Passover

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colleen,

I'm sorry you are not feeling well.

And I also apologize and seek your forgiveness for being a bit abrupt and sarcastic with some of my responses. I get mildly annoyed when people assume that everyone observes such abominations as Easter (calling it "Resurrection Sunday" doesn't help a bit).

And I don't think it's over the top to question the pedigree of modern, ersatz passover events. I find that many Christians, esp. non-Reformed ones, who get into these things never give that background much thought. They just take the words of the author as gospel.

There are theological issues that folks don't seem to think through. (It appears Adam has gotten in tune with some of them.)

Not everything we do is automatically blessed by God just because we have zeal. These Christian passovers, In my humble opinion, amount to zeal without kmowledge.

Whether I'm "obviously ignorant on the matter" or not is, perhaps, a matter for debate. I've never participated in these ersatz "passover meals"/"Christian seders"/etc but I've read enough to know what they are about. I've also considered the implications of such quaint practices from the Scripture. If they are just used for play acting, then no harm. If folks attach real religious significance (as they do in the larger MJ community) then there is serious error.

I'm not sure what you mean by being "too sectarian". Do you mean I ought to loosen up from my Reformed/Presbyterian roots? Which views should I compromise to appear less sectarian?

Is it inappropriate to question a person position based on Scripture? That's what I have attempted to do. Apparently you think that is de facto evidence of "not listening."

Perhaps you are not being objective enough on the issue to see that. You seem to have a personal vested interest in the practice.

Get well.
 
I am not yet educated enough to speak much to this, I will be put to shame by Tom, Phillip, and Soctt, but I want to say something, so bear with me.:D

From my PERSONAL experience, when we start to bring "Jewish" practices into the Church as some kind of "rememberance" or "memorial", etc. it begins to snowball. What starts out as something neat and a learning experience begins to spread into all areas of worship.

We begin by "remembering" the Jewish roots of our faith and trying to respect them. Before we know it every scriptural text is examined for it's "Jewishness". Many Arminian friends of mine cannot examine Romans 9 correctly because they apply it to National Israel in such a way that it's plain language is perverted into something I cannot even answer.

I have seen a discussion on prayer shaws turn into mandatory use, as well as Yamacha's (sp?) and other cultural Jewish practices brought into the church because they "honor God".

All of this happens in Churches or with people who then say "I am not bound by the law". This always shocks me. The same people wearing prayer shaws, yamacha's, and celeberating the "feasts" feel that the law has passed away (nailed to the cross).

See John Hagee for a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Colleen, I respect you and am NOT saying you do these things. But I do get a bit nervous about practices that seem to be "memorials". If as Tom said it is some kind of "lesson" then I suppose I can live with that. But attatching any spiritual signifigance to it is cause for great concern to me.:candle:

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by houseparent]
 
When I used the word participate, I was referring to a church using the traditional feast to teach what the Israelites observed and then examine how these things are fulfilled in Christ and the Lord's Supper. I was not advocating using the old traditions as the Supper, not attaching any significance to them other than to use them to point to the fulfillment.

I think it is valuable for the church to understand the OT feasts in light of that they forshadow, but I do not think the church should go back to those old ways now that the substance of those shadows has appeared!

I also agree with the concern of the church rooting its worship in Jewish practices to the point that they are in essence practicing Judaism. We need to understand our roots Biblically, and understand the extreme differences between Judaism and Christianity.

Phillip
 
Originally posted by pastorway
When I used the word participate, I was referring to a church using the traditional feast to teach what the Israelites observed and then examine how these things are fulfilled in Christ and the Lord's Supper.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my position as well. So where can one find a reliable treatment (interpretation) of the meal and it's traditions?
 
Okay, talked over the thread with Steve a couple of nights ago. He hasn'thad a chance to read it...but...he agreed that Communion replaces Passover (I also agreed to this) and is not to be required. That we use it occasionally to teach the children.

I will agree that there are groups that go overboard with ADDING Jewish traditions to their churches (I Cor 11 speaks to the tallith statement, btw). I have seen this and in some of their minds it is not seeking out the Jewish roots of Christianity but trying to be more Jewish than the Jew so to speak. They see themselves as trying to make the Jewish ppl "jealous" (I guess so they will desire God?).

But I do find certain things about the Jewish culture of interest. Just as I find the deep south of the CW of great interest and old Scotland.

The thing I think I see an interest in this area in would be that some Jewish ppl have come to Christianity because (by grace) their eyes have seen things in the scripture that point to Christ, when they were raised to believe that Christianity was a gentile religion (Christianity is Jewish is a book my aunt has)

I thank you all for bearing with me, as I've admitted, I've alot to learn...
 
I am with Colleen on this one.

I must respond to this older thread since the wedding communion thread was getting a little off target.... thanks for pointing me to this thread.

For me, Passover is a perpetual event to be observed by God's people forever (Exodus 12:1-17) and I do not see this is a dispensational law which only applied to the Jews. Passover is not considered a High Day in accordance with the law; however, the day immediately following Passover is a Sabbath (High Day) known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23).

The days of Unleavened Bread are seven days associated with the Passover. The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, immediately following Passover, is a holy convocation to be observed as a Sabbath Day (Leviticus 23:5-7). A Holy Convocation is to be observed as a Sabbath and is considered a Sabbath Day aside from the 7th Day Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3 & Numbers 28:17). These High Day Sabbaths are not the Sabbaths as the 4th Commandment instructs.

With this in mind, sunset to sunset (even to even) is how God counts His days (Genesis 1:5 & Leviticus 23:32). Christ held the Lord's Super on Passover (in the evening) and died on the cross by 3:00 pm (on Passover). This is how Jesus Christ died according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Since He died on Passover at 3:00 pm, Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and begged for the body because The Feast of Unleavened Bread (High Day Sabbath/Holy Convocation) was to begin at sunset (Mark 15:42-43 ).

When taking a hard look at Chapters 15 and 16 of Mark, we must keep in mind the relationship of the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Sabbath Day "according to the commandment." The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus must fit according to the scriptures (Passover and the 72 hour period of three days and three nights mentioned in Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 16:4).

The Sabbath mentioned in Mark 15:42 and the Sabbath mentioned in Mark 16:1 are two separate Sabbath days (one is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the other is the 7th Day Sabbath according to the commandment).

By the time Mary arrived, early "when it was yet dark," Jesus Christ was already raised out of the grave. Essentially, He could have risen anytime after 3:00 pm on Saturday (the Lord's sanctified day in accordance with the 4th Commandment and end of the required 72-hour period of 3 days and three nights).

A death on Friday and subsequent resurrection on Sunday constitutes only two nights and one whole day.

I can not find anywhere in the scripture where the observance of Passover, as well as all the other feasts (Holy Days), have been abrogated by God. I can see a necessity of a change in the law as it relates to the priesthood and animal sacrifices; however, I see no change in God's Times and Sabbaths. To me these are the observances He expects of His people (they are a sign of the covenant with Him). Easter and Christmas are subtle substitutes which cloud the real truth of the gospel.

If you are one who sees a problem with a Friday to Sunday death and resurrection, you may also want to take a look at why we all observe a Sunday "Christian Sabbath." Just a thought.

If I understand this correctly, we observe Sunday as the Sabbath because of the widespread belief that the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred on a Sunday. Is this correct?
 
Originally posted by Texas Aggie
I can not find anywhere in the scripture where the observance of Passover, as well as all the other feasts (Holy Days), have been abrogated by God. I can see a necessity of a change in the law as it relates to the priesthood and animal sacrifices; however, I see no change in God's Times and Sabbaths. To me these are the observances He expects of His people (they are a sign of the covenant with Him). Easter and Christmas are subtle substitutes which cloud the real truth of the gospel.
Click to expand...

CHAPTER 19 THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH

3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;(d) and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.(e) All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.(f)

d. Heb. 10:1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. Gal. 4:1"“3. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. Col. 2:17. "¦ which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Heb. 9:1"“ 28. Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all."¦ Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."¦ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."¦

e. Lev. 19:9"“10, 19, 23, 27. And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God."¦ Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."¦ And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of."¦ Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Deut. 24:19"“21. When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. See 1 Cor. 5:7; 2 Cor. 6:17; Jude 23.

f. Col. 2:14, 16"“17. "¦ blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."¦ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Dan. 9:27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Eph. 2:15"“16. "¦ having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. Heb. 9:10. "¦ which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Acts 10:9"“16. On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: and he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Acts 11:2"“10. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.
Click to expand...

In light of these passages can you explain how one goes about observing the old covenant ceremonial ordinances of the feast days without sacrifices and a priesthood and without introducing rabbinical-style traditions?
 
"In light of these passages can you explain how one goes about observing the old covenant ceremonial ordinances of the feast days without sacrifices and a priesthood and without introducing rabbinical-style traditions?"

The last Supper?
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Tom,
Do you ever pray with a baseball cap on?
Click to expand...

Not since the seventh game of last year's playoffs between the Yankees and Boston. :bigsmile:
[Edited on 2-2-2005 by tcalbrecht]
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:
Click to expand...

I myself have. It is wrong to pray in church with a baseball cap on, as the context of the passage is "in" church as it has been said to me.
 
The Last Supper took place on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. On that occasion, our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper. The next day, Christ offered up himself as the Passover Lamb. When he gave up the ghost, the veil of the temple was rent in two. That was the end of the priesthood, the ceremonies and sacrifices, and the types and shadows that went with it.

The Acts and the epistles confirm this -

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)
 
The Lord's Super took place on the same day He was killed (sundown to sundown is a day). Jesus was killed on Passover (He is our Passover). This is how He died according to the scriptures. If He did not die according to the scriptures then He is not God. Easter is a misrepresentation and a substitute for the gospel. It is a lie.

The priesthood and the animal sacrifices have been changed because of the Atonement. God has not changed His Holy Days or Sabbaths. Christ was not risen on Sunday morning. He was resurrected on the only day that was sanctified by God since the creation.

Easter has replaced the Passover and God has not instituted Easter.
 
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
"In light of these passages can you explain how one goes about observing the old covenant ceremonial ordinances of the feast days without sacrifices and a priesthood and without introducing rabbinical-style traditions?"

The last Supper?
Click to expand...

Good answer. We have authoritative information by which we observe the new covenant fellowship meal. It is done without the elaborate ceremonies of the old covenant form. It is devoid of typology, since the antitype has appeared and is recognized by all.

However, we have no pattern in the NT for any of the other feast days. Given the theological implications of the new covenant particularly as we find it in the book of Hebrews, esp. the end of the Levitical priesthood, it is quite reasonable to conclude that God no longer wishes His peope to recall these other feast days in any specific external form. To do so would require specific direction from an authoritative source. Otherwise you would need to invent rabbical-style traditions, ala unbelieving Israel after the flesh.

[Edited on 9-3-2006 by tcalbrecht]
 
Thank you Tom.

Jay, I believe that. My reason for saying "the last Supper?" was due to the question that was asked. The last Supper was an instance where the Passover was celebrated without all the Judaic legal trappings. It was Jesus and His disciples. It was nothing formal; rather it was an informal gathering where they celebrated the Passover.

Matt, I believe that God has instituted the celebration of the Resurrection. We celebrate that on the day that pagans decided to call Easter. I don't even have a problem calling it Easter as that is what I was raised on. The Lord knows my heart. This is off-topic but I know there are some who say we shouldn't celebrate Christmas either but Scripture gives pretty supportive precedent for doing so, what with angels filling the sky, shouting praise to God, singing, and telling a group of shepherds about the birth of the Saviour. Pretty joyous occasion. How could one not celebrate the birth of the Son of God in this world? How could one not celebrate the Resurrection?
 
Originally posted by Texas Aggie
The priesthood and the animal sacrifices have been changed because of the Atonement. God has not changed His Holy Days or Sabbaths.
Click to expand...

On what authority do you separate the two? The old covenant feast days were necessarily tied to the sacrifices and the priesthood. You could not legitimately observe the feast days without blood sacrifices.

Where do you turn in the Bible to explain how to externally observe a new covenant day of atonement or tabernacles?

Originally posted by Texas Aggie

Christ was not risen on Sunday morning. He was resurrected on the only day that was sanctified by God since the creation.

Easter has replaced the Passover and God has not instituted Easter.
Click to expand...

No one is talking here about "easter". That He rose on the first day of the week is plain from the Bible.

"Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons." (Mark 16:9) I believe the Greek construction supports the linkage between "He rose" and "on the first day".
 
Tom, could they legitimately observe the feast days today while remembering the blood sacrifice of Christ, once for all? I'm just wondering.
 
Tom,

That He rose on the first day of the week is most certainly not plain to me in the scripture. I am having a difficult time with this because it appears that there may be a contradiction in scripture (which I do not believe in such a notion). I see that there are no contradictions in God´s perfect word.

Both the words "Jesus" and "day" are words added to the Greek text in Mark 16:9. Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James came to the tomb early Sunday morning while it was still dark. When they arrived, He was already risen (John 20:1, Luke 24:1-3). He was out of the grave and gone prior to their arrival (meaning He could have risen anytime prior to their arrival).

For me, the question still remains: how long was Jesus in the grave? I believe the scripture is plain about this one and we must only travel to Matthew 12:38-40 for the answer. When you back up 3 days and 3 nights to John 20:1 and Luke 24:1-3 you get Passover. You also need to add in the Feast of Unleavened Bread as well as the 7th Day Sabbath according to the 4th commandment and see how they relate to one another.

Since He died at 3:00 pm on Passover, He could have risen anytime after 3:00 pm on Saturday (7th Day Sabbath, and God's only Sanctified Day). This would give you the required 3 days and three nights. The 1st day of the week would have started at sundown (on Saturday) and Mary and Mary would have come to the grave just prior to sunrise while it was still dark (on Sunday).

I do not combine the Priesthood, Animal Sacrifices as well as His Times (Holy Days and Sabbaths). I see these are three distinct parts of the Ceremonial Law. The church has thrown out the entire Ceremonial Law including the times. As far as a necessity in the change of the law, the Book of Hebrews mentions specifically the priesthood and sacrifices. I can not find where there is any mention of His times (Holy Days and Sabbaths).

Furthermore, even Paul and his companions observed the Feasts and Sabbaths (Acts 13:14, 17:2, 18:4, 18:20, 20:16, 21:17-24, 1 Corinthians 5:7).

I believe we are most definitely talking about Easter (see Acts 12:4). This is the crux of the issue. The church zealously advocates the observance of Christ´s resurrection via the lie of Easter. The observance of His resurrection was never instituted by God, the observance of His death was.

His death is what was of prime importance to God and should be of utmost importance to us. The death of Christ is what satisfied the righteous demand of God. Christ´s resurrection simply proves to us that He is God. We are to celebrate (observe) His death, not His proof of deity. There is no scriptural justification commanded by God to observe the resurrection of Jesus (this type of observance is a man-made event). God provides the means which satisfies Himself.

The visible administrations of the Old Covenant have spiritual applications in the New. There is no need for an animal blood sacrifice to observe the Lord´s Passover in the New Covenant since Christ Himself provided the blood as our Passover (He was the sacrifice without blemish). I do not believe that just because the animal sacrifices were done away with necessitates an abolishment of His Holy Days. The blood is still provided by a continual sprinkling at the throne.

In the case for Atonement and Tabernacles, these were also holy convocations treated as Sabbaths (where no servile work was to be accomplished). Observance of these days in the New Covenant is to be treated as a Sabbath per God's instruction. External observance on our behalf is just that. We observe the day as a Sabbath (since it is a day sanctified by God). We are now the temple of God and we (individual believers are the priests over our own bodies). Christ is the High Priest at the throne. The visible administrations in the old are now invisible spiritual applications in the New. I am starting to believe there is a direct corelation between the human body and the tabernacle (I am still taking a hard look at this).

I also believe there is a spiritual need for communion at the Lord´s Passover. The last supper was a symbolic representation and initiation of the New Covenant (we are to do this in remembrance of Him and what He did for us). We must remember specifically that He died for us, not that He was necessarily resurrected for us (this would have happened anyway simply because death had no reign on Him because He obeyed the law perfectly). Death could not hold Him as it holds us.

By the way, I am in no way whatsoever condemning anyone who observes Easter or Christmas. I am not the Judge and Brian is absolutely correct in pointing out that God sees the heart. I just enjoy researching biblical topics and I find the topic of Easter & Passover most challenging. Please forgive me if I have come across as being crass or all-knowing on the subject (I´m just trying to get this timeline straight in my mind).



[Edited on 9-3-2006 by Texas Aggie]
 
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Tom, could they legitimately observe the feast days today while remembering the blood sacrifice of Christ, once for all? I'm just wondering.
Click to expand...

I do not see how they could. Remember that all the old covenant ceremonial matters were really just types of Christ's work. The feasts were the type. Christ is the antitype. The antitype has appeared. Once the antitype appears the types disappear. At least that is the way it is presented in the Bok of Hebrews.

Remember, we do not retain the type of passover. Passover was fundamentally converted from the cultic form found under the old covenant to the universal expression under the new. That's why we don't call it "Passover". Because it is not Passover. It is not even "Passover Lite". There is enough explicit information in the New Testament about the Lord's Supper celebration that we do not need to guess in order to participate in a celebration that is pleasing to God.

How would you do that with, say, the feast of tabernacles, in the absence of any apostolic direction on how that celebration would be pleasing and honoring to God?
 
Wouldn't the passover fall into one of the categories mentioned by Paul in Col 2:16-17?

Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
 
I'll take these two issues separately.

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Tom,

That He rose on the first day of the week is most certainly not plain to me in the scripture. I am having a difficult time with this because it appears that there may be a contradiction in scripture (which I do not believe in such a notion). I see that there are no contradictions in God´s perfect word.

Both the words "Jesus" and "day" are words added to the Greek text in Mark 16:9. Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James came to the tomb early Sunday morning while it was still dark. When they arrived, He was already risen (John 20:1, Luke 24:1-3). He was out of the grave and gone prior to their arrival (meaning He could have risen anytime prior to their arrival).

For me, the question still remains: how long was Jesus in the grave? I believe the scripture is plain about this one and we must only travel to Matthew 12:38-40 for the answer. When you back up 3 days and 3 nights to John 20:1 and Luke 24:1-3 you get Passover. You also need to add in the Feast of Unleavened Bread as well as the 7th Day Sabbath according to the 4th commandment and see how they relate to one another.

Since He died at 3:00 pm on Passover, He could have risen anytime after 3:00 pm on Saturday (7th Day Sabbath, and God's only Sanctified Day). This would give you the required 3 days and three nights. The 1st day of the week would have started at sundown (on Saturday) and Mary and Mary would have come to the grave just prior to sunrise while it was still dark (on Sunday).
Click to expand...

The Hebrew way of reckoning time is not the same as what we are used to.

The phrase "three days and three nights" can mean any portion a period of time that covers a three day period.

When you hear "three days and three nights" don't think "3 pm on Wednesday until 3 pm on Saturday". That's a modern, Western view of time.

First of all, in the Hebrew culture, time doesn't start with zero, it starts with 1. So you have day 1, day 2, and day 3. Any part of day 1 is "one day". Any part of day 1 and day 2 is "two days". And so on.

Look at an example in Scripture:

"So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights." (1 Sam. 30:12)

Now look at the next verse:

"Then David said to him, 'To whom do you belong, and where are you from?' And he said, 'I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick.'"

Note how "three days ago" corresponds to "three days and three nights". If a literal 72 hours period were in view, we would think of this time period as "four days ago", not three.

Jesus uses similar language in Luke 13:32,33:

"And He said to them, "Go, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.' Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem."

Using the same language as Jesus, it is quite reasonable to speak of the days of His crucifixion as being "today" (Friday), "tomorrow" (Saturday/sabbath), "and the third day" (Sunday).

Another problem is that this "72 hour" explanation does not seem to square with what earlier Jewish writers taught on the subject, e.g.,:

A day and night are an Onah ["˜a portion of time´] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it." (from The Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix as quoted in Hoehner, Harold W, "œChronological Aspects of the Life of Christ"”Part IV: The Day of Christ´s Crucifixion," Bibliotheca Sacra).
Click to expand...

So any portion of a day fits within the designation "a day and a night". Three days and three nights do not have to fit neatly into a fixed 72 hours time slot.


Another author put it this way:

The principle which governed their [Jewish] thinking in such matters has been rather clearly set forth in some of their own commentaries on the Scriptures. It is this: that any part of a whole period of time may be counted as though it were the whole. A part of a day may be counted as a whole day, a part of a year as a whole year. Furthermore, a part of a day or a part of a night may be counted as a whole "night and day." I suspect that in the Lord's parable of the man who paid his labourers for a whole day, whether they had worked for a whole day or not (Matthew 20:1-16), is really a reflection of this principle. Thus, in the Babylonian Talmud, the Third Tractate of the Mishnah (which is designated "B. Pesachim," at page 4a) it is stated: "The portion of a day is as the whole of it." (Arthur Custance)
Click to expand...

One must also square this idea with the timeline in certain passages of Scripture, e.g., Luke 24, especially:

"Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. ... He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' And they remembered His words. ... But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened." (vv. 1,6,7,8,21)

Using the Luke 13 passage from above, it would be impossible for Jesus to be crucified in any day other than Friday and to have these things fulfilled "on the third day" which we know was Sunday.

Lots of people look to Bullinger's explanation of "three days and three nights" in his Companion Bible, but I think he got it wrong.



[Edited on 9-4-2006 by tcalbrecht]
 
Originally posted by Texas Aggie
(7th Day Sabbath, and God's only Sanctified Day).
Click to expand...

It is important to remember that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The commandment says nothing about what day we are to start counting from. Our Lord appeared to the apostles on the first day of the week; the apostles conducted public worship on the first day of the week; and seven days from the first day of the week is ... the first day of the week.

The OT speaks of the eighth day in preference to the seventh day as the time of consecration, especially of the firstborn. This foretold the time when Christ, the firstborn from the dead, would consecrate the New Testament and its worship by His resurrection.

Blessings!
 
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Tom, could they legitimately observe the feast days today while remembering the blood sacrifice of Christ, once for all? I'm just wondering.
Click to expand...

I do not see how they could. Remember that all the old covenant ceremonial matters were really just types of Christ's work. The feasts were the type. Christ is the antitype. The antitype has appeared. Once the antitype appears the types disappear. At least that is the way it is presented in the Bok of Hebrews.

Remember, we do not retain the type of passover. Passover was fundamentally converted from the cultic form found under the old covenant to the universal expression under the new. That's why we don't call it "Passover". Because it is not Passover. It is not even "Passover Lite". There is enough explicit information in the New Testament about the Lord's Supper celebration that we do not need to guess in order to participate in a celebration that is pleasing to God.

How would you do that with, say, the feast of tabernacles, in the absence of any apostolic direction on how that celebration would be pleasing and honoring to God?
Click to expand...

I understand. Thanks for answering brother. It's much more respectful than calling me ridiculous. :handshake:
 
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Every day is the day of the Lord, and the Lord is our Sabbath rest. :amen:
Click to expand...

"This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat," 2 Thess. 3:10.
 
Matthew, what do you mean by that? I don't see how that has to do with anything I said. Did Jesus not say "come to me and I will give you rest"? Jesus is our Sabbath rest. This does not negate the need to work. I'm confused brother.
 
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Matthew, what do you mean by that? I don't see how that has to do with anything I said. Did Jesus not say "come to me and I will give you rest"? Jesus is our Sabbath rest. This does not negate the need to work. I'm confused brother.
Click to expand...

It indicates that eschatological fulfilment of OT shadows does not negate moral duty in this world as commanded by the OT.

The fact that we are commanded to work shows that we have not yet fully entered into our rest. We are still to labour with our bodies, and hence our bodies still require rest from earthly labour. The fourth commandment regulates this work/rest cycle.

Marriage mystically signifies the union of the church with Christ; but the fact that Christ has now given His life to purify the church does not mean that the creation ordinance of marriage is done away with while we sojourn in this world.

Something to think about anyway. Blessings!
 
Tom,

Thank you for the reply. Sorry this response is so long, but you have given me a good deal of info to respond to.

I realize that the Hebrew way of recognizing time is not the way we do (modern western way). That is why we are to look at the Death/Resurrection timeline according to how God counts time. Man has changed God´s measure of time away from His original prescription. Sundown to sundown is how He measures a single day (Genesis 1:5, Leviticus 23:32) and God made known His ways unto Moses (Psalm 103:7).

The phrase "œthree days and three nights" is explicit wording (it involves three actual nights and three actual days). I would be more inclined to accept the explanation that the Jews counted any part of a day as a full day if Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 16:4 were not painfully explicit in their wording. If the terminology was strictly "œthree days," I could somewhat understand the Onah explanation.

A death on Friday followed by a Sunday morning resurrection constitutes only two nights and one day (remember God has prescribed "œeven to even" as His measure of a day). The Onah explanation also does not account for the Feast of Unleavened Bread in relation to the 7th Day Sabbath according to the fourth commandment. This High Day is still somehow involved.

I have read and studied the explanation that the Jews had a custom of counting any part of the day as a full day and the phrase "œthree days and three nights" would not necessarily mean three complete days in our reckoning. With this custom in mind, we need to remember God´s reckoning of time and not be too concerned about what earlier Jewish writers taught on the subject (they are not the standard for scriptural correction). We already know how the Pharisees had totally corrupted the Law of God and western Protestantism has not distanced itself far enough from Papal tradition. God makes no mention anywhere in the scripture that a portion of a day constitutes an entire day. God has ordained that the evening and the morning constitute a full day (Genesis 1:5).

In the example of 1 Samuel 30:12-13, the third day mentioned in verse 13 would have been the third day according to God´s measure of a day (sundown would have ended the third day for the Egyptian). We also do not know what time of day David interrogated him, nor do we know what time of day the Egyptian had his last meal. The Egyptian could have endured without food or water for three literal nights and three literal days and be accurate by telling David that three days ago, he fell sick. On a side note, the Egyptian states that three days ago he fell sick. He does not state the reason for his sickness (although it may be implied). He may, or may not, have fallen sick as a result of his lack of food and water (he could have easily had a mere common cold or a virus). We also do not exactly know when his master left him. All we know is that three days ago, he fell sick and as a result, his master left him.

As for the example of Luke 13:31-33, this is no different using God´s measure of a day (sundown to sundown). You can also check the following verses where the length of time between Jesus´ death, burial, and resurrection, are mentioned (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:40, 64; Mark 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; John 2:19, 20; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4). In all these verses the indefinite expression "on the third day he will be raised" are given as the length of time between these events. In all cases, the third day fits accordingly to God´s measure of a day. If Jesus died at 3:00 pm on Wednesday and was taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb, sundown would have been very close at hand (sundown would have started the first full day in the grave). Toward the end of the third day, he was resurrected (hence "œon the third day he will be raised").

Providing Christ was killed on Passover and in Joseph´s donated tomb by sundown, a resurrection that occurred anytime after 3:00 pm on Saturday would fulfill the prophetic scripture of Matthew 16:4 as well as support the scriptural wording of being raised "œon the third day." Most of the Onah explanations I have studied from multiple theologians have never included God´s measure of a day (sundown as the start point). In the Onah explanation, Jesus would have been in the grave 1/8th (3 hours) of a full day (the first day) according to God´s measure of a full day. I find this rather silly since sundown occurred at the 12th hour (or our 6 pm) and God spells out three days and three nights in Matthew and Jonah.

As for Luke 24:21, I find these fellas assessment of a third day to be accurate in their "œstory telling" along the road. Here is how I understand this passage:

These two disciples were making the little trek to Emmaus and Jesus (already resurrected) decided to show up along the way. He was unrecognizable to them and asked what they were talking about. In verses 18-20, they tell the story of what happened to Jesus.

I do believe this conversation did occur on Sunday (the very same day that Peter, John and the women had gone to the empty sepulcher). These disciples heading to Emmaus were traveling on the first day of the week (Sunday) and mention that it had been only three days (definitely not four). This in fact would appear to be in direct conflict with both a Wednesday as well as Friday crucifixion.

"œ...today is the third day since these things were done." Well, in verse 19 Jesus asked the question: "œWhat things?" Notice "œall these things," "œthese things" and "œthe things" (verses 14, 18-19 & 21). I believe "œthings" is modified (or qualified) by the disciples´ specifying in verse 20 that they were talking of the heinous actions conducted by their rulers and chief priests. Not only did they talk about the rotten deeds of the priests and rulers, but they told of things concerning Jesus who was "œa prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;" (verse 19). Obviously all the deeds of Christ in verse 19 did not occur just two days prior.

I believe they were telling quite a lengthy story to Jesus about Himself... but "œthe things" has reference to the evil conducted by the priests and rulers throughout the sentencing, execution and burial process. I do not believe that their evil deeds against Jesus terminated with His deliverance to Pilate for execution. They wanted to go even further.

Matthew 27:62-66 tells of the continued behavior of the Chief Priests and Pharisees.

"œOn the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate (notice the chief priests and rulers gathered together), saying, Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, after three days I will rise. Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, He has risen from the dead. So the last deception will be worse than the first. Pilate said to them: You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know."

The day after the Day of Preparation (or Passover) was the Feast of Unleavened Bread (considered a High Day, or Sabbath). These Jewish leaders went to Pilate on a Holy Day to ensure that Jesus would not rise from the dead (thus breaking a Sabbath). They subsequently had a guard placed and the tomb sealed after seeking permission from Pilate.

When the two disciples (on the way to Emmaus) say "œthis is the third day since these things were done" they are counting from the last evil deed conducted by the rulers and high priests on the High Day Sabbath (the Feast of Unleavened Bread). The three days indicated in verse 21 starts at the Feast of Unleavened Bread at sundown immediately following the Passover (Day of Preparation).

By the way, I have not read anything by Bullinger; however, if he is writing about this subject it may be worth my while to look at his work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C. Matthew McMahon
  • Locked
RPW - Purim and Passover
Replies
6
Views
2K
CalsFarmer
C
BobVigneault
  • Locked
Some meditations for the week before Passover
Replies
1
Views
1K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
KMK
  • Locked
Was There Any 'Atoning' Value To The Passover Lamb?
Replies
7
Views
4K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
W
  • Locked
Did children partake of Passover?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Arch2k
A
Back
Top