prelates in the Catholic Church who wrote these theological diatribes on behalf of Constantine, not Constantine himself.  So what does that tell you.  A group of religious zealots who were no more than a dozen years removed from their last persecutions (303-312 A.D.) at the hand of a Roman Emperor (Diocletian), when given all the dominion that Satan had to give them, are now all too happy to dish out death and inquisition to anyone practicing allegiance to the Jewish Traditionary Law, Passover, Sabbath, etc., totally devoid of any kind of Christian spirit.  The following commentary on Constantine’s “bull” is taken from sabbatarian leader Wade Cox (Australia) of the Christian Church of God:

Not only do we perceive a high level of manipulation of power, propaganda, and religious belief, but we see the expression of roots of anti-Semitism in Western culture from the world government of the day.

Eusebius understood that the Church was not supposed to be run like some Gentile kingdom from Matt 20, where Yahshua said the princes of the Gentiles “exercise dominion over them…however, it shall not be so among you (Matt. 20:25-26).  But whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant.”

So it is not just a coincidence that Yahshua states clearly in two places in His messages to the seven Churches of Rev. 2 that He hates the deeds of, as well as the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes.  Nick means victor, one who gains preeminence over the people, the laity.  It is that system of church government, of giving undue authority to pastors in violation of I Cor. 14:29-31, Matt. 20:25-27 and Matt. 23:8 [”only One is to be your Master; all of you are brethren.”][6] And so in the 2nd Century we have Bishop Victor in Rome going against Irenaeus’ advice to be tolerant of those observing the Passover. Victor presumes to have authority to excommunicate the bishops in Asia who held to this Apostolic ordinance.  And so Constantine was simply following the bigoted, oppressive mentality of bishops in Rome before him who utterly failed to follow Yahshua’s words.  Now, however, Constantine wields the power of the sword/the state to enforce false doctrines and commandments of men.  Small wonder then that the prophet Daniel tells us that the fourth and last beast to have dominion over the earth (which all interpreters recognize to be Rome), would be both political as well as religious, and would scatter the power of the holy people intent on clinging to Yahweh’s institutions.

Passover in the Early Church

This is not to say that there were not sincere believers in the name Jesus Christ in that Church system.  Jerome, the 5th C. scholar who translated the Greek scriptures into Latin, wrote a book to describe the customs and practices of the early churches.  He says it was an apostolic tradition to extend the Passover vigil until past midnight because of “the expectation of the Advent of Christ.”

He quotes from The Epistle of the Apostles, written in Asia Minor around 140 A.D.  There Christ is quoted as saying,

“And you therefore celebrate the remembrance of my death, i.e. the Passover… when you complete my remembrance and my Agape [meal] at the crowing of the cock.”   The disciples ask Christ: “O Lord, have you then not completed [fulfilled] the drinking of the Passover.  Must we then do it again?”  Jesus responds to the apostles, saying: Yes, until I come from the Father with my wounds.”

Contrary to what virtually all Churches tell us about the Passover, Yahshua of Nazareth at the Last Supper indicated the Passover would not be completely fulfilled by his atonement on the cross.  Notice Luke 22:15:

With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: For I shall not any more eat thereof, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of Elohim/God.

In my thesis on the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, I show that it is a Passover meal.  This pinnacle event of the Ages will finally fulfill all the hopes and dreams of the Godhead, not to mention the earnest expectation of the creation (Rom. 8:21-22).

In the above quote by Jerome, taken from his Commentary on Matt 25:6, the cry that goes out at midnight, “Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him,” is thought to be a reference to the Passover story in Exod. 12.  Even Alfred Edersheim, the great Messianic Jewish historian and prodigious scholar of the late 1800’s, likens the original Passover of Exod. 12 to the midnight cry of Matt 25:6.[7] In the original, it was the night of Israel’s birth as a nation: of their creation and adoption as the people of God (Isa. 43:15).

The question we ask for the first time in this paper is this:  Could Passover picture the birth of that holy nation (I Pe. 2:9), that kingdom of priests (Rev. 5:10), which in time past were not a people, but now are the people of God.  Rom. 1:4 speaks of even Christ being declared the Son of God with power…by the resurrection from the dead.  So, likewise, the manchild at Christ’s 2nd Coming [whose birth of the woman, ie. the church, is there symbolized in code (Rev.12:5)]

In that midnight hour of the 14th did Yahweh execute “judgment against all the gods of Egypt.”  Likewise, the simultaneity of salvation for one group and disappointment for another group is described in the parallel passage of Isa. 66:5-6:

Hear ye the word of Yahweh, ye that tremble at His word; your brethren, that hated you (without a cause), that cast you out for My Name’s sake [exactly what Yahshua predicted would happen to His true disciples in Matt. 10:22—“ye shall be hated of all men for My name’s sake”—and in Matt. 24:9, Lk. 6:22.]  They said, ‘Let the LORD be glorified’: but He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.  v. 6– A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of Yahweh that renders recompence to his enemies.

v. 7—Before she travailed, she brought forth: before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.[8]

v. 8—Who has heard such a thing?  Who has seen such things?  shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day?  Or shall a nation be born all at once?  For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

While Is. 66:10 goes on to prophesy of the restoration under Messiah of physical Jerusalem, the initial fulfillment of the above verses can only be understood in terms of a rapture of the Elect at the opening of the womb of Sheol.  But can you imagine the shame of those Left Behind, whose recognition of Yah’s chosen comes only after His presence has been revealed?

Notice how beautifully Paul’s letter to Thessalonica dovetails with the principles laid out above:

Seeing it is a righteous thing with Elohim to recompense tribulation to them that trouble (Gr. Thlibo=tribulate, pressure, vex) you.  And to you who are troubled rest (sabbatize)… relax with us when the Lord Yahshua shall be unveiled from heaven with His might angels, who in flaming fire are taking vengeance on them that know not Elohim, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Yahshua the Messiah; Who shall be punished with age-lasting destruction from the face and presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.

But there is even more definitive allusion to the Passover in Yahshua’s discussion of how to prepare for the 2nd Coming.  Notice Luke 12:35:

Let your loins be girded about (a reference to Exod. 12:11), and your lights burning (something one does when one stays up at night), and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding: that when he comes and knocks, they may open to Him immediately.  (V. 37) Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when he comes shall find watching: truly I say to you, that He shall gird himself,[9] and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them. [Another allusion to the last Passover, where He humbly example stooped down and washed His disciples’ feet]

v. 38–And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

These words need to be understood in their literalness.  They are referring to His People staying up and watching for His return on Passover night.

In Samuele Bacchiocchi’s book God’s Festivals in Scripture and History, he says (commenting on chap. 15 of The Epistle of the Apostle): “the deliverance of Peter took place in the Passover night, the night of watching.”  Here, Passover is kept as a night of vigil, in remembrance of the death of Jesus.”  It is useful to connect Luke 13:28 to Luke 12:37 quoted above:

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, in the kingdom, and you yourselves thrust out.  And they shall be arriving from the east, west, north and south and will be made to recline in the kingdom of Elohim.

The Apostle John reclined on Yahshua’s bosom at the supper (John 21:20).   The casual, relaxed sitting position is explained partly by Jewish custom at the Passover.  This was done to symbolize their freedom from slavery in Egypt.[10]

According to Josephus, Passover always falls when the sun is in Aries.   Aries is the heavenly sign preceding Taurus in spring.  Aries, the sign of a ram, refers to the ram which Yahweh provided when Abraham was about obey Yahweh in offering up his son Isaac’s life. (Gen. 22)  Hence, Aries and Passover are inextricably linked.   When 13th months are inserted inappropriately, as in 2005, it causes the Passover to fall when the sun is in Taurus the bull.  Bullinger’s The Witness of the Stars shows that the meaning of Taurus is that of judgment, not mercy.  Witness the fact that the Noachian Deluge came in the 17th day of the 2nd month when the sun was in Taurus.

There is further confirmation of the springtime return of Christ in the Olivet prophecies in the parable of the fig tree at the end of the Olivet prophecies.  Remember these prophecies (Matt. 24, Mk. 13, Lk. 21) are answers to the disciples questions concerning the end of the Age and the sign of His Coming.  In addition, all three end-of-the-Age discourses in the synoptic gospels mention this parable immediately after the body of the prophecy is finished:

[The fig tree], when its branch is yet tender and its leaves sprouting out, you know that summer is near.  Thus you, also, whenever you may be perceiving all these things, know that He is near, even at the doors. (Matt. 24: 32 Concordant Literal N.T.)

There must be some reason that Yahshua makes reference to an unripe fig tree, and makes its springtime growth into a parable concerning his return to the earth.  Tie this together with the fact that Yahshua–the only One found worthy to open the seals (in Rev. 5) that bring about the 2nd Coming–refers to unripe figs falling from an unripe fig tree at the time of the opening of the 6th seal (Rev. 6:13).  This just happens to be the very point in prophecy that the 2nd Coming occurs!  Christ the Revelator makes the remarkable and, by itself, unlikely analogy between the great meteorite shower associated with the 2nd Coming (Matt. 24:29b), and unripe figs falling from an unripe fig tree.   This would be a strange analogy if it weren’t for the fact that He has already tipped us off in the Olivet that unripe fig trees are a riddle that needs to be solved.

Rev. 6:13 is a deliberate nexus or tie in to Matt. 24:29, so that no one should miss the fact that His Coming is in the early spring.   Furthermore, some Greek manuscripts add “whole” in front of moon (Gr. is selene) in the previous verse (v. 12).  Thus, it is a full moon. What springtime full moon could it be but the Passover?   The moon is symbolic of those who reflect Yahshua’s light, and Passover is the night when His Church is to be figuratively covered in His blood through contrition and confession.  It is a time for examining oneself, whether one is in the faith (II Cor. 13:5); time for confession of sin and heartfelt repentance, and yet hopefulness that our redemption draws near (Lk. 21:28).

What better night for a gracious God to send His Son back, than on a night on which He is most likely to find His Bride spotless and clean, untainted by unconfessed sin.

Not so the Church–that stubborn, disobedient, unchanging entity for whom words are nigh well useless to persuade.  And if she has no changes, Ps. 55:19 tells us it is because she fears not Elohim/God. The Church has so deceived herself that everything that can be done for her salvation has already been done that they have no motive or incentive to change.  In contrast, the message of the gospels, like the Passover, is that salvation is ever a matter of urgency and desperation.  It is the beggars in spirit, the blind men who cry out shamelessly by the side of the road, the woman who presses through the crowd so she can grab the corners of His garment, and the little tax collector who runs ahead and climbs up into a tree so he can catch a glimpse of the Savior (Lk.19:4), and the forceful ones who lay hold of the kingdom, pressing into it (Matt.11:12, Lk. 16:16), who are ultimately rewarded with the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yes, the truth is different than what churches would have you believe, even in Paul’s writings:

Much more then, being now justified (acquitted and put back into access to the Father) by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him (that is, currently, via His ongoing priesthood)…we were reconciled to Elohim by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Rom. 5:9-10)

Quote the above verses to most any Christian today and you will get a blank stare. Worse, some will get angry and accuse you of taking it out of context.  Christ must live in the believer through His Spirit, and the believer must cooperate with His spirit by making conscious choices to live by the Word and study the Word.

The ancient Israelites listened to Moses and feared Yahweh, and prepared diligently to keep the Passover, by faith (Heb. 11:28).   Will the end-time Church listen to this message and keep a proper Passover, or will she slumber the night away–the very night on which Yahshua was manhandled shamelessly, and paraded before one authority after another, and back again.  Can you sleep, O Church, on the night His form and countenance were so marred more than any man ever was? (Isa. 52:14)

If so, then you are still in the garden of Gethsemane with the Eleven who fell asleep in the hour of Yahshua’s greatest need–with Him physically, but certainly not in spirit.  “Could you not pray with me one hour?” is your Savior’s question to you.  And if you never make it to Acts 2 and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, how, pray tell, do you ever expect to be saved?  Yahweh is not in the business of picking unripe, immature, unsavory fruit from His vineyard, however much you might like to insist that He will.

He will likely get you saved, but you will not like how–the means–by which He will accomplish that end.  You give Him no choice but to leave you behind only to be saved by means of fire, the fiery time of God’s Trumpet Plagues.  [And yes, it can be proven that the Trumpet Plagues are subsequent to His return]   Rev. 12:6 says the woman (left behind Church people and other Israelite people fleeing the cities for the wilderness) will be fed and nourished/taught for 1260 days leading up to a 2nd Harvest of souls at the time of the resurrection of the Two Witnesses. But the wilderness ordeal of the Church will involve a paucity of hot water and bathing in cold streams.  It will involve a lack of refrigeration, a total lack of access to shopping malls and other municipal conveniences.  It will involve a lack of heat during the winter and perhaps electricity in general, except what can be achieved thru burning of wood and coal.  There will not likely be much air conditioning during the summer.   Yahshua Himself will do much of the teaching in the wilderness (Ezek.20:35-38), and will set up shepherds over His people during this time in the wilderness.  Ezek 34:10-25 is very descriptive of what Yahshua plans to do during the two 3 1/2 year periods during which His people undergo wilderness testing and training.

Some will mature during the first half of the seven years and ripen as a wheat harvest on Pentecost.  Still others will be tested further during the 42 month period (the 2nd half of the Day of the Lord) during which the Beast will be actively pursuing believers (the woman) into their wilderness sanctuaries. (Rev. 12:15)

Many during this time will overcome only by giving their neck to the guillotine, instead of taking the mark of the Beast microchip into their hand or forehead.   This latter system of economic and religious control only comes about via the powers and military hegemony of a united Europe, and her false prophet, the harlot church of Rome, Italy.   The mark will not be legislated by our Congress prior to Christ’s Coming.

In Lk. 23:43, Yahshua said to the thief on the cross, “This day you shall be with me in Paradise.” Since Christ was in the tomb that day and the next three days (Matt 12:40), then “this day” must refer to Passover, and the fact that they would be re-united eventually on “that day” at His Coming.  {Linguistic analysis by Ivan Panin and common sense mitigate against putting the comma after “day”, since it is pointless for Christ to emphasize the day when He is speaking}

Finally, it should be mentioned that Israel’s crossing over the river Jordan into the promised land was just prior to the Passover of 1445 B.C. (approx.) Jewish commentaries–based on the allusions to Passover in Gen. 18 (where Abraham made a hasty meal for Yahweh and the two angels) and Gen. 19: 3, where Lot made a feast of unleavened for the two angels sent over to take him out of Sodom–tell us that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah likely took place at Yahweh’s spring appointed times.

I personally believe the Left Behind Church will flee out of their places of comfort in the cities and commence a 1260 day period of trial just after a spring Passover in the near future, (when Yahshua returns for His Elect).  Their disqualification from being part of the Elect is due in part to the manner in which they have treated the Passover.  Failure to keep 14th evening after the new moon (crescent), or not keeping it at all, may ultimately prove to be due to the same problem, ie. not being led of the Holy Spirit.  The Spirit is there to lead us into all truth.  But the Church pretends that there is not enough information provided in scripture to guide us to the correct night.  But this is not true.

In the absence of knowledge, people naturally turn to their leaders.  Well has Isaiah (3: 12) prophesied, not just of the nation, but the Church:

O My people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

And yet many in the Church of God sabbatarian movement have switched from the 14th to the 15th.  This is a step in the wrong direction.   Being neither versed in Hebrew or the scriptures, nor led by the Spirit in this and other matters, believers have naturally gravitated toward the Jewish fixed calendar, or simply follow the theological mentor of their own Church.  This may be convenient, and leave many with more time to vegetate in front of their televisions, but it hardly leads to keeping the holy days according to God’s plan.  What you do, and when you do it, is a metaphor for whom (or Whom) you serve.

For instance, for decades I kept the Day of Atonement fast on the 9th day and 11th day of the 7th month (depending on the year), instead of the designated 10th day (Lev. 23:27).  All because 1)I was relying on the Church of God to do my thinking, and 2)they were trusting the rabbinic Judaism, which decided at some point after the fall of the Temple that it was not a good idea to have Yom Kippur fall on a Friday or Sunday, or have the autumn holy days fall back to back with weekly Sabbaths.[11]

This dependence upon the rabbinic thought extends not just to when we do our annual holy days, but to eschatological interpretation of these days. The Feast of Trumpets is a good case in point.  Church of God and Messianic groups alike buy the argument that Trumpets refers to the 1st resurrection from plausible arguments in the Talmud.  But the 7th Trump of Revelation (Rev 11:15 is toward the end of the 7 year Day of Judgment period; yet I Thes. 5:9 says “ye are not appointed to Judgment, but to obtain salvation.”[12] The eschatology of nominal holy day observers has the Church going through almost all of the Day of Yahweh’s wrath!

Nevertheless, as the Apostle Paul says in I Cor. 15, the resurrection is every man in his own order (Gr. Word tagma=army squadron in the LXX).   The various Palestinian crops—barley, wheat, grapes—matured and were harvested at different times, thus picturing the different resurrections.   But the barley could be harvested as early as the Saturday night after Passover, even if it fell on the weekly Sabbath. (see p. 204 of Alfred Edersheim—The Temple: Its Ministry and Services)  Barley is a type of the Elect, because they are the firstfruits.

Judah will be the lead tribe in the Millenium.  Judah, the son of Jacob, was the first to repent and contritely petition Joseph for mercy down in Egypt (Gen. 44:16-33).[13] It is those, above all others, who have pierced Him whose eyes behold Him when He comes with clouds (Rev. 1:7).  Christ predicted the repentance even of the Pharisees and scribes at the end of his long indictment in Matt. 23.  They declare His blessed coming as reigning Messiah (see Ps. 118: 26 and Matt 23: 39) at the start of the Day of Judgment.  Zech. 8:23, 12:10-14 refer the leading role that Jews will play in guiding the survivors of Yahweh’s plagues.  Nevertheless, they will, along with the other tribes, have to bow down and serve those whose life has followed the pattern of Joseph, ie. the saints of the Most High.[14] The work of the Church of God groups who have persisted in the lies and traditions of the elders (Matt. 15:2-6), will have to be tried in fire, and burned up.  They will overcome as Sardis and Laodicean Christians during the horrific events of the book of Revelation (cp. Rev. 16:15 with the warnings given to these two churches in Rev. 3:3 and 3:18).   The rewards bequeathed to those who overcome here are among the highest (Rev. 3:21), despite their initial recalcitrance and spiritual complacency.

By the grace of Yahweh and His Son I have kept the holy days and weekly Sabbath since I was a teenager (I being now in my 50’s).  The father has been gracious to my iniquity through the perfect atonement of Yahshua.  But this fullness of the gospel is the reason that my burden today is light, and I can truly say that His yoke is easy (Matt.11:28).  I have had the joy and privilege of rejoicing the heart of the widow (Job 29:13), and the blessing of those ready to perish has come upon me.  By Yahweh’s strength I have traveled over 350,000 miles and performed some 5,000 piano vocal concerts for seniors and convalescents in two dozen states.  The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has truly removed the yoke of this world from off my back.  But it all begins and ends with the Passing Over of our sins.  There is no revival or salvation without the Passover Lamb, and our diligent remembrance of what He has done for all mankind.  Passover is the alpha and omega of Yahweh’s plan of salvation.

If you have never kept a Passover, consider observing it unencumbered by rabbinic tradition or sullied by the catholic casualness of the masses.   If you are a long-time Passover ob-server, but are concerned that your Church has left its timing to others, drawn attention to itself more than the Savior, and failed to keep it as a vigil in expectation of Christ’s return, then pray about the matter.

While the Sabbatarian movement [that I have been a part of for thirty some years] never taught me to keep Passover as a vigil through the 2nd and 3rd Watches of the night, I fully intend to next year.  For information on Passover dates, call me  (601)519-2486, or E-mail derstinetodd@yahoo.com.

www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

derstinetodd@yahoo.com


[1] It should also be noted that the leaders of these same proto-orthodox churches, back in the late 2nd Century, when convened to decide whether Marcion’s teaching was legitimate, could only by the slimmest of margins vote to reject his idea that the God of the O.T. was a completely different God than the One who sent Jesus Christ.

[2] This in the mistaken idea that Christ had risen on a Sunday morning.  Hence, the professional scribes who copied Codex Alexandrinus and Vaticanus excluded Mark 16:9ff, because protos sabbaton in that vs. showed that Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene at the tomb early on the first Sabbath after Passover, not on a Sunday morning.  My dissertation on The Chronology of the Passion Week explains why mia ton sabbaton of John 20:1,19, Mt. 28:1, Mk. 16:1, Lk. 24:1 and Acts 20:7 also cannot mean “first day of the week.”

[3] The Apostle Paul said in II Th. 2:3 there would come “a falling away” prior to the day of the Lord, and that man of sin would be revealed. “Falling away” in the Greek is the same word for “divorce,” apostasion. Hence, there is no question that Constantine was the chief instrument of apostasy in the Christian era, and just the kind of man of sin that Paul would have had in mind.  Constantine canonized the mystery of lawlessness/iniquity (II Th. 2:7) so pervasive in other church fathers’ writings, even the heretic Marcion.

[4] And yet the Catholic Church canonized his sainthood, and Greek orthodox Church practically deifies Constantine.

[5] John Calvin and Martin Luther were both quite aware of the historical facts concerning Easter, were appalled that the term had ensconced itself into the liturgical calendar of the Church, and wanted nothing to do with Easter or its accoutrements, conscientious as they were toward Deut. 12:30-31.

[6] This passage Christ also forbade us calling men by flattering titles “father”, “rabbi”, and “Master”.

[7] See pg. 186 of Bible History Old Testament, by Alfred Edersheim.

[8] This cannot refer to the events of May 15, 1948, as the modern state of Israel’s birth as a nation came about via the pain of warfare, death, and its attendant suffering.  The resurrection and gathering of the Elect, on the other hand, will be abrupt, yet painless (Rev. 21:4).

[9] Jn. 13:4-5–“He rises from supper, laid aside his robe, took a linen towel, and girded Himself. After that He         poured water into a basin, began to wash the disciples’ feet, and wipe them with the towel he was girded with.

[10] See account of Paschal Supper in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, p. 350.

[11] Yet there are no less than three places in the Mishnah–Besah 2:1, Shabbat 15:3, Sukkah 5:7—where there is clear-cut reference to Day of Atonements falling on either a Friday or Sunday.  Hence, the dehiyyot rules came into existence later.  The Encyclopedia Judaica tells us they were not in place until the 11th Century

[12] I have proven elsewhere that the 1st resurrection is described in Rev. 7, taking place at the 6th seal.  This is  less than 5 1/2 years before the blowing of the 7th Trump. The reasons are too numerous to mention here.

[13] He confessed: “Elolim has found out the iniquity of thy servants.” Judah was even willing to be a slave to Joseph in place of his brother Benjamin.  This is the most moving story of repentance in the entire O.T.!

[14] It is shocking to learn of Messianic Jewish groups who believe their relatives are saved and in the kingdom apart from a saving knowledge of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, simply because they were “good” Jews.

Most of the teachers in the Sabbath-keeping movement (Adventists being the major exception), have taught over the past century that saints will never go to heaven, not even for the Marriage Supper.  A close examination of the book of Revelation and passages from several other books in the Bible make this view untenable. For those willing to entertain the possibility that the Heavenly Father will be in attendance at His Son Yahshua’s wedding, Yahweh extends the glorious hope of tabernacling in the paradise of Elohim (the 3rd Heaven, see I Cor. 12: 2,4). This will take place during the events described in Rev. 7 thru 18. prior to Yahshua’s return to earth in Revelation 19: 11-15.

That no man has ascended into heaven heretofore (except He who came down from heaven—Yahshua the Messiah) is supported by John 3:13 and Acts 2:29, 34.  In this area I am still in agreement with the Church of God sabbatarians, et.al.  The gargantuan Oxford scholar, author of the Companion Bible – E.W. Bullinger, also lamented preachers who implied that people went straight to a conscious reward in heaven at death.  The scriptural view of death and the fact that our souls are not immortal negates this common assumption.

With this kind of doctrinal background, and having studied for the ministry for four years at Ambassador College, I was the least likely individual to have his mind opened to the idea of going to heaven.  For those, like myself who are fervent believers in the Law of Yahweh, but who might be prejudiced, as was I, against this idea, I say, “Open your mind a little; only a fool will answer a matter before he hears it.”  In my travels I have found a number of very conservative, strict, Sabbath-keeping Christians who, to my great surprise, had also come to believe the Wedding Supper must be in heaven.

As far as that goes, the Apostle Paul, who was very zealous of the Torah, “believing all things written in the Law and the Prophets” (Acts 24:15), described a remarkably vivid experience where he had been caught up “to paradise”, “snatched away to the third heaven” II Cor. 12:2, 4.  The Greek word for caught up or snatched away is harpazo, which means “to seize, to snatch away, to pluck out, catch away or up.”  It will figure prominently in our ongoing discussion of the resurrection of the dead spoken of in I Thes.4:15-17:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout…with the Trumpet of God.  And the dead in Christ will rise first.  Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up (harpazo) together with them in the clouds of meet the Lord in the air.

In Rev. 12:5, harpazo is also translated caught up when it prophesies of the woman’s child being “caught up to God and His throne.” This is a hidden clue that Rev. 12:5 is talking about the resurrection.

What I find even more remarkable is the fact that Paul says plainly that he may have been taken bodily to heaven.  “Whether in a body I am not aware, or outside of the body, I am not aware–Yahweh knows”.  Yet it is a rare sabbatarian indeed who will acknowledge that Paul was possibly taken bodily to the third heaven.  This merely shows their indoctrination and prejudice.  These will have to be removed in order to arrive at the truth. But surely we can all agree, based on II Cor. 12, that it is not heresy to entertain the notion of going to heaven.  Mark 13: 25-27, which deals with the Return of Christ, says:

The powers in the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in clouds with much power and glory. And then shall He dispatch His angels and assemble His chosen from the four winds, from the uttermost part of earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

This passage, when taken at face value, plainly describes the snatching away of Yahweh’s Elect by the angels, and their being gathered to the extremity of heaven.  And the dwelling place of Yahweh is spoken of in scripture as being at the extremity of heaven. Notice Isa. 13:5-6:

Lift up a banner (Heb. nace = the ensign to the nations, Yahshua) upon the high mountain (Babylon), exalt the voice unto them … I’ve commanded my sanctified ones (glorified saints), I have also called My mighty ones (other heavenly hosts) for Mine anger, even them that rejoice in My Highness. The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like that of a great people [compare the theme here and word usage with Rev. 19:1,6,14, where the same event is described]; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of the nations gathered together: Yahweh of Hosts musters (calls up) an army for the battle.

They (Yahweh’s army from heaven) come from a distant land–from the end of the heavens (Green’s Interlinear); Yahweh, and the weapons of His indignation–to destroy the whole land.

This passage is not talking about the Second Coming, but rather Yahshua’s return from the Wedding Supper in Heaven to vanquish the Gentiles in Rev. 19:7, 14-15. As we shall see, this is seven years after the Second Coming of Rev. 6:12-17.  Isa. 13 above matches Rev. 19:15 in that Christ brings his saints with Him on this trip, unlike the initial coming when they are on the earth or in their graves.

Four places in Revelation some form of the phrase “Who is, Who was, and Who is to come” occurs in the KJV (Rev. 1:4, 4:8, 11:17, 16:5).  But as E. W. Bullinger points out, the oldest manuscripts leave off the “is to come” in the latter two (11:17 and 16:5). (Later copyists added the phrase in error.)  The omission of “is to come” in 11:17 strongly suggests that Christ’s return occurs prior to the events of Revelation chapter 11.  Chapter 6 is the only plausible place for His initial return.

Psalm 19:6 also speaks of Yahshua and Elohim’s address being “the end of the heaven.” It also speaks of the Savior making a complete circuit back to His Father’s House.  Notice:

The sun is as a Bridegroom (Mal. 4:2 calls Yahshua “the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings.”) coming out of His chamber (wedding canopy), rejoicing as a strong man to run a race (with Michael the archangel – see I Thes. 4:15-16). His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His circuit (back) unto the ends of it (heaven).

I would suggest that the Bridegroom is in a hurry (”running a race”) because He is coming to rescue His Bride from the Fifth Seal Tribulation, and “rejoicing” to gather her together with the dead in Christ (Abraham, Jeremiah, Noah, Peter, Paul, John, etc.).

Therefore, Yahshua’s feet do not stand on the Mt. of Olives at the Second Coming, as so many Christians have assumed. That reference in Zech.14:4 lines up with events of the 7th vial in Rev. 16:14, 18.  Rev. 19:15 also refers to this vial, the fierceness of Yahweh’s wrath. Notice that the great earthquake that divides the city of Jerusalem into three parts is identical with the splitting of the Mount of Olives in Zech. 14: 4.

Why should it seem strange to us who keep the appointed times (Heb. moedim = festivals, gatherings for worship and instruction) of Yahweh, that He should want them to meet with Him in Heaven before coming back to earth to rule?  What makes us think we can rule below before receiving personal instruction from Yahweh Himself on High?  Moreover, why would Yahshua take His Bride straight from the joyful event of being gathered unto Him, straight to the battle of Armageddon?   The gathering is seven years prior to Rev. 19, as we shall see.

Armageddon – The Mount of the Assembly in Heaven

It will come as a surprise to many that the term Armageddon is derived from the Hebrew moedim, and refers primarily to our gathering place in heaven, and only secondarily to a location on earth.  How do I know this? Armageddon occurs in the New Testament only in one verse–Rev. 16:16:

And they gathered them at the place called, in Hebrew, ‘Armageddon.’

The ones being gathered are those remaining alive at the time of the 7th vial who are “watching and keeping their garments”. And though there is a Valley of Megiddo and a Mt. Megiddo North of Jerusalem, to which the kings of the earth will be gathered at the 7th vial, there is also an original Armageddon in heaven mentioned in the Old Testament.  Notice Isa. 14:13:

How you have fallen from heaven, bright morning star (Lucifer), felled to the earth…You thought in your own mind, I will scale the heavens; I will set my throne high above the stars of Elohim, I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: (v. 14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.”  (The phrase in bold print is Armageddon in the Hebrew!)

It is this author’s opinion that the gathering to heaven mentioned in Rev. 16:16 is the last of three which take place between the 6th seal and the 7th vial, a seven year period. For instance, the Two Witnesses, after their resurrection, are called up to heaven by a loud voice out of heaven saying, “Ascend here.” (Rev. 11:12)  This is half way between the 6th seal and 7th vial.

Some Will Not Be Ready

When Yahshua says in Rev. 16:15,  “Lo, I am coming as a thief!  Blessed is he who is watching and keeping his garments, that he may not be walking naked, and they see his shame,” the reference is to Sardis Christians who have been left behind at the Second Coming.  Remember the warning He gave Sardis in Rev. 3:3:

If then you should not be watching, I shall be coming on you as a thief, and you shall not know what hour I shall be arriving. [Concordant Literal NT]

Had Sardis been watching during the 4th and 5th seal events (which we are presently experiencing), she could have known what hour He would be coming, as the passage strongly implies.  As it is, only a few names in Sardis do not pollute their garments (Rev. 3:4), and hence find themselves unready and unprepared at His Coming.  They are left behind to learn lessons of obedience and faith until the 7th vial, described in Rev. 16:15.  This verse alludes to Laodicea when it speaks about not walking naked and others seeing their shame.  Remember in Rev. 3:18 He advised Laodiceans:

…to buy of Me gold refined by fire (a reference to the testing of our faith), and white garments (the acknowledgement of sin, and the pleading for forgiveness), that you may be clothed, and the shame of your nakedness may not appear.

But if many are left behind for testing and trial, the implication is that the few from our generation who are not left behind are taken somewhere else.  These few are called the Elect, the 144,000 of Rev. 7 and 14, or the “manchild” of Rev. 12:5. According to Rev. 14:3-4, they “have been bought from the earth,” and “bought from mankind.” They are firstfruits to Elohim and to the Lamb.  In other words, the first individuals to mature spiritually and be harvested out of the earth (we prove elsewhere that this occurs at the opening of the 6th seal).  Since the resurrection occurs at the 6th seal, the 144,000 and great multitude are from every generation of believers.

The preposition from” is the Greek apo, meaning “away from”.  E.W. Bullinger gives a description of the difference between various prepositions in Appendix 104:iv of the Companion Bible. “Apo denotes motion away from the surface of an object, as a line drawn from the circumference.”

The following illustrates the difference between the three prepositions translated “from” in the New Testament:

ek = out of the center or midst of something

Apo    para (meaning “alongside”)

Bullinger’s explanation continues: “Hence, apo is used of motion away from a place, marking the distance which separates the two places.  Apo may consequently be used of deliverance…”!

Why the manchild of Rev.12:5 is not Yahshua himself:

Reason 1.  Symbolically, that would make the travailing woman Mary, who we know did not flee into “the wilderness” for 1260 days after birthing Yahshua.

Reason 2.  Neither the Devil nor Herod stood before Mary ready to devour her child as soon as it was born. By the time the wise men arrived, Mary and Joseph and baby Yahshua were in a house, and several weeks had elapsed.  This is why Herod had all children 2 and under killed.  They were in Egypt between early November and Passover the following spring.  Herod reigned 37 years and died just before the Passover at the time of a solar eclipse (March 3 B.C.).

Reason 3.  The Gr. words translated “her child” in vs. 5 is teknon, and is explained in appendix 108:1 of Bullinger’s Companion Bible.  It is neuter, referr-ing to either daughter or son.  It is also used at the end of vs. 4.  There it is talking of the Devil’s intent on devouring the Elect (male and female believers)  during the treacheries of the 5th seal, as soon as they are born by a resurrection.

Reason 4. The word used for “caught up” (vs. 5) to God and His throne (obviously this is very much like a rapture to heaven, but it is not referring to Christ’s ascension) is “harpazo” here (which is used In I Thes. 4:17 of the “snatching away” of the Elect to meet the Lord in the air).  The words used for Christ’s ascensions in Acts 1, Mk.16:19, Luke 24:51 (analambano, anaphero), have a different meaning than “to seize or snatch away”, and mean “to carry up or away”. Christ was carried up to heaven, not seized and snatched away.  When Philip the evangelist was transported miraculously in Acts 8, the word is harpazo.

Reason 5.  The purpose of Revelation is prophetic, not historical. Why would John refer to the Messiah’s nativity and ascension when these events are thoroughly treated in Matt 2, Luke 2, and Acts1? John is in the spirit on “the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10).  This time period refers to all the prophecies in the Old Testament that speak of “in that Day”, or “the Day of the Lord”. John is seeing “in the spirit” or in vision all the various events which transpire just before, during and after Christ’s second coming.  Therefore, it does not make sense that John would rehash the birth or the ascension of Yahshua, which are not germane to the subject of the end-time “day of the Lord”.  Those are subjects covered in the four gospels and Acts 1.

Reason 6.  The true understanding of who the woman of Rev. 12 is has to involve a right discernment of the symbols used to describe her in vs. 1:

a)        She is clothed with the sun, which is indicative of the customs and accoutrements of sun-worship—Christmas, Easter, Sunday-worship and just about every other custom bequeathed to us by the Roman Catholic religion.   And yet she ostensibly centers her worship around the name of Jesus, the Sun of Righteousness.

b)        She has twelve stars on her head.   These link her identity with the twelve sons of Jacob, and the dream which Joseph had in Genesis.  Because the various Israelite nations of Western Europe, Britain, Ireland, and America (descended from these twelve sons) are ruled by Churches who have refused to come out of Babylon, the gospel of Christ is polluted and compromised in its ability to save its adherents.

c)        She has her feet on the moon.  To tread under foot is a common Biblical phrase for subjugation and abuse of enemies.  But the moon is not earth’s enemy.  Religiously, it was given to govern our priests and theologians in determining the timing of Yahweh’s holy days.  Instead, the mainstream Protestant and Catholic and Eastern churches all use a Roman solar calendar that totally ignores the new moon for setting months and setting holy days.  On top of this, their Jewish contingents follow a rabbinic Judaism that, while using a lunar calendar, nevertheless has lost sight of the knowledge of the true new moon and its importance to Yahweh.  The Church of God holy day keepers, being deficient in Torah knowledge and lacking understanding of Hebrew, have turned completely to the Jews in these matters, only to find themselves keeping the wrong annual holy days as certainly as the Sunday-keepers keep the wrong weekly Sabbath.  Hence, the vast majority put the moon under their feet, instead of letting the moon’s crescent dictate affairs.  Just as a true Christian should not tread the Sabbath under foot, the Church leadership should not be treading the moon under foot by disregarding its pivotal role in setting the proper days for worship.  So those who understand this role will see in John’s symbolism an apt description of end-time Israel and Judah’s religious apostasy.

Heavenly Mansions

Getting back to Rev. 14, we see further that the 144,000 were not defiled by women (symbolic of lumbering, slumbering, obstinate, Word-rejecting church organizations), for they are (spiritual) virgins:

These are they following the Lamb wherever He goes.  These had been purchased from among (apo) men to be the firstfruits unto Elohim and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile (delusion, deceit): for they are blameless before the throne of Elohim. (vs. 4)

John 14:2 says:

In My Father’s house (heaven) are many abodes; yet if not I would have told you, for I am going to make ready a place for you. And if I should be going and making ready a place for you, I am coming again and will be taking you along to Myself, that where I am, you also may be. And where I am going you are aware, and of the way you are aware.

Thomas answered Him, “Lord, we are not aware of where You are going…”

Though everyone in the Church of God and Sacred Names sabbatarian movement seems mired in the ambiguity of Doubting Thomas, it seems evident to me that:

1. Thomas did not know the place where He was going (heaven).

2. The subject at the head of the passage is “My Father’s

House” (heaven).

3. It is illogical to think He is talking of some other place on earth.

4. He is going there to prepare a place for each of us at His

heavenly Wedding banquet described in Rev. 19:7.

Going back to Rev. 14:2, it seems apparent that the 144,000 are in heaven during the time there depicted, midway between the Trumpets and Vials:

I heard a voice out of heaven as the voice of many waters…and the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four beasts, and the (24) elders.

If we compare Rev. 14:2 with Heb. 12:18, 22, we come away with further corroboration that the Mount Zion spoken of in the former, is identical to the latter, both being in heaven.  Heb. 12:18, 22:

For ye are not come unto the Mount (Sinai) that might be touched, and that burned with fire… (v.22)  But you have come to Mount Zion, and the city of the Living Elohim, heavenly Jerusalem, before a myriad of angels, and the ekklesia (assembly, or congregation) of the firstborn registered in the heavens, and to the Judge of all.

Saints in Heaven

Surely the saints pictured in Rev. 7, 14, 15, 19:1 and elsewhere have come fully to that reward in heaven.  Their first arrival in heaven is described in Rev. 7.

The backdrop for chapter 7 is the sealing and gathering to Elohim’s throne of the Elect from the “four winds of the earth” (cp. Matt. 24:31, Mark 13:27 with Ezek. 7:2 and Rev. 7:1. There are a number of reasons to suggest these passages all describe the same point in time.)  That the resurrection of the dead occurs here is evident from Rev. 7:16:

[The Elect] shall hunger no more, neither be thirsting any more, nor the sun falling on them, neither any scorching heat.

That the innumerable multitude are before a heavenly throne (and not an earthly) follows from the statement that “the sun shall not light on them, nor any scorching heat (cp. Rev. 16:8-9, where the opposite befalls those left behind).”

The Father’s Throne in Heaven

It amazes me that many of my fellow sabbatarians want the throne of Rev. 7:10-11 to be on earth.  How can this be when it says “all the angels stood around the throne, and the (24) elders and the four living creatures”?  These same elements are present in the original description of the Father’s throne in Rev. 4:2-6 and it is Elohim the Father who is the focal point of the worship (v. 10-12).  Therefore, the locus for the descriptions in Rev. 7 must be the 3rd heaven. Denial of these facts is a peculiar blindness borne of earthly-minded carnality and lack of faith in the literalness of Yahs Word.  I find it very similar to the Sadducean denial of angels and of the resurrection of the dead.

We are told in Rev. 7:14 that this great multitude came out of Great Tribulation (thlipsis megales), ie. 5th seal of the previous chapter. They washed their robes white in the blood of the Lamb:

Because of this, they are before the throne of Elohim (the Father), and serve Him day and night (a Hebraism meaning  “continually”) in His Temple.

The Temple in heaven is clearly referred to in Rev. 11:19; 14:15, 17, 15:5,6,8; 16:1,17.  Only 11:1-2 refers to an end-time Jewish Temple.  Rev. 3:12 refers to the Branch’s (Messiah’s) Temple (Zech. 6:12-13 says He will build it, probably during the early years of the Millennium).  Philadelphian overcomers will have permanent positions inside that Messianic Temple awarded them (Rev. 3:12).

Tabernacling in Heaven

Continuing in Rev. 7:15, it says that “He Who sits on the throne shall dwell with them.”  However, the Greek word translated “dwell” in the KJV is skenoo, which means “to tent, or tabernacle.” In other words, He will temporarily dwell with them, or spread His skirt or tent over them, as one translation has it.  Why?  Because the saints themselves will be living there temporarily.  His skirt, or tent,  casts a shadow, thus fulfilling Ps. 91 during the time of incredible chaos on earth:

He that dwells in the secret place of the Most High, shall abide under the shadow of El Shaddai.

Shaddai is the only feminine-gendered name for Elohim in the Hebrew scriptures. It signifies “the One Who nourishes at the breast, the all-sufficient One.”  Thus Yahshua will do for His Bride, the Elect, what He longed to do for Judah:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem … How oft would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks             under her wings.” (Mt. 23:37)

At that time, as now, we will say of Yahweh, “He is my refuge and fortress; my God, in Whom I will trust” and “surely He shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler.” (Ps. 91:3). The Hebrew word nahtzal, translated “deliver”, is the equivalent of the Greek word harpazo, meaning “to snatch out or away” (from trouble, oftentimes).  Because those who “have set their love (to delight in, to cling to, to be joined with) upon Me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on High (in heaven), because he has known My [Covenant] Name (Yahweh).” (Ps. 91:14)

The whole concept of tabernacling (Gr. skenoo) in heaven is a major theme in the book of Revelation, contrasting with “the house dwellers (inhabitants) on earth.” (The only time the verb form skenoo occurs outside of Revelation is John 1:14, where it says Yahshua, the Word, became flesh, and tabernacled among us.)  Nowhere is this contrast more vivid than in Rev. 12:12, the second time (after Rev. 7:15) where skenoo is used.  The time setting of this verse is the 1st Woe (5th Trumpet Plague), when the Devil is cast down to the earth after one last war in heaven (vs. 7-10).  Since the Elect–the manchild company of Rev. 12:5–are caught up to Elohim and His throne at the 6th seal, they will be in heaven already when the 1st Woe occurs.  Notice, then, what Rev. 12:12 says:

“Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and those tabernacling (skenoo) in them!  But woe to you, earth and sea; for the Adversary has come down to you having great fury…”

The Second Half of the Day of Yahweh

The third time skenoo occurs (Rev. 13:6) we are into the second half of THE DAY OF YAHWEH. The beast rises out of the sea (Gr. abussos) in v. 1, and is given authority to reign for 42 months (v. 5).  This must be the same as the Gentiles trampling under foot the Holy City for 42 months in Rev. 11:2 and Lk. 21:24.  This Gentile, European beast system is loosed from the abussos, ie. the bottomless pit, at the fifth Trumpet Plague (Rev. 9:1).  It comes like a whirlwind into the holy land (Dan. 11:40), wages war upon the Two Witnesses (and the state of Israel), overcomes and kills them (Rev. 11:7).  Thus we have an end of the first half of THE DAY OF YAHWEH, which is the 1260 day ministry of the Two Witnesses.  [The great earthquake that occurs at the time the Two Witnesses are resurrected back to life is associated with the 2nd Woe (Sixth Trumpet Plague), thus providing convincing evidence that the key event of Rev. 11:7 is at the 5thTrumpet Plague.]

This attack by a latter-day Holy Roman Empire (The European Beast of Rev. 13) against the state of Israel, probably under the auspices of a New World Order-inspired United Nations, will constitute a treachery against the peace agreement signed 3 ½  years earlier.  Dan. 9:27 speaks of this breach halfway into Daniel’s 70th week (which may be equated with the entirety of THE DAY OF YAHWEH). Isa. 33:1 also is speaking directly of this great treachery by Europe and the Vatican.  The mention of locusts in Isa. 33:4 links the invasion with modern Assyria, i.e. Germany (Nahum 3:15,17), and this in turn ties in with the locusts coming out of the abyss at the 5th Trumpet Plague (Rev. 9:3-4).  So the 42 months commences the worst (warfare part) of THE DAY OF YAHWEH, when a German-led Europe/U.N. will again be used as the rod of Yahweh’s anger (see Isa. 10:5).

Hosea 5:5 shows that Judah (Palestine), Ephraim (Britain) and Israel (America) will fall together in their iniquity. (This has never happened before in the history of our 12-tribed people.)

One month (or New Moon) shall devour them with their portions, (Hosea 5:7) because they have dealt treacherously against Yahweh.”

Hence, He causes our enemies in continental Europe to deal treacherously with us. (see Isa. 33:1)

The Mark of the Beast

The mark associated with this beast (Rev. 13:17) does not become a test for the remnant of believers (left behind at Christ’s coming) until this time.  It is quite curious that the acronym B.E.A.S.T. is used by the E.U. for its  Brussels Electronic Accounting Surveillance Terminal computer system at their headquarters in Belgium.  It is capable of monitoring every electronic financial transaction on the globe.  No doubt it will be used in conjunction with the implantation of a microchip underneath the skin of every person’s right hand or forehead to control all buying and selling.

This is the most well-known prophecy in the world. Freedom-loving Americans will never allow their legislators to institute such a system. Our strict privacy laws would prohibit it.  But the above analysis shows that it does not come into play until after we have been subdued militarily at the 5th Trump, 3 ½ years after the 2nd Coming.

The Vatican will speak great things against the Most High during this period, and will enforce the worship of the Beast and its image (an idol, perhaps).  Rev. 13:6 says the Pope will speak against Elohim, blaspheme His Name (Yahweh), and His tabernacle (Gr. skeeneh), and those dwelling (should be “tabernacling”–skenoo) in heaven. Yahweh does not “tabernacle” (skenoo) in heaven. He has been there for all of eternity past.  We listed earlier the passages which talk about His Temple in heaven. Skenoo means “to dwell temporarily, as in a tent.”  This can only be talking about the saints tabernacling in heaven while the wrath of Yahweh is being poured out below.  The “powers that be” will have to explain away the remarkable events of the 6th seal and the early Trumpet Plagues.  Rev. 13:6 tells us that the Antichrist opts for a frontal assault of mockery and blasphemy against Yahweh Himself as well as the vast multitude of humanity who will have vacated earth’s premises to tabernacle on High. [see also Dan. 7:25 and 11:36]  They are purchased and gathered out of the earth because they are not meant to go through the wrath period which begins at the opening of the 7th seal.   I Th. 5:9:

For Yahweh has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Yahshua, Who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.

Those who teach against the rapture apparently don’t believe in the goodness of Yahweh. Rev. 3:10 says: “Seeing that you keep the word of My endurance, I will be keeping you (Philadelphia Christians) out of the hour of trial about to be coming on the whole inhabited earth to try those dwelling on the earth.  Isa. 33:14 asks:

Who among us can dwell with the devouring fire (of the Trumpet Plagues)?

Who among us shall dwell with Age-lasting burnings? (Concordant Version)

Who is telling you of the  devouring fire?

Who is telling you of the glowings into the Age [nuclear aftermath]?

He who goes in righteousness, and speaks equities…

Who contracts his ear fom hearkening to blood plans, and restrains his eyes from seeing evil

He shall tabernacle on the heights,

The King in His loveliness your eyes shall perceive.

I can hear the proud voices of the many anti-rapture sacred-namers and Church of God sabbath-keepers saying, as it were, “I’m strong.  I’m going to endure it all till the very end.”  Their mockery of being caught up to heaven merely masks their lack of faith.

But Yahweh says He “has made all things for Himself, even the wicked for THE DAY OF EVIL.” (Prov. 16:4).  It is iniquity that causes you to think you can endure and dwell with the fiery punishment to come.  He has made the final seven years for those who reject the concept of a rapture (though I do not see any secret rapture).  It is their own spiritual deficiency, blindness, or pride that prevents them from accepting Yahweh’s mercy and provision in this regard, and to think they can endure the punishments reserved for the wicked.     Ecclesiastes 8:5:

Whoso keeps the Commandments shall feel no evil thing; and a wise man’s heart discerns both Time and Judgment.

Since the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard at that time (Isa. 24:19-20 and 13:13), everyone (including the church in the wilderness) left on earth will feel, to one extent or another, Yahweh’s Judgments.

We have, in Rev. 15, perhaps the most irrefutable evidence of saints being in heaven. Verse 2 talks about those who had gotten victory over the beast and its mark, etc. standing on the sea of glass, having the harps of Elohim. [The only other place the “sea of glass” is mentioned is chapter 4, the definitive description of Yah’s throne room.]

Rev. 15:5 (NIV) speaks of “the temple, that is, the tabernacle of the testimony” (Gr. marturion). Here, the Greek is an unusual form, and does not mean martyrs or testimony, but rather “a place of or for the martyrs, those having given testimony.”  Just as the Gr. gymnasion is a place of and for gymnastics –so “the tabernacle of the marturiion is a temporary dwelling place for those saints whose lives have given witness or testimony concerning Yahshua or Jesus. This verse may be talking about a huge temporary tabernacle, constructed for the very purpose of housing His Bride in heaven during the time of wrath![1] Rev. 15 alone conclusively substantiates the thesis of this paper.

Luke 9:16 says that those, in this age, who have made friends with Elohim by means of unrighteous mammon (i.e. their income), will be received into everlasting tabernacles (Gr. skeeneh KJV translates “habitations”). Thus Lk. 16:9 is telling us that saints will be caught up to their heavenly tabernacles at the time when mammon defaults (KJV word is “fail” s/b translated “default” as in CLNT).

Heavenly Tabernacles in the Book of Psalms

The Psalms contain interesting passages about being hidden in Yahweh’s tabernacle.  Notice Ps. 27:4-5:

One thing have I desired of Yahweh, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the House of Yahweh[2] all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of Yahweh.

For in time of trouble (Heb. rah = evil) He shall hide me in His Pavilion (Heb. succah = tent): in the secrecy of His Tabernacle shall He hide me; He shall lift me up on a rock. And now shall my head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me; therefore will I offer sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto Yahweh.

This is where the bride and groom live for seven days (actually 7 years) in His Father’s house.  It is only a temporary living arrangement.  With hi-tech infrared and satellite detection devices today, the only way to have secrecy is miraculous, via Christ’s glorious anointing, or being in Heaven. Yahshua said in John 14:2-3:

In My Father’s House are many dwelling places.  But if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you; I am coming again, and will receive you to Myself (Second Coming), so that where I am, you may also be. And WHERE I GO YOU KNOW, and THE WAY YOU KNOW.

It is interesting that, in the Jewish nuptial custom, the groom, with little notice, shows up at the Bride’s house, and escorts her BACK TO HIS FATHER’S HOUSE, where they spend 7 days consummating the marriage before coming outside to join in the marriage festivities. It is not we who shall go out to escort Yahshua to earth, but He who will rescue His bride from the travail of the 5th seal, and escort her to the city of Elohim in heaven [after we rendezvous in the clouds  (I Thes. 4:16-17)].  The 7 days of the Jewish wedding feast would correspond to our being up in heaven (the Father’s house) from the resurrection at the 6th seal to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Rev. 19:7, a seven year period.

In the parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt. 22)–if we may derive any literal truth from it–there is indication that the Heavenly Father will be present (v. 11) at the heavenly Marriage Supper.  More about that passage later.

Other related passages in the Psalms include Ps. 31:19-20:

O how great is thy goodness, which You have laid up for them that fear Thee; which You have wrought for them that trust in Thee before the sons of men! You shall hide them in the secret of Thy presence (Heb. paneem=“face”) away from the pride of man: You shall keep them secretly in a pavilion (Heb. succah = a tent,  or tabernacle) from the strife of tongues.

The word “secret” (Heb. cithrah) is also used in Ps. 91:1, where it is talking about the Elect dwelling under the shadow of His wings, in the secret place of the Most High.

Finally, we come to Rev. 19:1, where we will see some wonderful new truth:

I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Halleluyah…Salvation, glory, honor, and power, unto Yahweh our God.

Verse one’s “much people” is, in Greek, ochlos pollon megalen, which is an adverbial enhancement of Rev. 7:9’s ochlos pollus. There, it is rendered “a great multitude.”  Megalen means “great”, pollus means “very” or “much”, and ochlos means “a crowd, or multitude”. In other words, 19:1 should have been rendered “a very great multitude” in order to show its similarity to the Greek phrase rendered “a great multitude” in Rev. 7:9.  So if the Gentile converts in 7:9 are uncountable by any man, how much greater is the number spoken of seven years later in 19:1?

How do we account for the increase? Answer. By a multiple number of “catching-ups” (Greek is harpazo, used in I Th. 4:17; II Cor. 12:2,4; Rev. 12:5) to heaven during the period between the 6th seal and the 7th vial, to which we alluded earlier in this paper. Much of this increase will probably come from left-behind remnants of Yah’ s church who repent as a result of 1) their ordeal in the wilderness 2) seeing the horrific plagues, and 3) the moral dilemma presented by their need to reject the Mark.  Some will be caught up at the mid-point when the Two Witnesses are told to “Come up hither.”  There is, at least, one other gathering of repentant, watchful believers at the time just prior to the 7th vial (Rev. 16:15-16).

As I pointed out in my 6 page paper on THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, the final seven years of this age represent not only the transition between man’s kingdoms and the Kingdom of our Lord Yahshua, but the ultimate case of Yahweh delivering mankind to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirits [of individuals] might be saved in The Day of our Lord Yahshua the Messiah (I Cor. 5:5).  While the record is not encouraging [see Rev. 16:11--”Because of  their pains and sores they blasphemed the God of heaven, and repented not of their deeds.”], no doubt the 14 stages of judgment seen in Revelation represent increasing severity for the purpose of bringing about repentance.  It is perhaps axiomatic that some people repent only when there is a certain amount of pain combined with awareness of Yahweh’s point of view.

In  Rev. 19, John describes the heavenly scene begun in v. 1.  Verse 4:

And the 24 elders and the 4 beasts fell down and worshipped Elohim that sat upon the throne, saying ‘Ahmein, Halleluyah!’ And a voice came out of the throne, saying, ’Praise our God, all ye servants of His, and you that fear Him, both small and great.’  “And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters (Rev. 17:15 says “the waters which you saw are peoples, and multitudes, and nations.”)… saying, Halleluyah, for Yahweh Elohim the Omnipotent has reigned. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to Him: for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb has come [ie. “has arrived” finally].

At this point in the grand story of Revelation the very great multitudes are about to end their stay in heaven, having been trained and equipped for conquering the kings of the earth (Rev. 19:14,19). They are about to mount white horses, clothed in fine white linen (v. 14), and follow Yahshua from heaven (v. 11) to make war on the nations gathered against Jerusalem ( vss. 11,15,19 cp. with Joel  3, Zech 14).

The Marriage Supper in heaven is in all probability a Passover meal. Yahshua referred to this when He said:

I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again, until it (Passover) is fulfilled in the Kingdom of Elohim. (Luke 22:15-16)

Brethren, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the PINNACLE EVENT of the Ages, to which Yahweh the Father and Yahshua have looked forward all these long, dark stretches of time!  What kind of light do we put the Father in when we leave Him out of this picture?  Is it rational to think the Father will not be in attendance at His own Son’s wedding?  Likewise, it is a gross misrepresentation of the heart of Yahweh for us to imply that He would not be present personally to give His own daughter’s hand in marriage, ie. the virgin daughter of Zion, the Elect. That is why I believe Matt. 22 is not just a parable, but a prophecy that the Father will literally fulfill:

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for His Son. (V. 11)–But when the king came in to see the guests,  He noticed a man there who was not wearing  wedding clothes.

There is, however, an even more timely message in this parable and the similar one in Luke 14. The Father is sending forth His servants to “call them that were BIDDEN TO THE WEDDING. And they would not come.”  The Greek word translated  “bidden” is a form of kaleo, meaning “to invite or call”.  It is the root of ekklesia, the Greek word translated “church”. Yahweh is inviting and calling many out of (Gr. ek) this kosmos, the system, culture, laws, and the religions of mankind. But few are actually coming out, because of a lack of motivation and fear, and due to poor instruction from pastors. [By the way, in the LXX ekklesia is used throughout for the congregation of Israel and the tent of meeting.]

Kaleo is used in Luke 14 and Matt. 22 to refer to the BIDDEN ONES who refuse, at the end of man’s Age, to come to the WEDDING FEAST. This is a grievous warning to the endtime Church.  Yahshua told His disciples several times that many are called, but few are CHOSEN, ie. few actually come out of Babylon (Rev. 18:4).  The cares of this life, the pride of life, the lust of the eyes and flesh, all manage somehow to choke out the whole-hearted pursuit of eternal life (Greek = life into the Age, the Millennium).

The truth of the matter is that the Church is scoffing and making light of the King’s servants handing out the Wedding Invitations, treating them spitefully, slandering them, and even killing some.  But after all, isn’t it a bit presumptuous for someone to declare to the churches, “All things are now ready. Come to the Wedding!” (Mt. 22:4)?  No, not really.  Not if one believes that Yahweh has set prophets and apostles in His assembly (Eph. 4:11-12), and that He operates the same today as yesterday.  Remember, the Bible means what it says:

Ecclesiastes 8:5:

The secret of Yahweh is with them that fear Him.” (Ps. 25:14), and “a wise man’s heart discerns both Time and Judgment.

Amos 3:8:

Surely Yahweh will do NOTHING, but He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.

Rom.12:5-6:

And all members (of the Body of Christ) have not the same office… Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.

Matt. 24:36 should read,

But of that day or hour no man has seen or known… but My Father only. [He can make it known, and will, the scriptures indicate.]

John 16:15:

All things that the Father has are mine: therefore I said, that the Spirit shall take of mine, and show it to you…He will

guide you into all truth(v.13).

Jer. 33:3:

Thus saith Yahweh, the maker of it, Yahweh who formed it, in order to establish it; Yahweh is His Name: Call to me, and I will answer thee, and will show thee great and hidden things, which you knew not.

Isa. 45:11:

Thus saith Yahweh, the holy One of Israel, and his Maker, “Ask of Me things to come concerning My sons, and concerning the Work of My hands command ye Me.”

John 15:15:

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knows not what His Lord is doing, but I have called you friends: for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you.”

Rev. 3:3:

So remember the teaching you have received, obey it and repent. If you do not wake up and watch, I shall come upon you like a thief, and you will not know  what hour I am coming on you.

So many false prophets have arisen, saying, “The time draws near” (Lk. 21:8), who proved false. And yet even this was given as a sign of the Second Coming by Yahshua in the Olivet Prophecy (see Matt. 24:5, 11, 24-25)!  Truly I say to you, though fifty false deceivers come and go in your life, you will still be held accountable by Yahweh for recognizing and receiving His prophets Who He sends in His Name. (Matt.10:40-41)

And so the cry goes out at this very late moment in Time. “Do not return to your farms and your merchandise, but go about the Father’s business. The Bridegroom cometh, Go ye out to meet Him.”  Plow up your fallow ground (personal assets) and go forth bearing precious seed into the streets and lanes of the city (Luke 14:21).  Bid the lame, the halt, the blind, and the poor to His Supper.  Compel both the good and the bad to come immediately as wedding guests to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

We definitely need to fulfill Daniel 12:3-4, which should be translated properly:

And they that make wise (teachers of others) shall warn (Heb. is zahar, to warn) as the warning of the atmosphere (see Luke 12:54-57), and those justifying many are as the stars for  the eon (Age) and beyond.  Now you Daniel, stop up the words and seal the scroll till the era of the end, when many shall swerve as evil will increase. (Concordant Literal Translation of Daniel)

And take the time to practice being in His presence, before His face, worshiping Him with your voice, your hands, your whole being.  Learn to adore and appreciate Him for Who He is, and all He has done for you and your family. Turn to Luke 13:23:

Then said one unto Him, “Lord, are there few that be saved?”  And He said to him, “Strain to enter in at the narrow gate: For many, I say to you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.  When once the Master of the House (The Father) is risen up, and has shut the door, and you begin  to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us!”  And He shall answer and say to you, “I do not know you from whence you are.” Then you will begin to say, “We ate and drank before You, and You taught in our streets.”  And He will say, “I tell you, I do not know  you, where are you from?  Stand back from Me, all you workers of unrighteousness.” There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham, Isaac, and all the prophets, in the Kingdom of Elohim, but you being thrust outside.  And they shall come from the East, and from the West, from the North and from the South, and shall sit down in the Kingdom of Elohim.

This is speaking of the gathering of the Elect from the four corners of the globe at the Second Coming.  As Mark 13:27 says:

And then shall He send His angels, and shall gather together His Elect out of the four winds, out of (ek) the uttermost part of the earth,  to the  uttermost part of heaven.

Do not expect a more formal or certain Wedding Invitation to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The vast majority in the churches–Sabbath-keeping or Sunday-keeping–will not be ready, sad to say. The return of Yahshua will come just as the floods did in Noah’s day.  Graciously, [as per Rev. 12:6] Yahweh has places prepared in wilderness areas, where He will:

1. See to it their old shepherds are removed (Ezek. 20:36-38, and Ezek. 34).

2. Humble them, prove them, and see what is in their hearts (Deut. 8:2)

3. Determine whether they will walk in all His commandments, or not.

4. Feed, nourish, and protect them from the worst of THE DAY OF YAHWEH.

Now to Him who is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence (His face) of His glory with exceeding joy.  To the only wise Elohim our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and into the Age to come. Halleluyah and Amen!                                                                           

www.americaspropheticdestiny.com

derstinetodd@yahoo.com


[1] This tabernacle is probably analogous to the hoopa, or booth, built adjoining the Groom’s Father’s House.

[2] Surely this “House of Yahweh” is not speaking of the earthly Temple, since David did not live in the Temple, and would not be able to see Yahweh’s beauty anywhere but heaven.

Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.
SEO Powered By SEOPressor