Monday, May 18, 2026

An Exegetical Study Of Habakkuk 2:4 As It Relates To Paul's Doctrine Of Justification By Faith

          The Book of Habakkuk is a classic example of what we would call a theodicy. It serves as a defense of the goodness of God in the midst of evil. A theodicy aims to solve the paradox of His general providence in a world of pain and misery. How could an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God allow us to go through bad things? Why do evil people seem to prosper while the righteous suffer, being continually trampled on? Why is perfect justice not always inflicted on evildoers in this world? Questions of this nature undoubtedly plagued the mind of Habakkuk. Countless people throughout history have pondered and debated at length about such issues. Habakkuk was troubled deeply by the corrupt society in which he lived. The laws of the prophet's own nation were not being enforced. Justice was nowhere to be found in the land. Rebellion toward God abounded. Habakkuk wondered how a righteous God could be silent and allow these things to come to pass. Why does He stand by and do nothing? The prophet raised such questions not in a state of doubt, but faith. While God did not specifically answer the why behind that man's questions, the response given aroused a greater sense of perplexity than he originally had. How could a righteous God use Babylon, a nation more wicked than Judah itself, as an instrument of divine judgment?

          The underlying theme of the Book of Habakkuk is that we can place our trust in God because of His sovereignty. This sovereignty is not merely a distant, impersonal force, but an active, personal involvement in the lives of those who love Him. God is working things out for the good of those who love Him, directing events in ways that we may not immediately understand but are always under His divine control. Whether things seem impossible to us is irrelevant to God. His omnipotence transcends human limitations and comprehension. He will right the wrongs of evildoers in His own perfect timing. That means justice, although delayed in our eyes, is inevitable under His watchful gaze. His plan, while it may seem convoluted and slow from our finite perspective, will prove satisfactory to us in the grand scheme or complete picture of all events when they are brought to a close. This assurance invites us to adopt a posture of patience and faith. Habakkuk contains a passage that is quoted twice by the Apostle Paul in the context of our justification before God, particularly Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11. The text being discussed is cited in its entirety as follows:

          "Behold, as for the impudent one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous one will live by his faith." (Habakkuk 2:4)

          Habakkuk was told by God to write down a message of the ruination of the Babylonian Empire and the restoration of Judah. The king of Babylon would fall as a result of being conceited, just as in Daniel 5 with Belshazzar. God would preserve a small remnant of Jews who were obedient to His commandments. The Babylonian army was brutal in conquest. Captured leaders were humiliated. A series of woes is pronounced on Nebuchadnezzar for his greed, covetousness, and cruelty. It is a truth that God judges people who are arrogant and presumptuous, unduly esteeming their might and capabilities (Numbers 14:44). However, it is not entirely clear who specifically is referred to as the proud in Habakkuk 2:4, whether it be Chaldean Jews, the Chaldeans themselves, or both. Verse 5 seems to imply that the reference is to the Chaldeans or Babylonians. The Jews certainly were not plundering other peoples at this time. The Babylonian Empire was stooped in moral corruption. It used threats and force to enrich itself monetarily (Habakkuk 2:6). Babylon pillaged and plundered other nations. It slaughtered innocent people and destroyed their homes (Habakkuk 2:8). These actions are denounced by God as being cruel. The Babylonians would pay by their own self-destruction.

          What did the Apostle Paul see in this passage that made it relevant to his teaching of justification by faith in Romans and Galatians? Did he misunderstand the words of Habakkuk? Paul sees in this passage the foundation of the message of the gospel in which man is declared righteous by God apart from the merit of good deeds. He projects the scope of the prophet's words from an ethnic group whose existence is in peril and infuses them with a new meaning that relates to our common humanity. Certainly, Habakkuk's words are broad enough to fit with his application of them. Paul, as a Jewish thinker steeped in the Hebrew Bible, resorted to theological expansion and the interpretive flexibility that was common for his era. The apostle's message could be paraphrased in this manner: "the one justified by faith shall live." He concerns himself with the reception of spiritual life. Habakkuk 2:4 is the only text besides Genesis 15:6 that brings together faith and righteousness in the Old Testament. Thus, we see the reason for Paul appealing to both passages in his argumentation against Law observance for justification before God in Romans and Galatians. A righteousness that comes by faith is antithetical to a Law righteousness.

          The Apostle Paul’s emphasis in Romans 1:17 is that the one who has been justified by faith is also called to live by faith. The righteousness believers receive is not their own but is granted by God on the basis of Christ’s atoning work. The phrase “from faith to faith” can be understood as an intensive expression that highlights faith as the sole means by which righteousness is received and life in God is sustained. Paul was a Hebrew who used expressions in the manner of that found in the Old Testament. Phrases comparable to "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 would include "vanity of vanities" (Ecclesiastes 1:2), "holy of holies" (Exodus 26:34), and "heaven of heavens" (Deuteronomy 10:14). Another occurrence of this form occurs when Paul described himself as "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Philippians 3:5). He interpreted the Prophet Habakkuk's words about a faithful Jewish remnant that appeared to be on the brink of utter destruction as being words of hope for lost humanity. Faith initiates the process of salvation and is its goal. God continually saves believers from the grasp of sin. The condition for Jews to receive blessings and protection from God under the Old Covenant is the same for Christians under the New Covenant: faith. A man cannot obtain a just standing before Him without it. Faith, righteousness, and life are intertwined. God's comfort and security are for all believers.

          Paul in Galatians 3:11 gives weight to Habakkuk 2:4 with the intent of making the point that one is justified in the sight of God on the basis of faith. He uses something other than the Law to make us right with Him. It is a life of faith that glorifies God. It is that kind of a life which brings honor to Him. The Apostle Paul's teaching of living by faith is to be contrasted with the Law's requirement of "doing" in order to have life (Deuteronomy 27:26; Leviticus 18:5). The latter way brings about death and is, therefore, of no avail to us in getting a righteous standing before God. Within the context of Leviticus, the decrees, statutes, and issued judicial rulings were the means of every aspect of Jewish life. They covered the physical, moral, and spiritual aspects of society. The Law brought death when violated, and the death of David and Bathsheba's son out of wedlock is an active illustration of this point. The Law points to life because it lays out the path of righteousness. However, it brings death to us because sin controls our nature. In the Greek text of Galatians 3:11, the word "by" means to be under the control or according to the nature of. We obtain a righteous standing before God by faith. We are freed from the guilt of sin by grace through faith. That is the newness of life we have in Christ.

          Hebrews 10:38 is the third and final place of the New Testament that contains a citation of Habakkuk 2:4. While the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is unknown, the text bears mentioning here because it addresses the enduring nature of faith. The context of Hebrews 10 is not justification before God, but persevering in doing the will of God. Hebrews 10 stresses the continuity that exists between one's profession of faith and faith outwardly being lived out. There is also a contrast in verse 38 between two types of people. The people whom God considers as righteous are those who long for the fulfillment of His eternal promises, which as of yet cannot be seen. They endure persecution and so secure for themselves an inheritance that cannot perish. The anonymous author in the next chapter proceeds to give examples of such people from the Old Testament who rejected worldly comfort and pleasure in favor of eternal blessings. Their focus was on the future, not there and then. All of the faithful will be richly rewarded by God in the life to come. The person who succumbs to persecution is regarded as one in whom He "takes no pleasure." He is not invested in such people or showcasing divine favor to them. That course of action is called apostasy, of which is clearly frowned upon.

          Some translations of the Bible use the word "faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 (New King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.), while others have "faithfulness" (Young's Literal Translation, New English Translation, etc.). Either choice of wording is acceptable in this context. The Hebrew word "emunah," used in this verse, can be translated as "faith," "faithfulness," "steadfastness," or "trustworthiness," capturing both an inward belief and outward demonstration. The LXX Septuagint translation says, "the just shall live by my faith," as if God's faithfulness is in view. However, that reading of the text is not taken into consideration here. A man who has faith is one who trusts in God. Such a man's character is honorable and reliable. His ways are morally upright. Those who have faith in God will also believe His promises. They are loyal to His covenant. The Apostle Paul would have derived his understanding of faith from the Hebrew Scriptures. By rooting our understanding in that same source, we can gain a fuller appreciation of this profound interplay between belief, action, and divine reliability. David W. Kerr, in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 876, writes concerning the nature of faith and faithfulness:

          "...In most places in the OT where it [faith] is used it has the second meaning [faithfulness rather than faith], for example, in II Kgs 12:15; Jer 5:1. It is, however, worth noticing that the root of this word [Hebrew emunah] has already been used in Hab 1:5 in the sense of giving credence to God's word or promise. Moreover, faithfulness, even as an aspect of a man's character, does not occur in the void. Faithfulness must be exercised in relation to someone or something. In this case the individual is to be faithful to God, to God's word and covenant. He must rely firmly upon, or have a deep-rooted trust in God himself. The NT use is in complete agreement with this."

          What makes Habakkuk 2:4 remarkable is that emunah is not a common word in prophetic literature, and when it does appear elsewhere in the Old Testament it often describes reliability in very practical, even mundane contexts, such as trustworthy dealings or steadfast conduct in society. By using it here, Habakkuk elevates the term into a theological principle: covenant loyalty expressed through unwavering trust in God’s promises despite overwhelming evidence of chaos. This shift from everyday “dependability” to a profound spiritual posture explains why Paul could see in the verse a foundation for righteousness by faith. The prophet’s choice of wording thus bridges ordinary human reliability with ultimate reliance on divine sovereignty, making the text uniquely suited to bear the weight of Paul’s doctrine of justification. The same author cited before reflects on Paul's usage of Habakkuk 2:4 and his spiritualization of the concept of life:

          "...Paul, in comparison with Habakkuk, enlarges infinitely the scope of the word "live," for he applies it to life to come, to the sphere of salvation or eternal well-being in distinction from merely temporal well-being. That the apostle is justified in doing so will readily be granted by Christians, since the NT writers employ many forms and figures of the OT with a fullness of meaning far transcending that which they had for believers under the older dispensation. Finally, the antithesis between the principle of active faith and that of meritorious law-works as a means of salvation is, of course, a part of the apostle's own argument. It is a logical development from the nature of faith itself."

          The beauty of Habakkuk’s use of emunah lies in its invitation to see faith not as a fleeting emotion, but as a steady posture of the soul. It is the quiet strength that holds fast when circumstances appear to contradict God’s promises. Faithfulness here is not simply about outward obedience, but about an inner resolve to trust that God’s purposes are unfolding even when they remain hidden from view. This is why Paul could so naturally draw upon Habakkuk’s words: the prophet’s call to live by faith in the midst of uncertainty mirrors the believer’s call to cling to Christ in the face of suffering and the seeming silence of God. In both settings, faith becomes the bridge between human frailty and divine reliability, a way of living that rests not on clarity but on confidence in God’s character.

           The Babylonian Talmud has a passage which says that God gave to the Israelites through Moses six hundred and thirteen commandments (tractate Makkot 23b-24a). It is said David reduced that number to fifteen (Psalm 15). Isaiah is said to have further reduced the number of commandments to six (Isaiah 33:15), Micah to three (Micah 6:8), Isaiah again to two (Isaiah 56:1), and Amos to one (Amos 5:4). In contrast to the idea of justification by works of the Law, Habakkuk places emphasis chiefly on faith in God. Walter Roehrs, in the Concordia Self-Study Commentary, Old Testament, p. 639, wrote regarding the nature of faith as conceptualized by both the Prophet Habakkuk and the Apostle Paul:

          "The word faith occurs only once in Habakkuk (2:4); but his whole prophecy is a word of faith, faith agonized, questioning, seeking, finding repose in God, and jubilant, finally, in the assurance of God’s love, and all this in the face of the obstacle to faith posed by God’s scandalously mysterious governance of history. When Paul quotes 2:4 in his thematic statement of justification by faith in Ro 1:17, it is only fair to assume that he is quoting with a consciousness of this original context of faith in Habakkuk. For Paul, as for Habakkuk, faith is confronted by an action of God which is offensively enigmatic, namely, the weakness and foolishness of the Cross; for both Paul and Habakkuk faith is faith without works, for both it is “quietly waiting” for God to do His saving work. For both, faith is not one aspect of man’s existence before God but the whole of his relationship to Him."

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66

Is Isaiah 66 proof that the weekly Sabbath will be observed after Jesus returns, and does this establish Christian doctrine for today? Or is building doctrine from prophecy a bad idea?

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", we looked at a very popular Sabbatarian claim that God created the weekly Sabbath on day seven of creation week and bound all mankind to it forever. That claim almost always comes paired with another. If they don't appear together, then you can be assured someone will be by shortly to deliver the other:

"There is a Sabbath in Isaiah 66. If we see it in prophecy, then it is perpetual and so we are bound to it today."

Of the several challenges for Sabbatarianism, one of the biggest is the fact that the weekly Sabbath is never commanded in the New Covenant (if it were, we wouldn't need claims like these). And so the thinking is, a weekly Sabbath that exists in prophecy is like having a Sabbath command.

There are two major issues we will run into here.
The first is one of shifting standards. Sabbatarian doctrine is frequently built on establishing a standard but only long enough to get what it wants. After that, the standard is quickly abandoned. (As Bereans Did has several articles which demonstrate this.) Watch for that today.
Also, watch how prophecy is front-loaded with assumptions. The entire case today depends on one particular interpretation of prophecy. No other interpretations are allowed. But if the interpretation of prophecy is wrong, this entire claim is wrong.

A HIDDEN COMMAND

(ISA. 66: 23) ...from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the Lord.

There's the word we were looking for - Sabbath. Now we load it up with our interpretations and assumptions, then we are ready to insert our claim: "If we see something in prophecy, then it is perpetual and valid for today." Everybody Sabbath! And so we see articles and sermons and memes without end using Isaiah 66:23 to support Sabbath-keeping, alongside others like Ezekiel 46:3.

In Genesis, we had to prove if the weekly Sabbath is there at all. It is not. Things are different here. Here, Sabbath is right in your face. It's even translated correctly. No need to dive into Hebrew or Greek today.

Isaiah talks about more than just the Sabbath. These words were said to me quite recently, "Isa 66 is a prophecy of the second coming. He saw in vision God destroying those eating foods that God has called an abomination, including swine and mouse [v17]. Unless Isaiah prophesied falsely, these foods are still an abomination."

So, it's not just the Sabbath. 

Apparently, through prophecy, clear New Testament statements about foods, like Mark 7: 19, can be overridden. And prior commitments to "ceremonial law" being removed can be partially overridden (meats were ceremonially unclean).
Prophecy fills in when you don't have something you want in the New Covenant, and it takes over when you have something you don't want in the New Covenant.
Impressive.

We should expect to see something this powerful discussed throughout church history.

A NEW COMMAND

Where does this "prophecy is a command for today" idea come from? Not from the Bible. God never made this claim. Even the Prophets who gave the prophecies in the first place never made this claim. So, where does the idea come from?

Try as I might, I cannot find anything in history to show this is an older claim. Plenty of people through the centuries have discussed Isaiah 66 and what it means (we will see one later), but they did not come to a conclusion like the one we are looking for. It genuinely appears to have been first articulated in the 1800s, and most likely from ... Sabbatarians.

Earlier Sabbatarians were aware of prophecies, but they were mainly concerned with what they believed was returning to a basic Christianity (as opposed to Catholicism). Seventh Day Baptists used prophecies like Isaiah 66 to claim the Sabbath is perpetual, but these were supporting proof-texts at best. Early SDA pioneers merged their prophecy-focused Adventism with Sabbatarian themes. Ellen G. White refined the use of Sabbath prophecies from a supporting proof text to a clear present obligation, and popularized the idea in her writings.

Now that we know how we got to where we are, we need to ask - if it isn't Biblical and it isn't an older tradition, and if we don't accept Ellen White as a prophet, then why should we accept this claim to begin with? Because it's undeniably true, or because it gets us what we want?

Now let's look at the problems that accepting the claim has caused.

NEW MOONS, LEVITES, AND CEREMONIAL LAW

I purposefully left part of Isaiah 66:23 out. 

(ISA. 66:23) From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath...

"New moon to new moon"?

It's the same in Ezekiel:

(EZE. 46: 3) The people of the land shall bow down at the entrance of that gate before the Lord on the Sabbaths and on the new moons.

Any Sabbatarians out there observing new moons? Some are! But that's a small fraction of a minority who do. Most Sabbatarians are fully aware of new moons but disregard them as required observances.

Can we get Sabbaths without new moons, though? Not in prophecy. It's a package deal.
How can it be that prophecy is the way to know Sabbaths are a perpetual requirement, but the same prophecy does not do the same thing for new moons? How is prophecy the next best thing to a law where Sabbaths and meats (ie. ceremonial law) are concerned, but nothing of the sort for other less desirable things?

Now let's read a couple verses up.

(ISA. 66: 20-21) 20 And they shall bring all your brothers [diaspora Jews] from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.

Here is my response to the person I mentioned earlier, the one trying to convince me Isaiah proves meats laws are still in effect: "And unless Isaiah prophesied falsely, it is mandatory to go to Jerusalem every new moon and sabbath to make offerings with a Levite priest. The ceremonial law is still in effect."

The standard is one thing for Sabbaths and meats, but another thing for new moons, Levites, a Temple, and other points.

This talk about Levites and offerings isn't lost on Sabbatarians.

"The reinstitution of the Levitical priesthood and temple in Jerusalem by Christ will revive the sacrificial system."
-"Should Christians Observe the New Moons?", Worldwide Church of God, Feb. 2002, p.10.

Notice the timing there. Sabbath now, Levites not now.

The insistence upon reading prophecies literally leads to all sorts of doctrinal incoherence. Why on earth would Jesus reinstitute the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices (which includes animals) at all when it runs contrary to His own priesthood and His own sacrifice? Answer: He has to because we have committed to a literal interpretation of prophecy and we can't back away now.

A PROPHECY THAT MISREAD COULD HAVE BEEN

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: prophetic interpretation is inherently speculative. I've been preaching that since I was still an Armstrongist. In all this talk about the Sabbath, has anyone considered that we are balancing a near-salvation-level doctrine on a speculative reading of prophecy? We are reviewing one of its most popular proof texts.
This tension between literal and figurative, and the impossible task of proving one over the other prior to the fulfillment, is why I say it is a terrible idea to base doctrine on prophetic interpretation.

Which of these makes more sense:

A) Prophecy must be read literally, so in the immediate future there will be a Levitical priesthood and a Temple and new moons and chariots and ceremonial law, and the entire world will go to Jerusalem every week,
-or-
B) Perhaps we shouldn't read prophecy so literally, because these words could be using ideas the Jews of that time could grasp but really they mean things no human alive at that time could grasp?

I'm going with B.

It's not so far fetched. Do you genuinely expect that in the near future the world will be riding chariots and litters and mules to carry Jews to Jerusalem? Chariots went out of favor 1,500 years ago. Short of robbing a museum, I have no idea where you could even get one. Or!
Could these words picture something else? Is it not said that the locusts of Revelation 9 are really helicopters (or something similar)? Just think of all the images in prophecy which literally are one thing but mean something completely different. The sea is humanity or chaos, stars are angels or saints, beasts are empires, horns are power, oil is the spirit of God, etc etc. When Daniel had his visions, an angel was sent to explain what it meant. When John had his visions, he asked the angel what they meant. Jesus spoke in parables, and the Apostles asked what they meant. When I propose ancient words picture modern realities, it's not outrageous. This is an idea I got from Herbert Armstrong, who in turn got it from Adventists.

With that in mind, Tertullian has an interesting take which we should not ignore. This is from Tertullian's work "Adversus Judaeos" (Answer to the Jews), which was written in about 198-206:

"Whence we [Christians] understand that we still more ought to observe a sabbath from all “servile work” always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what sabbath God willed us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a sabbath eternal and a sabbath temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, “Your sabbaths my soul hateth;” and in another place he says, “My sabbaths ye have profaned.” Whence we discern that the temporal sabbath is human, and the eternal sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: “And there shall be,” He says, “month after month, and day after day, and sabbath after sabbath; and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord;” which we understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when “all flesh”—that is, every nation—“came to adore in Jerusalem” God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was predicted through the prophet: “Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee.” Thus, therefore, before this temporal sabbath, there was withal an eternal sabbath foreshown and foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision foreshown."
-Tertullian, "Answer to the Jews", chapter IV, on CCEL.

Tertullian argued Isaiah was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and reads Isaiah's "new moons and sabbaths" as "month after month, and day after day". It is fair to treat these phrases this way and some translators do. Do you recall in the post "The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28" how we discussed the plural of Sabbath actually means weeks? The idea of new moons and sabbaths in prophecy might just be another way of saying month after month and week after week and day after day. Or, in other words, always.
Why is this important? Because if Tertullian is right, then Isaiah heads straight in the direction of the New Covenant Sabbath as a perpetual rest in Jesus Christ.

To put it another way, Isaiah could be supporting the Sabbath in Christ.

I am absolutely certain every Sabbatarian will balk at this. But accept it or reject it, either way it's based on preference. Short of having an angel come and tell you exactly what it means, all prophetic interpretation is inherently speculative.
But if we reject figurative interpretations in favor of literal, then we return to a requirement to observe new moons with a Levitical Priesthood ...and trying to back out of that requirement.

ESCAPING ARMSTRONGISM

Armstrongism has always considered new moons for their calendar. For example, see the article by Kenneth Hermann, "Prove God's Calendar Correct" Good News Magazine volume VI, number 10, October 1957. The author goes into great detail about the minutiae of how the moon works for establishing lunisolar calendars. It's not that they aren't familiar with new moons. But when it considered whether or not to observe new moons, the Worldwide Church of God said no.

"It might be noted here that the new moons are often mentioned in association with festival celebrations in the Old Testament. During the lengthy centuries when the calendar was determined by observation of the new crescent, witnesses had to report to the proper authorities and the new month could officially be declared. The day of the new moon was, consequently, very important. Therefore, the new moons were always given a certain special regard. 
On the other hand, new moons are never designated holy days. They are not included in any of the lists of festivals. No special sanctity is ever attached to them. The only extraordinary regard accorded them was that certain special offerings were carried out on their days, But this did not in any way hallow them, since offerings were offered every secular day as well. They also lost something of their former special function when the calendar became determined solely by calculation in the early centuries A.D. "
-"Systematic Theology", Worldwide Church of God, 1978, p.8.

And they kept saying no. Earlier in this post I quoted a WCG Doctrinal Paper titled "Should Christians Observe the New Moons?". In that Doctrinal Paper, the WCG reiterated what we just read in the Systematic Theology.

What happened to treating prophecy like the command we never had? What happened to the prophecy providing what was missing?

But get this, from page 9 of the Doctrinal Paper:

"But there is no indication that these special days [new moons] are commanded of Christians today who worship God without a physical temple or Levitical priesthood."
Do you realize what they just said? Put in other words, they just said, "Just because we see something in prophecy does not make it binding on us today."
Why, I'll be! They made the same argument that I am making!
...but only when it comes to new moons, the Levitical priesthood, and most ceremonial laws.

Perhaps you are a Sabbatarian but not from Armstrongism and you feel this section doesn't apply to you. This blog focuses primarily on Armstrongism, so that is what I quote here. These may not be your church's words, but if you are not celebrating new moons and participating in the other things we've seen in prophecy, then your church is likely making similar claims as we've seen here.

Please read this next part slowly and carefully. This is the heart of everything I've written here.

They dismiss new moons because there is no command for Christians to observe them today. But why are we appealing to Isaiah 66 for the weekly Sabbath in the first place? Because there is no command for Christians to observe it today. Same condition, different result.
Did I not say at the start of this post that if the Sabbath were commanded in the New Covenant then we wouldn't need claims like this one? Yes.
They use a prophecy when it seems to support their existing doctrine, they dismiss the very same prophecy when it doesn't support their existing doctrine. When Isaiah 66 appears to support meats laws, the prophecy is more important than clear New Testament statements. But when the same prophecy points toward new moons, a Levitical priesthood, etc, then New Testament statements suddenly become more important than the prophecy.

One standard here, another there.
A literal view of prophecy here, a metaphorical one there.

CONCLUSION

Which is true: “If we see it in prophecy, we are bound to it today,” or “we are not bound today to what we see in prophecy”? Sabbatarians use both claims, depending on what they are trying to prove.

There are two problems here.
The first is interpretation. How are these prophecies really meant to be understood? Literally? Figuratively? Fulfilled already? Still future? Everyone insists their reading is obvious while disagreeing with each other constantly.
The second problem is standards. The same prophecy used to restore Sabbath-keeping and meats laws is quietly abandoned when it points toward new moons, sacrifices, and Levitical priesthood. One standard here, another there.

If it were truly a binding claim, it would be consistently applied, and it would not inherently rely on a speculative interpretation of prophecy. It stands or falls on one view of prophecy, which no human can prove. So no, this is not the solid claim it is presented to be.
A shifting standard founded on a best guess. And that is one of the prime proof texts for Sabbatarianism.

I leave you with this advice - building doctrine on prophetic interpretation is a bad idea.



We have several other articles on the Sabbath to help you on your way. I particularly recommend "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4" and "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2". And don't forget to check out our Categories Page as well.



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

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

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

Tuesday, May 5, 2026

The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2

Was the weekly Sabbath instituted as a binding ordinance for all mankind in Genesis 2? I believed that myself for years. But the text doesn’t actually say that.

One of the most common claims of Sabbatarianism is that by resting on the seventh day of creation week and blessing that day, God instituted and commanded the weekly Sabbath for all mankind. I am currently reading a book published in 1724 that makes this claim. The thinking is, if the Sabbath was created before Sinai then it is outside of the Covenants. It also creates a new version of history where mankind observed a weekly Sabbath for a while, but it was later lost and then reinstituted in Exodus 16.

This may come as a shock, but I disagree.

I've already gone over this topic in a more general way in the post "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4". That post skimmed many ideas beyond Hebrews 4. Today's post will be more specific. This time, I want to focus on Genesis 2:2-3.

Let's start by learning a little Hebrew.

SHABATH vs SHABBAT

In Genesis, the seventh day of creation is not called a Sabbath, but at a glance it might look like it is.

Genesis 2: 2 uses the Hebrew word shabath (שָׁבַת). Some see shabath and conclude it means a Sabbath day, but shabath does not mean Sabbath day. We have two different kinds of words being confused. Closely related, but not the same.

Let's look at these two words and see a few things, starting with shabath.

shabath (שָׁבַת) verb, to cease

Shabath is a verb. It describes stopping, ceasing, desisting an action. Contrary to what you might think, the heart of the word is not "to rest", but rest can be implied depending on context. I will emphasize “to cease” because it helps bring out an important idea that might be easy to miss.

Side note: When you look in Strong's you will see shabath, but when you look in interlinear Bibles you will see wayyišbōṯ (וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙) instead. What's up with that? The reason is, they are the same basic word. Shabath is the root form. Using roots makes things simpler for Strong's (and me) rather than listing and defining every possible conjugation of every word. And wayyišbōṯ is shabath after it has been conjugated quite a bit. Shabath is "to cease" and wayyišbōṯ is "and He ceased". Same word, different form.
Lesson: use more tools than just Strong's in your word studies.
Moving on.

Here is a critical idea for today:
In Genesis 2:2, the one who ceases is God, and the specific action God ceases from is creating. 

Why is this critical? Because only God was creating, and only God could cease from this work. Only God can shabath here, hence how it was conjugated to "and He ceased", not "they". There is nothing here for Adam to cease from. This cessation was not general, it was quite specific - "He rested [ceased / shabath] from all His work which God had created and made". This pattern repeats in the next verse. This is all about what God did, and no one besides. God's acting alone and God's intentionality in creating is absolutely critical to understanding the Judao-Christian creation narrative versus any other. And nothing in the narrative suggests it was ever repeated, let alone weekly.

Do you see how expanding this shabath to all mankind not only has no foundation in the language used, but it does damage to the creation narrative and God's unique role in it? This is why I am emphasizing "cease" over "rest". It's too easy to see rest and think God and Adam rested. It's not so easy to see cease and think God and Adam ceased from creating.

Notice another important point:
Genesis 2:2 says God finished (kâlâh) His work and that He ceased (shabathHis work. 

Why is that important? If Genesis only said kâlâh (finished), you would know creation was complete, but you would not see that God purposefully ceased from it (as if to say He kept tweaking it, or did more to it later on). If it only said shabath (cease), you would know God purposefully ceased from work, but not necessarily that the creation was complete (as if to say He stopped early or was interrupted). The two are complementary, not redundant. Put everything together and you get a purposeful end to creation when it was fully ready to be ended. He ceased when it was time to cease.
Every word here is purposeful and careful. Nothing is assumed. Nothing is implied. There is a completeness here. There is a perfection here.

I ask myself, would the author of Genesis take such care to be this specific only to leave out huge ideas like a command for all mankind to cease from their own work repeatedly every week for the rest of time? Remember, Sabbatarians aren't just saying it's a good idea, they are claiming it's a requirement. Most claim we are not saved by it, but we cannot be saved without it. This is salvation-level importance, and we are reviewing one of its most popular proof texts. An idea this big, this foundational, should be in-your-face blatant. But where is it? Nowhere in Genesis 2.

And if it is a Sabbath, then why isn't the word Sabbath (shabbat) used here?

shabbat (שַׁבָּת) noun, Sabbath

The word shabbat is a noun, not an action word. It is a designated day where the main characteristic was ceasing from normal work. Shabbat (שַׁבָּת) is a day for Israel to shabath (שָׁבַת) from normal duties. Creation was certainly not normal duties.

The word shabbat is not in Genesis 2. The word shabbat is not in Genesis at all. If a Sabbath day were intended here, it is not unreasonable to expect it to be written. It is not.
Perhaps I can understand why recorded history outside the Bible would have been lost, but for the Bible itself to be so silent about it that the very word is not used until sixteen chapters into Exodus is telling. I will not hang my hat on an argument from silence, but I think in this case we cannot ignore the silence either. If the weekly Sabbath idea is not there, then silence is expected.

Now that we've talked about the language used, let's talk about the central idea.

BLESSED AND HALLOWED

In Genesis 2: 3, God blesses and hallows the seventh day of creation. Sabbatarians claim this is the part that implies the creation of a weekly Sabbath. I admit, for most of my life I believed this. The Sabbatarian position was the only one that made sense to me. Why would God bless and hallow a single day only to move on and leave that behind. It seemed like a waste. I was thinking in the wrong direction - towards the future.

Let's consider this from another direction - in the context of creation, where it appears. Not with verses from other chapters, but from this chapter. Not with words and ideas that aren't there, but with words and ideas that are there. Not forward to thousands of years in the future, but back to all that had happened that week. Not where Adam rests from work he didn't have in paradise, or from sin he hadn't fallen to yet, or where he keeps an appointment with a God who was ever-present, but for God's final act in ceasing and blessing His own work of creation.

This is the last verse of the creation narrative, before it strongly shifts focus onto Adam and Eve and the buildup to their fall (some scholars even say verse 4 starts a second, separate creation narrative). Verse 3 is still about God and what He did.
Creation was finished, God ceased from creating, and He blessed that time as a time to be refreshed by and to delight in what He had made. He was present in it. He saw that it was good. This blessing is the very last piece that completes and seals the creation act.
He didn't just create it then run off, He stayed and enjoyed all that He had made.

Sabbatarians will want to continue on, "Yes, but then Adam..."
No. There is no "but then" or Adam in this verse. It isn't written. It isn't the point. I am not saying Adam is utterly absent here. But this is about who God is, not Adam.
God is the One who creates ex nihilo, purposefully not by accident, as a blessing not a curse, and He received a personal blessing from what He made. We cannot completely remove mankind from the creation act because we are part of it, ultimately it was for us, and God was refreshed by all that He had made which includes Adam - Adam is part of what God ceased from and was refreshed by - but the star of this section is God. He is the only one who creates or ceases from creating. We are still talking about the creation act here.

The reason Sabbatarians turn the spotlight onto mankind is because of an attempt to force a predetermined conclusion into the narrative. The assumption comes first, then the reading, and then the reading is used to justify the assumption. It's circular. And it detracts.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

Something else never sat right with me. Why would God create Adam then immediately tell him to take a day off?

God: "Adam! Welcome to Earth. I just finished a lot of work and the sun is going down, so why don't you take tomorrow off." Adam: "Great! Uhhh... What's a 'tomorrow'?"

Adam was created mere hours before the seventh day began. He had no sin, no toil, no exhaustion -nothing to cease from. He had a big day planned of reaching out to grab food, and wondering what things are called. He lived in the Garden of Eden, God’s own earthly dwelling place, walking with Him in unbroken fellowship every single day. Nothing separated Adam from God (not even clothes). In that perfect setting, every moment was like a Sabbath.

A mandatory weekly Sabbath in Eden feels like a solution in search of a problem that didn’t exist yet. The entire experience of Eden was already sabbath-like. Why insert a special day to “do what you’re doing now, only a little less”? It would have been rather pointless.

HAVES AND HAVE NOTS

Let's go over once again what we do and do not have in front of us.

What we have:
  • God finishing His work (kālāh)
  • God ceasing from His finished work (shābat/wayyišbōṯ)
  • God as the only one acting or ceasing from acting
  • A very specific action being ceased from - creating
  • God blessing a day and personally being refreshed in it by what He had made
  • A completed creation account
  • A clear focus on what God did
  • An illustration of who God is (the Creator and source of existence)
What we do NOT have:
  • Any mention of an action by Adam
  • Any mention of Adam ceasing an action
  • Any command for anyone
  • Any indication of a weekly cycle being established
  • Any mention that all seventh days were blessed
  • Any mention of the word shabbat (Sabbath) itself
  • Any connection to ordinary human work, or sin, or an appointment with God
  • Any indication that the blessing is meant as a pattern for all mankind
  • Any clear focus on man
  • Any hint of going to church
  • Any hint of annual sabbaths
Notice, no weekly Sabbath language or command exists here in Genesis 2:2-3.
Now, let's look at the imagery.

THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY

I am certain someone will have a hard time with this because the weekly Sabbath and the creation narrative are obviously related. I fully agree they are!

Exodus does look back at Genesis for imagery. But that does not mean Exodus forces Genesis to secretly create a repeating event that later gets lost and then reinstituted in Exodus. It simply does not follow.
Some even say Genesis anticipates Exodus. That is reasonable. God is fully capable of knowing how mankind could fall and planning how He would respond. But that does not force His hand. Jesus was “crucified from the foundation of the world,” yet He does not die in Genesis 3.

Even if we accept these forward- and backward-looking connections (I personally do), the claim that “God created the Sabbath day in Genesis and commanded it for all mankind” still goes beyond what the text can support. Borrowing themes does not make them the same thing.

Many have noticed these bi-directional thematic connections over time, but not a binding ordinance for all mankind.

Search the Jewish and Samaritan commentaries and extra-biblical writings. You will find connections between creation and the Sabbath, and even angels keeping it in heaven. But the clear, repeated emphasis is that the commanded weekly Sabbath was a special sign for Israel alone, not a universal requirement given to all mankind. And we can't blame this on the Jews not understanding the Sabbath because they didn't observe it.

Search the early Christian writings. You will find all sorts of discussion on the seventh day of creation - its symbolism, patterns, its future fulfillment, and even references to an “eighth day.” But in all their analysis - literal, mystical, polemical, or otherwise - there is no mention of a binding weekly Sabbath for all mankind hidden in creation week.

I am not appealing to authority or silence. It's a simple observation. If a weekly Sabbath were really in Genesis 2, it is reasonable to expect to see this claim repeated plainly and often throughout history. We should see at least a couple people saying it. But we do not. It's so important that it didn't make it into the text or the commentary. That tells us something about where this idea comes from and why.

This strong claim does not appear until after the Reformation, more than a thousand years after Christ and several thousand years after Genesis. Even then, it doesn't appear fully formed. It takes several years to develop. Which group seems to have developed it? Sabbatarians. And that raises a fair question - did they fit their ideas to what they read in Genesis 2, or do they read Genesis 2 to fit their ideas?

CONCLUSION

Is the weekly seventh-day Sabbath in Genesis 2? Only if you bring it in with you. The text does not give it. It is not stated, not implied, and not hinted at in any straightforward reading of the passage. It has to be imported.

What do we actually see? God.
God the Creator and source of existence purposefully ceasing from His creative activity when all was ready, and then blessing the seventh day as the final act to seal what He had done, and then He was refreshed in what He had made. I emphasized shabath as "to cease" to illustrate that this was all about God.
What we do not see? Man.
Any work for man, any ceasing of work for man, any command for mankind, or any statement about repetition.

When that absence of evidence is compared with how important this claim is said to be, the silence is hard to ignore. And when we consider this claim appears to have been developed by Sabbatarians after the Reformation, the silence becomes deafening. It isn't that the passage is unclear. It's exactingly clear. It is that the conclusion being drawn goes well beyond what the passage actually says. It is the attempt to cram the Sabbath in there which makes it seem unclear.

I no longer believe God ceasing from His own work in Genesis 2 also establishes a weekly Sabbath command for all mankind. I genuinely do not see any compelling reason to agree. I accepted it because I needed it as a Sabbatarian, not because I couldn't avoid it in the text. That is the very definition of eisegesis: "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

If you are wondering how Deuteronomy 5: 15 or Exodus 20: 11 fit in, I address those in my post "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4".



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

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

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

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII

A critical look at using the claim, "If Jesus and the Apostles did it then we must do it too," as a justification for requiring Christians to attend church on Saturday.

In my last post in this series, "Common Legalist Arguments Part VII", we saw many "back doors" legalists use to break into the abrogated Old Covenant. We explored the idea that the law applied to Israel, and since we are Spiritual Israel the law applies to us. We saw two Israels are being confused and two Covenants are being combined. This cannot be!

This time, I would like to explore a very common argument that people resort to when all else fails -- just claim we all need to be Jewish.

ARGUMENT #8
"If Jesus and the Apostles did it then we must do it too."


At first, this sounds like a fantastic idea. What could possibly be wrong about doing what Jesus and the Apostles did? Isn't that the definition of discipleship? Let's get some context. Let's see how this argument is being used.

An associate at In Him Ministries recently posted onto social media an excellent article about the Sabbath in the New Covenant. The main idea was the Old Covenant with its terms (laws) is gone, and the New Covenant with its terms has come. Short, simple, and agrees with what we write here.
I took a few moments to read the comments, as is my tradition. One person asked if the readers could find any direct command in the Bible to go to church on Saturday. No one could, because there is no such command in the Bible. The fourth Commandment says nothing about going to church. Since their entire identity depends on this one thing, the Sabbatarians all headed in the same direction: they ignored their usual requirement that everything must be commanded in law and instead appealed to the tradition of Jesus and the Apostles. One person said, simply, "Jesus and apostolic precedent!"

You might be thinking, "I still don't see the problem."
Let's get something perfectly clear - this isn't about true discipleship and following Jesus' examples of faith, love, self sacrifice, mercy, justice, etc etc, it's about justifying Sabbatarianism, for which there is no law. This is not about the spirit of the law or even the letter of the law, it's about workarounds.

Allow me to put this argument into other words so we can more clearly see what's really going on:
"There was no law about going to church. But since Jesus and the Apostles lived like Pharisaical Jews, we all must live like Pharisaical Jews, too. Everybody Shabbat!"

Pharisaical Jews?? Yes. Come along and see.

OLD COVENANT JEWS

We must ask ourselves, why did Jesus and the Apostles do what they did? Answer: because they were literally Old Covenant Jews.

We cannot simply ignore this fact. They were working-class Jews in Israel, born under the Old Covenant, during the Second Temple Period, while the Temple yet stood. This was their lifestyle. This was their culture. This is why they did what they did. Are we all to be first century Jews now? (Be careful here! Say 'no' and this argument falls apart, but say 'yes' and your church falls apart.)

Most common legalist arguments are attempts to get back to the Old Covenant law, but that would be pointless here since today's common legalist argument only exists in the first place because there was no "go to church on Saturday" law to get back to.
This common argument is a disguised demand that we must all become ancient Jews.

But if this were really so important, wouldn't you suppose it would be applied across the board? The "we must do what Jesus did" claim is being applied in a completely inconsistent way.

How is it inconsistent? Consider, except for the 40 days between Jesus' death and resurrection, His entire ministry on earth was during the Old Covenant period. That Covenant ended when He died and not before. People tend to forget the Old Covenant is in the New Testament. That means when we read the Gospels we are seeing Jesus and the Apostles living under all 613 Old Covenant laws. All of them, not just the Sabbath.
This "Jesus and apostolic precedent" argument is only intended to get the Sabbath, but as it turns out it applies to everything else. We can't appeal only until we get what we want then back out. That is the inconsistency: it attempts to pick and choose what it wants then leaves the rest behind.

So, out of one side of the mouth there is an appeal, and out of the other a dismissal. It's a highly advanced stealth appeal! It flies undetected into the ancient land of Israel, grabs the Sabbath, and heads back out before the other 612 laws even know it was there.

This goes beyond laws. If following Jesus' and the Apostles' routine is so important (as opposed to, say, following His example of faith, love, mercy, justice...) then why don't people do what they actually did? Jesus and the Apostles:

  • Went to synagogue and listened to a Rabbi.
  • Argued with Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and lawyers.
  • Went to Temple.
  • Paid the Temple Tax.
  • Went to Jerusalem for the three pilgrimage holy days each year.
  • Observed "Jewish" traditions and holidays, like Hanukkah.
  • Preached daily, not just weekly.
  • Lived in what we would consider mud brick huts, wore sandals and likely a turban, and walked about Judea.
  • Faced persecution and death.
I could go on and on like this. Do Sabbatarians do any of these things? No.
The advanced stealth appeal flies undetected into ancient Israel, grabs a tradition or two, then heads back out before the rest of the culture even knows it was there.

Why must we go to church on Saturday when there is no such command? Forget the New Covenant because we've got Jesus and apostolic precedent!
Why don't we wear tassels on our garments? Forget Jesus and apostolic precedent because we've got the New Covenant!

In the end, it doesn't seem to matter what Jesus and the Apostles actually did. This lays bare the inadequacies of today's common argument. This claim is not really about following examples. It's about supporting a predetermined conclusion; coming up with a decent sounding alibi for basing an entire movement on going to church on Saturday without any law or truly compelling reason to do so. But that reduces this common argument to a preference rather than some binding imperative.

You want to go to church on Saturday? Go for it! But don't tell me how I'm a sinner because of your highly selective personal preference.

Now that we've shown what the argument is at heart, let's focus on the Sabbatarianism. We need to understand something about what Jesus was doing.

SYNAGOGUE  ≠ CHURCH

(For those who do not know, that  symbol means 'does not equal'.)

Ask any Sabbatarian how to do what Jesus did and most of the conversation will gravitate around going to church on Saturday, "Not like those sinful pagans who replaced the Sabbath with Sunday." But therein lies the rub. Jesus did not go to church; He went to synagogue,

Synagogue is not church. So, nobody follows Jesus' precedent by going to church. How much less, then, did Jesus go to a middle school auditorium to set up folding chairs and listen to a "Minister" drone on and on about his own importance in prophecy.

If this argument was really intended to do what it says on the surface, Sabbatarians would do what Jesus actually did and go to synagogue, listen to a Pharisee Rabbi, then get up and teach from Torah with no reference to the New Testament. The claim is, "We must do what Jesus and the Apostles did," right, not, "We must do something roughly analogous but not really what they did," right?

Again, the appeal is to nothing more than Jews being Jewish.
Four times, Acts uses the phrase "synagogue of the Jews" to distinguish. There is no "synagogue of the Christians". There is no New Covenant example of Gentile converts to Christianity taking up synagogue. If Gentiles were in synagogue then they were already there, for Judaism, but not for Christ. All of the accounts of going to synagogue after Jesus' death are in the book of Acts alone, and most involve Paul going there to preach Jesus to Jews, proselytes, and devout people already participating in Jewish synagogue traditions. Then, he would get kicked out (much like Jesus had been kicked out) and go elsewhere to preach to Gentiles who were not associated with Judaism.
So, must we do what Jesus and Paul did and go get kicked out of a synagogue? I don't recommend that.

In many ways, synagogue and church are similar. They are both houses of learning and worship. Early churches and liturgies were patterned after elements from synagogue. So, similar? Yes. Identical and interchangeable? Most certainly not. Early Christians exchanged synagogue for church for a reason, and modern Sabbatarians follow that for the same reason: we aren't Jews.

So, this argument appeals to Jews being Jewish, but only long enough to get Jewish Sabbath traditions. After that it rejects what it just appealed to, because we aren't Jews.

But think about this.
If we can exchange synagogue for church, then why not exchange Saturday for Sunday? That is the very heart of this common legalist argument, is it not? If there is no law to go to church on Saturday, and Jesus did not "go to church", and you're not going to do what Jesus actually did by going to synagogue because you go to church, then why not go to church on Sunday?
It's a valid question.

Trying to force a Jewish-specific practice into a universal Christian mandate is like trying to fit a square tradition into a round command. Historically and theologically, it just doesn’t work.

WHAT CHURCHES?

This introduces another contradiction. Most Sabbatarians will claim there were no churches in the first century. Whether strictly accurate or not, what an interesting thing to ponder!

When I was an Armstrongist, I sat through many a sermon claiming, "'Church' is translated from 'ekklesia' which just means 'the body of believers'. Jesus founded a church, not a building." And this is true! We have no evidence the very earliest Christians built basilicas or any such thing. As best we can tell, they gathered together where they could, read, prayed, sang, and had a meal. So, they did gather together regularly, but they didn't go to a church until some years later when they could no longer fit into houses.

Am I the only one who finds it odd to minimize church when attacking Sunday services, only to turn right around and emphasize church to support Saturday services?

Let's take this one step further.

DAYS OF THE WEEK

Some of the more clever type will recognize the issue here and exchange "go to church" for "worship". Jesus worshipped on Sabbath. This removes any confusion over "church". But!

Jesus prayed and taught daily - which means others were learning and worshipping daily (MAR. 14: 49). The Apostles met in the Temple and in Christian houses daily (ACT. 2: 46; 5: 42). There is no wrong day to preach and worship.

So, now we must specify that 'worship' refers to corporate worship. Jesus went to corporate worship on Sabbath. And He did. But!

Did you know Jews of Jesus’ time primarily gathered in synagogues on the Sabbath, but they also met on Mondays and Thursdays? It's true!

“The people assemble on Mondays and Thursdays to read the Torah and study, as is the custom.”
-Mishnah Megillah 4:1

The Mishnah was written after Jesus' time, but it was not inventing, it was preserving.

When we read about Jesus and the Apostles going to synagogue, many verses state it was on Sabbath. Other verses do not state when it was. Those instances could be on any of the three assembly days.

Why aren't we morally obligated to do the same? Now where are the demands that we have to do this because it's what Jesus and the Apostles did? Why isn't anyone out there saying, "We are not saved by going to church on Monday and Thursday, but we cannot be saved without it?" Why are there no Mondatarians or Thursdatarians?

So, if your standard is doing what they did, then stick to it. Except you don't!

Here's another fact for you - did you know most Christian churches have services on Saturday? Even a great number of Catholic churches have a Mass on Saturday. It's true! But that doesn't count, does it? One wonders why not? It's on Saturday.

Mainstream churches offer services on Saturday, but that doesn’t count. Jews went to synagogue on Monday and Thursday, but that doesn't count. Jesus and the Apostles worshipped and taught daily, but that doesn't count. Verses like ACT 20: 7 and I COR 16: 2 strongly suggest Christians gathering on Sunday, but that doesn't count. Extra-biblical literature like the Didache, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Barnabas all tell us the main day for corporate worship was on Sunday, but that doesn't count. Early literature like Eusebius, Sozomen, and Socrates Scholasticus tell us many Jewish converts who kept a Sabbath also went to church on Sunday, but that doesn't count. In fact, there is no extant Christian source from the first three centuries that clearly describes Saturday-only corporate worship, but that doesn't count. To put it even more bluntly - nowhere in or out of the Bible is Saturday commanded or demonstrated as the exclusive day of Christian corporate worship.

So, what does count?

The pattern is clear. Today's common legalist argument is not built from the law or from what Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Christians were doing, but from selectively editing that out.

When you look at it this way, it makes this common legalist argument seem rather opportunistic.

But somehow it manages to get even more contradictory.

TRADITIONS OF MEN

At the opening of this post, I said, "But since Jesus and the Apostles lived like Pharisaical Jews, we all must live like Pharisaical Jews, too". I bet that "Pharisaical" part turned some people off. Then, why did I say it? Because there is a deeper layer to this appeal than just Jews being Jewish.

Did you notice there is no command or example anywhere in the Bible to go to Temple only on Sabbath? Did you notice there is no command in the Bible to go to synagogue at all? Did you notice synagogues are not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, not even once? That's because they are a more recent addition. Whose addition? The Jews!

Do a study on the history of synagogues. They appear to have started during the Babylonian captivity, but no one knows exactly when or where or by whom. The Temple was destroyed, the Levitical Priesthood was crushed, and the people were dispersed in a foreign land far away from Jerusalem. So, they did what they thought was necessary to keep their culture alive - they created little local places of worship and Torah study. Much later, when the Israelites were allowed to return to Judaea and the Temple was rebuilt, the Temple priesthood became the domain of the Sadducees and the tradition of local synagogues became the domain of the Pharisees. That's why synagogues were Pharisaical and led by a Rabbi rather than a Priest, and that is why Jews do the same today. Modern Judaism is largely descended from the Pharisaical tradition.

So, when the common argument says, "Jesus and apostolic precedent," what it's really appealing to is Pharisaical precedent. Traditions of men!

This Sabbath vs Sunday debate is not rooted in His divine command but in Pharisaical practice. Sabbatarians, who insist that they reject the oral law, are now appealing to the very thing they reject. Sabbatarians who fervently insist God hates manmade traditions are basing their entire identity on Jesus keeping a manmade tradition. They say Jesus opposed the Pharisees' traditions and would never do such a thing, but here He is doing it and all they have depends on it. Odd, no? When did Pharisaical tradition become so important that we cannot be saved without it? If Jesus hated traditions of men, as Sabbatarians frequently and vehemently claim (especially around the holidays), then does Jesus hate going to church on Sabbath, too? It would be very difficult to get more contradictory than, "We cannot be saved unless we do what Jesus hated."

In Esther, the Jews create Purim for themselves. God is fine with this and records it in the Bible for all to see. Legalists reject it.
In Maccabees, the Jews create Hanukkah for themselves. God is fine with this and John records Jesus in the temple at Hanukkah, using the imagery of Hanukkah in reference to Himself as Messiah - He is the light and He is the sanctification in the very Temple which the leadership was defiling. Legalists reject it.
But Jesus keeps a Pharisaical synagogue tradition, as any Jew form His background would, and Legalists set that up as a condition of salvation.

Do you see? Not only is this entire common legalist argument nothing but layers and layers of contradictory rationalizations and cherry picking, but -- it is itself a tradition of men. Sabbatarians have taken the synagogue tradition of the Pharisees and turned it into a church tradition for themselves. All traditions of men.

In the end, we see a command is neither here nor there, laws are neither here nor there, traditions are neither here nor there, and history is neither here nor there. Seems this whole appeal to commandments and traditions is really nothing but situational ethics and convenience; an attempt to have it both ways.

CONCLUSION

Today, we looked at the claim "If Jesus and the Apostles did it, that means we must do it, too." It sounded great at first, but like all the rest, it comes apart when you dig in. We peeled back layers of conflicts and inconsistencies until we saw how this argument is really based on Jews being Jewish, who went to synagogue not church, because of a tradition of the Pharisees. We saw how there is no direct command or early example of exclusive Sabbath-only worship. The argument is not really about what Jesus and the Apostles did, but it uses them to rationalize a means to create a law where there is no law.

Sabbatarianism is not supported by the full historical and biblical witness, but by cherry-picking and excluding whatever does not fit. It is not a clear mandate, but an opinion.

I mean no offense to Jews in this post. Jews are supposed to be Jewish. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of Gentile Christians pretending to be Jewish while denying it.

You might come away from this post thinking I reject the very essence of discipleship and don't believe we should be like Jesus our Teacher. Ah, but I do believe we should be like Him! Only, I do not think He came to teach a class on first century Jewish culture. I don't think Sabbatarians believe He did either, or they would be more consistent about it.

One thing As Bereans Did has emphasized through the years is: Gentiles do not need to become Jews to be Christians, and Jews do not need to become Gentiles to be Christians. Instead, we encourage everyone to worship God constantly, pray ceaselessly, and live every moment as a reflection of Christ's spiritual message.

I argue for freedom in Christ. I believe the Bible argues for this as well. I know people who go to church on Saturday and Sunday. It's not the day but the faith that counts (and God knows the heart). What I am arguing against here is reformatting tradition into a command, stripping that freedom into an obligation, elevating it to a salvation-level issue, turning it into a tool to beat others with, and doing it for no better reason than off-the-cuff self justification.

----

If you are interested in more information about the history of synagogues, I recommend these three sources:

  • James C. VanderKam, "An Introduction to Early Judaism".
  • E.P. Sanders, "Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE".
  • Lee I. Levine, "The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years".


[Also see Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IVPart VPart VI, & Part VII]


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

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

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

Friday, April 10, 2026

It Literally Says Friday

When you encounter someone claiming that Jesus died on a Wednesday or Thursday, pay close attention to how Greek terms are being improperly redefined.

"There is not a verse, or a line, or a word anywhere in the New Testament that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday."
-H. A. Griesemer, "Crucifixion Day", The Religious Herald, April 13, 1922

I spent most of my life believing and preaching that the Friday crucifixion is a lie. I was convinced by what seemed like irrefutable evidence. No one from the Friday-Sunday camp seemed willing to explain their side to me. I concluded they didn't because they couldn't.
But are these claims, like the ones in the quote above, true? Is there nothing that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday? Did the people who were taught by the Apostles fumble the ball? Is Good Friday completely baseless?

Today, we are going to dig into the Bible and see for ourselves. Words have set meanings. That's why dictionaries were invented. We will see that the Greek tells us plainly what the English obscures.

WORD GAMES

We are going to look at the Greek words sabbaton and prosabbaton to see their proper definitions. It will become clear how they have been significantly altered to make way for a Wednesday or even Thursday crucifixion. I promise to do my best to make this complex information as simple as possible so everyone can understand it.


Sabbatōn σαββάτων "week" (MAT. 28:1)

This is the first of two different forms of sabbaton that we will look at. This one is plural, the other is singular. Same word, different form.

Let's look at the standard scholarly definition of sabbaton in the leading Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG):

  1. the seventh day of the week in Israel’s calendar, i.e., the Sabbath (often used in both singular and plural forms).
  2. by extension, a week (the period between two Sabbaths), again appearing in both singular and plural.

Proponents of a Wednesday crucifixion look at Matthew 28:1 and see that sabbaton is plural, then conclude there must have been two different kinds of sabbaths on two different days that week. Look through the definitions again and notice this possibility is not there. So, "there were two Sabbaths that week," is not a possible interpretation of Matthew 28: 1.
It's an interesting theory, it just cannot work, because it's based on defining the word sabbaton in an improper way.

Words are like containers, they contain thoughts and meanings. This word does not contain that meaning. The idea of two different kinds of sabbaths isn't coming from that container, it's being crammed into a container that cannot hold it. Should anyone translate it that way, then? No. But they do anyway.

So, how should it be translated? "Week".

This corresponds to definition #2 above, "the period between two Sabbaths." The plural sabbaton here is an idiom. It means "week" by referring to the time between two Sabbaths. That's weekly Sabbaths, specifically. A week is not defined as the time between two annual sabbaths or a combination of weekly and annual sabbaths.
In fact, every time you see the word "week" in the New Testament, it is translated from this form of sabbaton. Plural sabbaton was their main word for week.
It was also how the Greek-speaking Jews said weekday names. Sunday was "one of the Sabbaths" (first of the week), Monday "two of the Sabbaths" (second of the week), Tuesday "three of the Sabbaths" (third of the week), etc.

Also, know this - the plural sabbaton appears twice in Matthew 28:1. If the Wednesday camp is going to redefine the first sabbaton, then consistency demands they must treat the second in the same way, which would leave us with four sabbaths, not two.
"After the two Sabbaths were over, toward dawn on the first of the two Sabbaths."
Does that make any sense? No. Was Sunday a sabbath? No.

So, how should this second plural sabbaton be translated? "Week". They should both be week. But!
Matthew qualifies "week" with the words "one of" (first of). That addition turns this into a phrase meaning "Sunday" or "first day of the week". As I said earlier, Sunday was "one of the Sabbaths" (first of the week). This is exactly what Matthew wrote here for the second sabbaton.
So, transliterating this as "Sunday" or "first day of the week" is actually more accurate to the idea Matthew was trying to get across.

As you can see, the plural sabbaton is being stretched far beyond its proper usage in order to support a timeline it cannot naturally support. This causes more harm than it's solves.


Sabbatō σαββάτῳ "weekly Sabbath" (John 19: 31)

This is the second of two different forms of sabbaton that we will look at. It is the same word as Matthew 28, but singular. Same word, different form, still refers to the weekly Sabbath.

The Wednesday camp will protest that sabbaton here in John is an annual holy day. Yes, we do have a holy day here. No one denies that. But there's something we need to pay close attention to. Let's take a look at the relevant section from John:

τῷ (the) σαββάτῳ (weekly Sabbath) ἦν (was) γὰρ (for) μεγάλη (a high) ἡ ἡμέρα (day)

Sabbaton still refers to the weekly Sabbath as sabbaton naturally does, but it is qualified after the fact by additional words that indicate it was also a high day.

It was not a standalone high day separate from the weekly Sabbath. We saw in the previous section how "there were two Sabbaths that week," is not possible. If this were not the weekly Sabbath but a high day only, then the Greek word heortē (holy day) would have been used, and none of those extra words would have been there because they wouldn't be necessary. It would make little sense to say, "The annual sabbath was for a high day." And so it doesn't say that. It says, "The weekly Sabbath was for a high day."

The Wednesday timeline proponents treat sabbaton as if it is a kind of catch-all term that could be any kind of sabbath, and John had to clarify for the reader what sort of Sabbath this was out of the many options available. Look through the definitions of sabbaton again - “annual Sabbath” is not among them. That is not how the word is used.
John is doing the opposite of what is being claimed. He isn't paring down, he's adding on.

With that in mind, let's look at John 19: 31 again:
"Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day)..."

Here, the "preparation day" is the Greek word paraskeuēParaskeuē can refer to preparation for any kind of Sabbath. Paraskeuē is ambiguous. But the kind of sabbath John tells us we are dealing with is sabbaton (not heortē). This preparation day was for a weekly Sabbath.
Wednesday timeline proponents play fast and loose with paraskeuē by, once again, improperly redefining sabbaton.

Do you realize what this means? John's use of weekly Sabbath to qualify preparation day points directly to the sixth day.
         It literally says Friday!

OK. Maybe not literally but it's the next best thing.

Now, think back to the quote at the start of this post, "There is not a verse, or a line, or a word anywhere in the New Testament that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday." Are we sure about that? When we use proper definitions of words, John 19: 31 goes well beyond intimating.

As you can see, much like the plural sabbaton, the singular sabbaton is being redefined improperly in order to support a timeline it cannot naturally support.

The final term we need to see is prosabbaton. I've saved the best for last.


"Prosabbaton" προσάββατον "day before weekly Sabbath" (MAR. 15: 42)

It's not just sabbaton that must be redefined, but prosabbaton as well.

In Israel, all weekdays were numbered. Only one day had a formal name - the seventh. Its formal name was "Sabbath". That's its name. The Greek word for weekly Sabbath is "sabbaton". But in the second temple period, the sixth day gained an informal name as well: "prosabbaton". The standard Greek lexicon (BDAG) defines prosabbaton as 'the day before the Sabbath'. Not the day before any sabbath, but the day before the Sabbath, sabbaton, the weekly Sabbath. Prosabbaton wasn't a formal name like Friday is a formal name, but prosabbaton was nonetheless the term they used for the sixth day of the week.

Supporters of the Wednesday timeline would have you believe that both paraskeuē and prosabbaton mean the same thing, are totally interchangeable, and should be read as "preparation day". Not so! Is the sixth day always a preparation day? Yes. Always. Paraskeuē is the word for preparation day. But prosabbaton is not. Prosabbaton refers specifically to the sixth day of the week, apart from any preparations. It is a very focused term.

Mark uses both prosabbaton (day before the weekly Sabbath) and paraskeuē (preparation day) in chapter 15 verse 42. Why would he use both if they mean the same thing and one would do just as well?

Do you realize what this means? Mark's use of prosabbaton points directly to the sixth day.
         It literally says Friday!

This time it really is literally.

By using both prosabbaton and paraskeuē, Mark is going out of his way to let us know this was Friday. I cannot imagine what else Mark could have done to make it more plain. Yet H. A. Griesemer denies it exists: "There is not a verse, or a line, or a word anywhere in the New Testament that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday," he said. Yes, there is! It's right here: prosabbaton! The Wednesday timeline requires it not to exist. Yet, there it is.

This takes 'words being stretched far beyond their proper usage' to an entirely new level. If you don't like what the Bible says, change it.

Now, add to this the testimony of Cleopas on the road to Emmaus, when he says Sunday was the third day since the trial and crucifixion (LUK. 24: 21). Friday is the third day before Sunday when we count in the way the Bible itself counts. No redefinitions needed.

OLD TESTAMENT

Someone will no doubt protest that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew shabbat (שַׁבָּת) as the Greek sabbaton (σάββατον) in Leviticus 23: 32 when this verse is talking about the Day of Atonement. They will conclude therefore that sabbaton does not always refer to a weekly Sabbath but can refer to annual sabbaths as well. Then they will use this to redefine verses like John 19: 31.

I do not find this convincing. Here's why:

  1. None of this applies in the New Testament. Sabbaton is consistently used to refer to the weekly Sabbath in the New Testament. If we could define sabbaton this way in the New Testament, then the definition in lexicons like BDAG would already reflect this.
  2. LEV. 23:32 is an exception not the rule. In most other places in the Septuagint, sabbaton is distinct from holy days (I CHR 23:31; II CHR 2:4, 8:13; EZE 45:17; HOS 2:11; JUD. 8:6). These verses separate the weekly Sabbath (sabbaton) from new moons and holy days, using different words for each. They are not always interchangeable. It depends on context.
  3. And we still have the definition of prosabbaton (Friday) to deal with. In the Bible, it consistently refers to Friday. Outside of the Bible, there is no known example of it referring to the day before an annual holy day. This is part of the crucifixion context. We can't just ignore it.

What sabbaton does in Leviticus is important to know but it does not directly affect how we interpret John, and it does not give us permission to redefine it however we want wherever we find it.

CONCLUSION

We began with a bold claim:
“There is not a verse, or a line, or a word anywhere in the New Testament that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday.”

We ended with a bold claim:
"It literally says Friday!"

We have looked at the Greek terms at the core of this crucifixion timeline debate. We have seen how sabbaton consistently refers to the weekly Sabbath in the New Testament. We have seen how sabbaton in Matthew 28:1 cannot mean a combination of two different types of sabbath in a week. We have seen how John 19:31 qualifies sabbaton with additional words to tell us the weekly Sabbath was also a high day. If it were only a high day, John would have used heortē instead of sabbaton. Lastly, we examined prosabbaton (day before the weekly Sabbath) and paraskeuē (preparation day) in Mark 15:42, where both terms appear together. The use of prosabbaton tells us in no uncertain terms that day was Friday.

The problem with the Friday-Sunday timeline isn't that there's no support or that it doesn't make sense. The problem is most people just assume it's true, so they never had to work through it, so they don't know how to explain it.

The New Testament does not avoid Friday, the alternate timelines do, by pulling the meanings out that should be there and inserting new ideas in that cannot go there. A Wednesday-Saturday timeline does not come out of the Bible, it is being forced into the Bible. Once those redefinitions are removed, the structure collapses. A Friday-Sunday timeline fits naturally.



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

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

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

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Was Jesus Entombed 72 Hours? - Part II

Is the phrase "three days and three nights" in Matthew 12 to be taken literally and understood as 72-hours? We look at sources inside and outside the Bible to get some clues.

In the previous post, we looked at the phrase "three days" and other similar phrases. We learned that the Bible counts days differently than the modern Western mind, using inclusive reckoning. "Three days" means three consecutive days, whether they are complete or fractions of a day. The phrase "third day" could mean "day after tomorrow" or "day before yesterday". We saw how that fits into five different descriptions of the entombment of Jesus.

We needed that so we would be ready to look at description number six: “three days and three nights”. 

We have important questions to answer. Must this phrase be interpreted literally as 72-hours? Does adding "and nights" force the difference? Does the Bible offer help on how we should understand it? Is there any evidence outside of the Bible that might shed some light? Is "three days and three nights" the one phrase out of six that we must use to interpret the length of Jesus' entombment?

We are going to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

SAMUEL

Let's spend some time on Samuel 30, because this is going to be arguably the most important selection of all. There are only three places in the entire Bible where “three days and three nights” appears. One is in Jonah 1: 17. Another is in Matthew 12: 40. The last is in Samuel 30: 12.

Here, David's men were tracking some Amalekites when they happened upon a young Egyptian man in a field somewhere in the Levant. He fell ill while raiding for slaves with the Amalekites and was left behind to starve to death.
(I SAM. 30: 11-13) 11 Then they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David; and they gave him bread and he ate, and they let him drink water. 12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins. 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. 13 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.
There is that phrase - three days and three nights. Notice it's not the Egyptian who says this, but the narrator of the story. This selection is quite special. It is the only instance of "three days and three nights" in the Bible that has another time reference nearby to give us a clue about how to understand it. The Egyptian had not eaten for “three days and three nights”, yet he had only fallen sick “three days ago”. There is the clue.
Using what we learned in the last post about how counting days works in the Bible, we know "three days ago" means day before yesterday.

We now have but three options:

1) The Egyptian had not eaten for upwards of a day before he fell ill. 
2) The Egyptian misspoke and fell ill four days ago.
3) “Three days and three nights” is a figure of speech not meant to be understood as 72 literal, exact hours, and means the same thing as "three days".

#2 is the least reasonable. If we try to press for #1 and its literal interpretation, we must ask how anyone knew it was exactly 72 hours (not 71.5 or 73) since the last time the Egyptian ate? In that time period, how did a slave on a raid in the Levant, so unimportant that he was left for dead, have the means to know exactly what hour it was?
What luck! They interrogated him exactly 72 hours to the minute after he last put food in his mouth.

Also, notice the time of day in this scene. David found the Egyptian while pursuing the Amalekites, and then continued his pursuit. This scene was clearly not at the beginning or ending of a day. If we insist on three complete days and three complete nights, how does that work in a scene that takes place in the middle of the day? This must also be explained.

I prefer #3. It simply makes more sense.
The text gives us nothing to support an exact 72-hour chronology. It does give us reasons to discount this, however, by also using "three days." The most reasonable explanation is that it was never meant to be taken literally.

JONAH

We have two more instances of this phrase to review. Matthew refers to Jonah. Many claim that Matthew 12 is definitely 72-hours because Jonah is definitely 72-hours. But is it?
I am not going to explore Jonah deeply because I want you to do that yourself. Go ahead. Should you go to verify that claim, you will come away from Jonah unable to prove anything about the exact timing. (I know because I tried for days.) All you will see is the phrase "three days and three nights" with no other time markers to help demonstrate whether it is literal or figurative. Isn't that odd now?

If Jonah does not give any way to prove 72-hours, then Matthew cannot rely on Jonah as proof of 72-hours. Matthew refers to Jonah, no doubt, but not for an exact timing.

MATTHEW AND LUKE

Matthew is one of the synoptic Gospels. It has a parallel in Luke.
(LUK. 11: 29-30) 29 And while the crowds were thickly gathered together, He began to say, “This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation."
What is missing here? Timing. There is no mention of timing at all. How can it be that the entire point about the sign of Jonah is its chronological precision when Luke doesn't mention time?
Answer: it isn't. A literal 72-hours is not taken from the Gospels, it's read into the Gospels.

Add in that example from Samuel and we see none of the three mentions are meant to be taken literally.

One might say, "But Jesus referred to the example of Jonah, not David." So, what then, this reference of the exact same phrase from Samuel doesn't count? Are we to understand that this one phrase means two completely different things depending on where it is? Should we not expect it to always mean the same thing, if indeed it is so exact a phrase? If it doesn't mean the same thing in each place then the phrase is nigh useless. Who can say what it means?

With Matthew relying on Jonah, and Jonah saying nothing about timing, we must rely on Samuel, and Samuel is clearly not literal. Therefore there is no legitimacy to the claim that the phrase "three days and three nights" must be taken literally.

ESTHER

Esther does not say "three days and three nights" but it does say something quite similar.
(EST. 4: 15-16) 15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai: 16 “Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!”
(EST. 5: 1) Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house.
Here is another three days and three nights, only it’s worded “three days, night or day”. Esther told Mordecai to fast for three days and nights before she went in to see King Xerxes, but "on the third day" she went in. This means the conversation happened on day 1, therefore the first day was partial, and she went in on the third day, so the third day was also partial. There was no third night.

Once again, not to be understood as 72-hours.

How can the ancient Israelites get away with this? Because that's simply how they counted time. That's inclusive reckoning. Onah! They are using idiomatic expressions. They don't have to be literal. You might just as well obsess over how there can be an apple in your eye, skin on your teeth, or a heart in the earth.

A DISSENT

Now, let's consider those who disagree with my conclusions. Many sources inside and outside of Armstrongism assert, “Adding ‘nights’ makes the phrase strictly literal.”
Oh? Based on what evidence?

Outside the Bible, this phrase is surprisingly more difficult to find than I anticipated. I used AI to locate everything it could find:
  • Inanna/Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld (Sumerian): After Inanna is killed and hung as a corpse in the underworld, "after three days and three nights had passed," her minister Ninshubur carries out the instructions Inanna had given her before descending into the netherworld.
  • The Contendings of Horus and Set (Egyptian): Horus and Set fight, transform into two bears (or hippopotamuses in variants), and “pass three days and three nights” in that form.
  • Setna Khamwas and Naneferkaptah (Demotic Egyptian): Setna and the priests of Isis “spend three days and three nights searching in all the tombs on the desert of Coptos,” turning over stelae in search of a hidden tomb.
  • Setna Khamwas and Si-Osire (Demotic Egyptian): A Nubian magician threatens to cast sorcery so the people of Egypt “spend three days and three nights seeing no light, only darkness.”
  • Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor (Middle Kingdom Egyptian): A sailor is stranded on an island and lies helplessly for three days (some renderings add “and nights”) before encountering a divine serpent.
  • Rare mentions in magical papyri: Rituals or preparations that take “three days and three nights.”
That's all it found. That is a very short list. None of these are meant to be chronologically precise.
In each case, “three days and three nights” is a figure of speech indicating a significant but inexact period of time. This means that in every instance outside the Bible, the phrase is not meant to be taken as a literal 72 hours.

Inside the Bible, the phrase “three days and three nights” appears in three verses. Only Samuel includes any additional clue nearby. Esther's phrase, although not exactly the same, has an additional time clue. Neither Samuel nor Esther are 72-hours. That leaves two verses, but they have no additional time indicator close by. They are ambiguous.
But if you think about it, Matthew does have supporting evidence, we just have to hunt for it.

As we saw in the last post, there are twenty one verses which describe the length of Jesus' entombment. Six different phrases are used. All describe one event that happened in one way. The parallel in Luke does not mention time at all. Now, add the evidence of Cleopas' words on the road to Emmaus, where he said Sunday was three days since the trial and crucifixion. Counting inclusively as the Bible does - Friday was three days before Sunday. There is not enough time between Friday and Sunday for "three days and three nights" to be literal. And if an exact 72-hours was the sign Jesus gave, why was there nobody to witness it? What kind of critical sign has no witnesses? By using these other clues, we can be confident "three days and three nights" in Matthew is not a literally 72 hours.

Matthew and Samuel and Esther are not literal. That leaves us with Jonah, which has no additional time indicator close by. 
But if you think about it, Matthew ties to Jonah, which means Jonah ties to Matthew. What we see in Matthew should also apply to Jonah. Either it does, and the time is not meant to be taken literally, or it doesn't, and Jonah is completely ambiguous. Take your pick. In neither case does it support a literal interpretation.

This means every instance in the Bible comes with contextual clues, and in every case the phrase is not meant to be taken as a literal 72 hours.

Someone will say, "But it's the natural reading of the phrase." To our modern minds, perhaps it is. But that is entirely irrelevant. What matters is what it meant to the ancient mind. Proper Bible study is not getting the Bible to think like us, but getting us to think like it.
Someone else may say, "But being idiomatic doesn't mean it cannot be literal in some cases." True! I agree. But possibility is not proof. We must rely on the evidence. We can't just say it might be literal, we have to prove it is literal. And that, the evidence will not allow.

Not a single biblical example gives us a reason to treat the phrase as exactly 72 hours.
Not a single extra-biblical example gives us a reason to treat the phrase as exactly 72 hours.
So, the claim that adding “nights” makes the phrase strictly literal is based on what, exactly? Opinions and guesses. My disagreement is based on what, exactly? All the evidence I could find.

ONE TRUE PHRASE

As I've said multiple times, there are five other phrases used to describe the length of Jesus' entombment. Why is it that we must choose "three days and three nights" over the others?
I'll tell you why: personal preference. 

The entire Wednesday crucifixion scenario hinges on literality of "three days and three nights." It needs it. All the beautiful charts like the one below absolutely require it.

Literal 3-day 3-night timeline

But if that phrase is not literal, then what we have left is "third day" and inclusive reckoning. And as we've seen, that only works in a Friday scenario. Wednesday is cleanly eliminated.

Is the phrase literal? As we saw, no. It is not. This insistence is based on a misunderstanding of Hebrew.
Ergo, we have no reason in or out of the Bible to demand "three days and three nights" is the one true phrase that a proper understanding of Jesus' entombment hinges upon. We have no reason to insist inclusive reckoning is a creation of the Pharisees. We have no reason to believe the Catholics swapped the proper timeline with another. We have no reason to dismiss five other phrases from twenty other verses, because they all mean the same thing. And we have no support for the Wednesday crucifixion timeline.

I cannot agree that, "It has to be literal against all odds because I really want it to be," is a convincing argument.

Whether you hear it from a Minister, a publication, a video, social media, a meme, or otherwise - whether you hear it one time or a thousand times - if you have 700 people on social media all saying "Yeah yeah, that chart makes sense to me," - the claim has no independent support, therefore it must be rejected.

CONCLUSION

Today, we had important questions to answer.
  • Is a plain reading the best way to understand this phrase? If plain means literal, then no.
  • Does any source treat "three days and three nights" literally? No.
  • Does adding "nights" force it to be literal? No.
  • Do we, then, have compelling reason to continue insisting the phrase is literal? No.
  • Can we find evidence in the Bible for how best to understand "three days and three nights"? Yes.
All four passages that we explored today point in the same direction: none of them were meant to be taken as a literal 72 hours. Extra-biblical references only confirm it.

"Three days and three nights" is an idiomatic expression, not a precise chronological statement. It is paired with "three days", which we learned in the last post has clear meaning. These phrases describe one thing, so they must be speaking the same thing. Six phrases to describe Jesus' entombment and they all tell the same story. What story? Not a Wednesday crucifixion.

Trying to force "three days and three nights" to be a literal 72 hours just to support a Wednesday crucifixion scenario only ignores what the overwhelming weight of evidence is telling us.
The Wednesday crucifixion timeline does not work.




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

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

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