The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28

"A vital text proving that there were two Sabbaths in that week has been obscured by almost every translation into English."

-Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not on Sunday", 1972, p.13

I think Herbert Armstrong had a fine little thing going with the "two Sabbaths" argument. It was quite convincing. One of his premier arguments! It certainly convinced me for a number of years. But can it hold up to our intense scrutiny here at ABD?

If you are unfamiliar with Armstrongism, don't worry. This article will still be accessible to you, even though it is geared mainly towards Armstrongists. Allow me to briefly explain.
Herbert W Armstrong (aka HWA) was the founder of the Worldwide Church of God - a Sabbatarian sect heavy on end-time prophecy. Since it was founded by Armstrong, we refer to the movement in short as Armstrongism. Armsrtongism is a split from the Church of God - Seventh Day, which itself is an early split from the Seventh Day Adventists. (We have articles on this for anyone who doubts the truth of this history.) Herbert Armstrong taught a Wednesday crucifixion, and it is this view being addressed in this article.

What Armstrong did was to make a huge deal about the Greek word “sabbaton” in Matthew 28: 1. He assigned an unconventional explanation to the verse, and with that wedge he attempted to split apart almost 2,000 years of Christian tradition. Before we start, I need to fill in a small background detail regarding how Armstrong viewed the timing of the death and resurrection of our Lord:

"Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, the middle day of the week. He died shortly after 3 p.m. that afternoon; was buried before sunset Wednesday evening. Now count three days and three nights. His body was Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday nights in the grave - three nights. It also was there through the daylight part of Thursday, Friday and Saturday - three days. He rose Saturday - the Sabbath - late afternoon, shortly before sunset, at the same time of day that He was buried!"
-Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not on Sunday", 1972, p.12

Anyone who has spent any time in Adventism knows this depiction. I would presume anyone who has tried to look up Good Friday on the internet knows this depiction. But there are some issues here.

The first issue is, understanding how time is counted by the modern Western mind versus the ancient Hebrew mind. Some people treat the Bible as if it was originally written in English. We get far deeper into this in our article Three Days and Three Nights.
The second issue is, the number of Sabbaths and proper translations of words. The Gospel accounts other than Matthew 28: 1 only mention one Sabbath. But in Matthew 28: 1, it is clear that the word "Sabbath" in the Greek is plural. So what does this mean?

What Herbert Armstrong concluded was this:

"There is only one possible explanation: After the annual high-day Sabbath, the feast day of the days of Unleavened Bread - which was Thursday - these women purchased and prepared spices on Friday, and then they rested on the weekly Sabbath, Saturday, according to the commandment (Ex. 20:8-11)."
-Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not on Sunday", 1972, p.13

HWA said "There is only one possible explanation," and with that I take exception.

It is not the only explanation!

Armstrong started his booklet by advising us to "test all things." But have we tested his explanation? Let's do that together right now.


SABBATON

All of this rests on one word. The English word "Sabbath" is translated from the Greek word "sabbaton." What can we see about this word?

According to the New Testament Greek Lexicon, the second definition of this word is thus:

"2. seven days, a week"

-New Testament Greek Lexicon, Copyright © 2001-2010, Heartlight, Inc.

Seven days? A week? What is that supposed to mean?

Turns out it means the word translated as "Sabbath" can represent all seven days of the week, as well as just the seventh day, depending on context. It's a Jewish idiom. The plural of sabbaton can refer to the entire week by only mentioning the Sabbaths on either end of the week. This is the same thing as calling your car your “wheels.” Wheels are only part of a car, but they represent the whole thing. It's a synecdoche.

This from a Wikipedia article on the Sabbath:

"By synecdoche (naming a part for the whole), the term "Sabbath" also came to mean simply a seven-day week in Jewish sources by the time of the Septuagint, namely, the interval between two Sabbaths. Jesus's parable of the Pharisee and the Publican describes the Pharisee as fasting "twice a week" (Greek dis tou sabbatou, literally, "twice of the Sabbath")."

-"Sabbath". WikiPedia. 3-20-2010 at 12:35 PM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath

If you've read my articles, you know I quote Wikipedia when I want to make a point about information being readily available.

Now that you understand what we’re dealing with here, can we be confident that it affects Matthew 28: 1? The answer to that is, yes! Adam Clarke’s Commentary can help us here.

"In the end of the Sabbath - Οψε δε σαββατων. After the end of the week: this is the translation given by several eminent critics; and in this way the word οψε is used by the most eminent Greek writers."

-Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, chapter XXVIII, Commentary on Matthew 28

So, “Sabbath” in Matthew 28: 1 is plural, not because it represents two Sabbaths in one week (Thursday and Saturday), but because it represents two weekly Sabbaths at either end of the week (Saturday to Saturday). In fact, every time you see the word 'week' in the New Testament, it is translated from sabbaton.

Still, I would feel much better if I had some contextual support for this. Do we have any insight into the context? Yes! Let's look at some context.

The entire point of this verse is to tell us when these things happened.

(MAT. 28: 1) Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn...

(MAR. 16: 1) Now when the Sabbath was past...

(MAR. 16: 2) Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week...

(LUK. 24: 1) Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning...

(JOH. 20: 1) Now the first day of the week... 

*All of these are from the NKJV.

All of these verses tell us about Sunday morning hours right before sunrise - the timing of when Jesus was first known to have been resurrected. Timing is key! All of these verses are telling us about the same time for the same reason. The weekly Sabbath came and went, and now, early on Sunday morning we focus. That is the time context. Matthew is focusing on this time. This timing is key! Because the entire point is to explain when they first knew Jesus Christ had risen: Sunday morning.

And in that context, what Matthew is telling us, in his peculiarly Hebrew way, is "at the end of the previous week, as the first day of the next week began to dawn..." Matthew is saying nothing at all that the other Gospel writers did not also say. He simply says the same thing in a different, and very Hebrew, fashion.

I want you to know that there are some who claim that Matthew 28: 1 supports a Saturday resurrection. This is simply not possible. The phrase "in the end" literally means "after" not "during" and most certainly not "several hours before" - because Jesus died several hours before sunset and in Armstrong's scenario He would have been resurrected at the same hour.
I have read people who assert "began to dawn" is a forgery added later. Based on what scholarly evidence? None. In their minds, if the Bible does not support their belief, then the Bible is wrong. But for us who take a less ideologically fundamentalist approach to the pursuit of truth, Matthew 28: 1 precludes a Saturday resurrection. As do all of the other Gospels.

We get no mention whatsoever from the other Gospel writers about there being two Sabbaths at the end of that week. (Just because it doesn't say anything, doesn't mean it didn't happen. But we have learned to require more than HWA's word.) But given this information that you now know, doesn’t this silence speak volumes? The other Gospels aren't saying anything about timing that Matthew didn't say, and Matthew isn't saying anything about timing that they didn't say. They all speak the same thing: Saturday was over and it was dawning on Sunday. We don’t need to invent elaborate multiple sabbath and counting to Pentecost scenarios if we stick to the proper and well known translation.

Want more evidence? OK! I'd love to!

A SECOND SABBATON

Let's look at the beginning of Matthew 28: 1 in Greek:

"Opse de sabbaton te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton..."

Notice anything odd in there? That's right! "Sabbaton" appears twice! And they are both plural. What this means is astoundingly bad for Armstrong. 

Look at the very same phrase once again in NKJV English:

"Now after the Sabbath [sabbaton], as the first day of the week [sabbaton] began to dawn..."

So, sabbaton can be "week" after all, and it is… in this very verse! 

This is entirely consistent with the Strong's Concordance definition of the word. It can be singular or plural, one Sabbath or … a whole week.

4521 Sabbaton: the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.

If one instance can be translated “week,” why on earth not both instances? In fact, wouldn’t uniformity in translation make far more sense?


LOST IN MISTRANSLATION

Keep in mind that we have one word here - sabbaton. The proper translations, depending on context, can be Sabbath [singular], Sabbaths [plural], and week.

Let us now transliterate this into Armstrong's thinking in order to illustrate something:

"Now after the two Sabbaths, as the first of the weekS began..."

That is how Armstrong sees things. Notice he didn’t just redefine the first instance, he redefined them both.

The first sabbaton -

No one disputes that Matthew 28: 1 is referring to Sunday. The dispute is whether Matthew is telling us it was Sunday morning by telling us the Sabbaths of the previous week were over, or by telling us the week was over. Herbert Armstrong said the first Sabbaton is plural because it refers to two Sabbaths in the week: a weekly Sabbath and an annual holy day. But is that right?

Look at the definition of sabbaton. Do you see that possibility in there? Did you see "Sabbath [singular], Sabbaths [plural], a week, and a combination of whatever type of Sabbath we like"? You do not because it's not there. That is not a proper definition of sabbaton. Sabbaton does not refer to a combination of different types of Sabbaths, like a Holy Day and a weekly Sabbath. Sabbaton is never translated 'holy day'. Holy days have their own word: hoerte.

In Colossians 2: 16, Paul separates "Sabbath day" (sabbaton) from "holyday" (heorte) in the same sentence. They are separate. In the New Testament, no annual high day is ever referred to as sabbaton. Not one!

I propose "week" is the best translation for the first sabbaton. I do not prefer Sabbath (singular), but if that's what some Bible versions choose, I'm not going to complain.

The second sabbaton -

Herbert Armstrong knew and accepted that both sabbaton are plural. The first one he redefines as two different kinds of Sabbaths, even though that is not at all an acceptable translation. But he couldn't explain the second one. If he was going to demand the first one shouldn't be translated "week" then he can't leave the second one translated as "week". So, he pluralized it. Did you catch that? He turned sabbaton not into "week" singular but "weeks" plural. He pluralized the plural. A double-plural! The first sabbaton becomes "Sabbaths" (meaning one annual Holy Day and one weekly Sabbath), the second sabbaton becomes "weeks" (plural).

Neither of those are valid translations. How can he do this? The answer is simple and straightforward - he cannot.

We cannot just assign a meaning to a word however we wish. If we cannot take Strong's Concordance and rearrange the acceptable meanings of a word in an improper way because we ignore the context, then how much worse is it to just start making up new definitions of words out of thin air? 

He redefined the words, and our ignorance of the Greek takes care of the rest.

With no other viable options, and knowing the time is referring to Sunday morning, I propose that, just like the first sabbaton, the second sabbaton is plural because it is an idiom indicating a week. That is the best, and I would argue the only, translation for the second sabbaton.

If you really are interested in getting down and gritty with the Greek, see this article by Jerry Griffin entitled "The Idiomatic Use of Sabbaton for Week" which was hosted on the Toledo COG7 website but now is only accessible by the Wayback Machine. Be prepared for your head to hurt, however. And don’t say we didn’t warn you ahead of time. If you do read it, you will be rewarded with a detailed explanation of why Sabbaton is translated "week", as well as definitive proof of why "first of the Sabbaths" is absolutely not an acceptable translation here.

FEAST OF FIRSTFUITS AND PENTECOST

Let's look at another reason why the second sabbaton cannot refer to the count to Pentecost, besides just being a dead wrong way to translate the word. It has to do with timing.

According to Leviticus 23: 9-16, Deuteronomy 16: 9, and Armstrong’s own understanding, the50-day count to Pentecost is initiated by the Wave Sheaf offering. The day of the Wave Sheaf is called the Day of Firstfruits. The count to Pentecost starts here.

The law orders the Wave Sheaf to happen on the morning after the Sabbath. The modern Jews and the ancient Pharisees interpret this Sabbath as referring to the First Day of Unleavened Bread. In the reckoning of the Pharisees, there were three days in a row with special meaning: Passover, the First Day of Unleavened Bread, and the Day of Firstfruits.
On the other hand, in the reckoning of the Sadducees, the Sabbath referred to is the weekly Sabbath. This way, the Wave Sheaf was always on a Sunday during the Days of Unleavened Bread.
We go over this in depth in our article "Firstfruits and the Beauty of God's Timing".

The 50-day count to Pentecost begins on Firstfruits, but when Firstfruits happens depends on which Sabbath you think the law refers to. 

Take that fact and plug it into a Wednesday crucifixion scenario.

If you're a Pharisee or a modern Jew, Friday in crucifixion week is the Day of Firstfruits, because Friday is the day following the First Day of Unleavened Bread. That makes Saturday the first Sabbath in the count to Pentecost. That was the day the first sabbaton was supposedly referring to, so the second cannot be referring to it.
That changes Herbert Armstrong's version of Matthew 28: 1 to this:

"Now after the Sabbaths, and after the first day of the weeks ..."

Oh! That is terrible news for Mr. Armstrong.

Quick! Side with the Sadducees! (And he does.)

If we go with the Sadducees, Sunday is now the Day of Firstfruits. Sunday starts the 50-day count to Pentecost. This means the first Sabbath in the count to Pentecost is a week away. Matthew 28: 1 is talking about that very morning, the day that was dawning, not some other day a week off. Pointing to a day a week off is not an option. Siding with the Sadducees will not help him.

That changes Herbert Armstrong's version of Matthew 28: 1 to this:

"Now after the Sabbaths, and a week before the first Sabbath in the count to Pentecost ..."

That is also terrible news for Mr. Armstrong.
Notice this is what he actually believed. What he believed has been this wrong the entire time.

Let's review:

• Any Sabbath prior to Sunday can't be the first in the count. They would be covered in the first sabbaton.
• Sunday cannot be the first Sabbath in the count, because Sunday isn't the Sabbath.
  
• The Sabbath a week away would have to be the first Sabbath in the count, but it's a week off, therefore it couldn't have been dawning as Matthew 28: 1 said.
• And we cannot punt to translating Sabbaton as weekS because we cannot pluralize an already plural form. 

Nor is there any tradition, at that time or any other, of using the word sabbaton in reference to the count to Pentecost. The count to Pentecost is not an option here. 

What this proves is that sabbaton cannot be translated Herbert Armstrong desired. None of that fits in grammatically or chronologically. Therefore it cannot mean what Herbert Armstrong tries to force it to mean. What HWA did to work around his dilemma is wholly improper! Therefore it absolutely, positively cannot mean what he says it means. His explanation cannot stand.

BY ANY OTHER NAME

I remind you, valued reader, that translating languages is not a grab-bag. Languages have rules. You can't just make things up as you go along. We have to translate as the author would have understood, or we aren't actually translating at all. 

Add to that the testimony of Mark who says, "Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath" (MAR. 15: 42). The phrase "preparation day" here is from the Greek word 'paraskeue', and the entire phrase "the day before the Sabbath" is from one Greek word: 'prosabbaton'. What can we know about these words?

What you will never completely glean from the Bible, but can glean from other ancient sources, is that the Jews referred to every day by a number according to its place in the week. Sunday is the first day of the week, Monday is the second day, and so forth. What we were told in Armstrongism is that only the seventh day had a proper name: Sabbath. But that's not entirely true. In time, the sixth day also received a name. Friday was called "prosabbaton". Prosabbaton means the day before sabbaton. Remember folks, sabbaton never refers to an annual holy day. In other words, prosabbaton is the proper name for Friday.

Friday was also loosely called "paraskeue." Paraskeue means preparation day. As in, preparation for the Sabbath.

We can know from other documents that paraskeue and prosabbaton refer to Friday, not the least of which is a decree from Caesar Augustus declaring that no Jew could be compelled to go to court past the 9th hour on Friday 

"Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims... that they [Jews] shall not give sureties for appearance in court on the Sabbath or on the day of preparation [paraskeue] before it after the ninth hour."

-Augustus Caesar, Edict on Jewish Rights, on Fordham.edu  https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/roman-jews.asp 

You could also see the deuterocanonical book of Judith, chapter 8 verse 6:

"And she fasted all the days of her widowhood, except for the eves of the sabbaths [prosabbaton] and the sabbaths [sabbaton], and the eves of the new moons and the new moons, and the feasts and solemn days of the house of Israel." 

We can see plainly that prosabbaton is Friday. This is also a fine example where we can see the weekly Sabbath again distinct from annual holy days. Sabbaths and 'feasts and solemn days' are not lumped together.

Now, you might be able to take paraskeue and put it in front of an annual high day, but that is not so easily done with prosabbaton. Sabbaton never refers to a holy day in the entire New Testament. Therefore, prosabbaton cannot be the day before a holy day. Mark was writing to Greek speakers. The Greek Jews of that time referred to Friday as prosabbaton. It would be just as improper to put prosabbaton on a Wednesday as to call Wednesday by the name Friday.

When Mark uses both phrases, paraskeue and prosabbaton, Mark is going out of his way to ensure we understand this is Friday. He only needed to use one. He used both. This was without a doubt the sixth day, Friday. Anything else would be terribly confusing to his audience.

Again and again we see that Armstrong wasn't getting his doctrine from the Bible, he was trying to force his doctrine into the Bible.

THE SPICE GIRLS

Herbert Armstrong's "final clinching proof" of his timeline was when the ladies prepared spices. Let's address that.

Mark 16: 1 says after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less, and Salome the mother of James and John purchased spices to anoint Jesus with.

Luke 23: 56 says that before the Sabbath, the women from Galilee (presumably these same women mentioned above, possibly plus Martha) prepared spices.

Herbert Armstrong puts Mark before Luke chronologically and sees this as a clinching proof for a Wednesday crucifixion. In this scenario, on Thursday there is an annual holy day. Friday would then be both before and after a sabbath. The women purchased spices on Friday and prepared spices. 

This definitely fits the description! There is no logical or grammatical reason why this explanation cannot work.
The issue I have with this is the eagerness of the women to go see the tomb. One wonders why the women did not visit the tomb on Friday since they had an entire free day. They could have prepared their spices on Thursday after sunset when the holy day was concluded, then they would have had all day Friday to visit the tomb. Clearly, they did not. Why not? They were so eager to go that they went on Sunday before it was even light, but they didn't go on Friday?

Let's look at how the spices play out in a traditional Friday or even a Thursday crucifixion.

In this scenario, Luke goes before Mark chronologically. The women prepared spices on Friday, maybe even along with Nicodemus (Luke 23: 56). Then they rest on the weekly Sabbath (a Thursday crucifixion would mean a back-to-back annual holy day then weekly Sabbath day). Then on Saturday evening after the Sabbath was complete, the women purchased more spices as in Mark 16: 1.

This also definitely fits the description! There is no logical or grammatical reason why this explanation cannot work.
And in this scenario, there is a very good reason for why the women were so anxious to get to the tomb on Sunday morning - this was their first opportunity.

The Bible never tells us what quantity of spices the women had. There is nothing that stops the women from preparing spices before the Sabbath, maybe with Nicodemus, and again after the weekly Sabbath.  There is every reason to believe shops in Jerusalem opened immediately after sundown on the Sabbath and holy days, especially during what is one of the busiest times of the year. Since we know Nicodemus arrived in short order with around one hundred pounds of spices, myrrh, and aloes (JON. 19: 39), we can conclude that these things were readily available. If Martha was there on Friday, she also had a large quantity of ointment on hand (JON. 12: 3), giving them a head start.

Did Armstrong really deliver the crushing blow of arguments? Does that clinch the victory and demonstrably prove there were two Sabbaths? No. He offers an explanation that works in his timeline and so does the other side. His timeline is problematic in that it introduces a 24-hour period where the women could have visited the tomb but opted not to, thus making their anxious trip before sunrise on Sunday very difficult to explain.

HISTORICAL RECORD

I can present additional supporting evidence from the earliest Christian writings:

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" 

-Epistle of Barnabas, 15: 9 (70-130 A.D.)

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."

-Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter LXVII [67] (130-165 A.D.)

"On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathæa had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection."

-Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians (98-117 A.D.)

"But when it drew on (towards day) on the Friday, they accused him much [Mk 15.3] before Pilate; and they could show nothing that was true, but gave false witness against Him. And they asked Him of Pilate to be put to death; and they crucified Him on the same Friday."

-Unknown author, Didascalia Apostolorum, chapter XXI (200-250 AD)

Some people say Ignatius should be discounted because it is contested. (What ancient document isn't contested? Remember how I mentioned some people contest Matthew 28: 1?) I've actually thought about taking it out. But I realized it's contested for its age. Some of the content looks too Catholic, and that makes people uncomfortable, so they say it has to have been written later. Older or younger, we have no recorded dissenters from what is written therein. All of the oldest historical record agrees as one.

This is a blow to anyone who says the "evil" Catholic Church started the Friday tradition, or the "evil" Constantine the Great started the Friday tradition. Well, Justin Martyr predates Constantine by a century and a half. Barnabas even more so! This evidence means one of two things: either the Catholics are innocent of the charges, or the Catholic Church is a lot older than people would like to admit.

There are many people who will be quite upset about these quotes for one reason or the other. "They aren't in the Bible." (I've already discussed what's in the Bible.) "They are from Catholics." (They are first and second century.) "The evidence of the correct timing was lost." (Prove it!) These are just baseless, dogmatic demands. At what point do we say enough is enough? I am presenting the oldest evidence anyone on earth has. All of it agrees with what I've presented from the Bible itself. None of it agrees with Armstrong. And that is real reason why it gets attacked.

WRAPPING UP

So, what is a good translation of Matthew 28: 1?

(MAT. 28: 1)[MKJV] But late in the week, at the dawning into the first day of the week

MKJV gives you a good feel for what the Greek means. I would object that the first part should not be “late in the week” because the Greek and the context both indicate the week had ended. How can it be “late in the week” if the week is over? It cannot. But anywho….

If Herbert Armsrtong is right, what we can do any time is just think up a nice theory and assign our own private interpretation into Matthew 28: 1, making a word mean one thing here and another thing there, regardless of context or proper use of the language. And so we turn a simple word meaning “week” into “a holy day and a Saturday in one week.” Again we turn the same word into "weeks" plural and then into "the count to Pentecost."

If this is what Matthew meant, there should be some other evidence for it somewhere else in the Bible. There is none. Silence. There is a butchered translation of Matthew 28: 1 and nothing besides. No other support in the Bible. No other support in ancient history.

However if I am right, and it does mean “week” singular, then there should be some kind of evidence somewhere. And there is!
So far I have shown:

• Sabbaton cannot be translated as a combination of a holy day and a weekly Sabbath.
• There are not two Sabbaths (one weekly and one annual) hidden here.
• The seven sabbath count to Pentecost is not an option.
• Armstrong's timing is all wrong because the context is all wrong.
• The word prosabbaton specifically refers to Friday.
• The three other Gospels agree against Armstrong.
• Every instance of "week" in the New Testament is sabbaton.
• All professional Greek translators agree against Armstrong.
• Respected commentaries align against Armstrong.
• All early accounts outside the Bible witness against Armstrong.

The two Sabbaths hidden in Matthew 28 claim turns out to be circular reasoning.
How do you know there were two Sabbaths that week? Because Matthew 28 says so! How do you know Matthew 28 says so? Because there were two Sabbaths that week!

But if you cannot mistranslate sabbaton as two different kinds of Sabbath, the claim disintegrates.

If we pay incredibly close attention to proper definitions, established uses of the Greek, the oldest historical evidence, the context, and the related Bible evidence, we come to the conclusion that Mark puts the crucifixion on a prosabbaton/Friday, then Matthew's first use of sabbaton means “[at the end of the] week,” or “Saturday.”, and the second appearance of sabbaton in Matthew 28 means, "[at the beginning of the] week," or "Sunday".

The first sabbaton means "week" and the second means "week" and both are meant to tell us it was Sunday morning.
All of this complexity for something so simple!

CONCLUSION

People say, "look in your Bible and you'll see a Wednesday crucifixion because there are two Sabbaths in Matthew 28," but I did look in my Bible, to the best of my ability, and I see the opposite. In all of the years we have been looking earnestly, and in all the many articles on ABD we have written, we cannot find two sabbaths in Matthew 28.

Did it come from the Bible, then? It couldn't have. So, where did it come from? The next thing people say is, "Your eyes are blinded." Are they? I've done my level best to pull the truth from the Bible. I've shown you my work. If you can refute it, then by all means please do. When I ask people to show me from the Bible I get claims which articles on ABD have refuted conclusively. Or, I get ad hominem attacks, straw men, and empty statements like, "It's just logical." Is it just logical? If you have to change the words of the Bible, change the way language works, and change the historical record, is that truly logical? More importantly, is it truth? God's truth?

So, what do we have here? In a word: eisegesis! Herbert Armstrong has completely improper translation, distortion of context and Biblical narrative, no support from the other Gospels, and outright condemnation of historical evidence. He has an idea and he's going to force the Bible to agree with him.

But what does As Bereans did have? In a word: exegesis! We have the proper translation, we have the proper context, we have corroborating evidence from the other Gospels, and we have corroborating evidence from history. We have the Bible and history and we are going to force our ideas to agree with them.

Therefore, we conclude, dear reader, that there are not a holy day and a weekly Sabbath day hidden in Matthew 28: 1. We conclude that there is not a seven week count to Pentecost hidden in Matthew 28: 1. We conclude HWA's greatest and “final proof” is no proof whatsoever other than proof that he is dead, dead wrong. And we also conclude that Herbert Armstrong’s accusations against history and a billion+ Christians are baseless. We are certain that you, our esteemed and intelligent reader, are already beginning to see the implications of what we have shown you here. Far-reaching implications that, unfortunately, exceed the scope of this post. Pursue them!

Now, we may strenuously disagree with HWA, but we are not here to judge and condemn, so rather than make crass comments - returning his condemnation upon us for some of our own upon him - we ask you to pray with us for all of those bound and imprisoned in Armstrongism, that they might see the light of Christ’s glorious mercy, and ask Him for release, and step boldly and permanently into the New Covenant.

May your remembrance of His death and resurrection be blessed and Spirit-filled!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.

Acts 17:11

************