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 early Christian source that clearly describes Saturday-only corporate worship - not even from "Judaizing" sects like the Ebionites or Nazarenes - but that doesn't count. To put it even more bluntly - nowhere in or out of the Bible is Saturday ever 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?

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. How many times have I heard, "You aren't saved by going to church on Sabbath, but you can't be saved unless you do."

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. 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 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 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".

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

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

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

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 paraskeuē. Paraskeuē 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

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

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.

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.

For more, read our post "Three Days and Three Nights" and "Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28".

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

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

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

Was Jesus Entombed 72 Hours? - Part I

Is the phrase "three days" meant to be understood as a literal 72 hours? We look at several verses to get some clues.

---

We are going to take this in two parts. In this first one, the phrase "three days" and similar phrases. In the second, the phrase "three days and three nights".

We have important questions to answer. How did ancient Israel count days? Were partial days really counted as whole days? Can Sunday morning be three days from Friday evening? By the end, we will see that a 72-hour literalism is not necessary and a Friday crucifixion scenario is entirely possible.

We are going to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

GENESIS

Let's start at the start, where we will see a pattern emerge.

(GEN. 40: 12-13) 12 And Joseph said to him, “This is the interpretation of it: The three branches are three days. 13 Now within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your place, and you will put Pharaoh’s cup in his hand according to the former manner, when you were his butler.

Joseph interprets a dream for a fellow prisoner, the Chief Butler for Pharaoh. The Chief Butler dreamed of three grape vine branches that budded and fruited. Joseph explained the three branches represented three days of imprisonment. Notice very carefully the timing here. Even though the three branches represent three days, his release would come before the third day was complete.

If we force the Bible to be chronologically literal, one would expect two partial branches and one full. But the full three branches are there, each budding and providing grapes, even though a full three days are not there.

This same thing is repeated in verses 18 and 19, without the happy outcome.

Now, let's see something similar in another place.

(GEN. 42: 17-19) 17 So he put them all together in prison three days. 18 Then Joseph said to them the third day, “Do this and live, for I fear God: 19 If you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined to your prison house; but you, go and carry grain for the famine of your houses.

Joseph, now the Vizier of Egypt, has imprisoned his brothers in retaliation for selling him into slavery those years ago. Notice very carefully the timing here once again. Joseph's brothers were only in the prison for part of one day, then a full day, and then part of another day, same as the Chief Butler we saw before. Sounds pretty much exactly like Jesus’ death. Yet there the Bible says "three days."

Do you see the pattern emerging already?
     A part of a day counts as the whole.

That is how days are counted throughout the Bible. Our term for this method of counting is "inclusive reckoning". The ancient Jews called this the "onah". The story of Joseph demonstrates inclusive reckoning was used even from early in the Bible.

With inclusive reckoning, all items in a count are included in the count, regardless if they are partial or full. The first day, the last day, and all days in between.

When modern Western minds count days, we might say, "Friday to Saturday, Saturday to Sunday; that's two days." Everyone I have ever seen counts that way when they are trying to demonstrate that the Friday crucifixion timeline doesn't work. But that is not how ancient Jewish minds counted days. They would say, "Friday, Saturday, Sunday; that's three days."
We count objects this same way. 1-2-3-4, etc. We wouldn't count eggs in a carton 1-2, 2-3, 3-4. This changes when we count consecutive days. Not so for ancient minds.
All ancient cultures around the Mediterranean counted time inclusively. For example, in Rome, March 25 would be 8 days before April 1. Both the first and last days in the count are included. We would count 7 days. We usually skip the last day in counts like this because that is the destination so why count it. They did not skip the last day, because they counted inclusively.

Do you see how we count differently today? It would not be proper to force our counting style onto the ancient Jews who wrote the Bible.

If we are not using the Biblical method of counting days, we are guaranteed to misunderstand the timing of the crucifixion.

EXODUS

Here is an even more blatantly plain example from Exodus.

(EXO. 19: 10-11) 10 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. 11 And let them be ready for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people."

We could not ask for a more plain example than when God says today, tomorrow, and the third day. What can we conclude? "Third day" means the exact same thing as "day-after-tomorrow."

Understand this happened well into day 1. Moses and the Elders had already gone up and come back down the mountain. Day 1 was well spent. Day 2 would be a full day. On day 3, God would visit the people. This is just like the selections with Joseph.

Do we not see that the Jews were counting time inclusively even from the beginning? It's the same in the New Testament as well.

ACTS AND LUKE

We find another example of inclusive reckoning in Acts 10: 1-30. This is the story of when Peter met Cornelius, the first Gentile to receive the Holy Spirit.

On day 1, after 3 PM Cornelius sends men 36 miles south to Joppa to find Peter.
On day 2, Peter has a vision around noon as Cornelius' men approach Joppa. They stay the night and leave the next day.
On day 3, they travel all day.
On day 4, before 3 PM they arrive at Cornelius' house. In verse 30, Cornelius relates that "four days ago" he sent men.

Cornelius includes his current day in the count. That's inclusive reckoning. Onah!
If we count in the modern, Western way, we would say, "three days ago I sent men," not four. Because we are not using inclusive reckoning.

And yet again, Cornelius ignores the fact that both day 1 and day 4 are only partial days. Day 1 began after 3 PM, and day 4 ends sometime before 3 PM, yet both were included in the count as if they were full days.

Didn't Jesus die at around 3 PM? Yes. According to multiple Gospel accounts, He died around the 9th hour, which equates to 3 PM. The day was practically over. It ended around 6 PM. In Jewish thinking, even at that late hour the day is still included in the count. We can be assured of this by paying attention to Cornelius.

We find another example in Luke 24.

Cleopas and another person (possibly his wife, Mary) were walking to the town of Emmaus on Sunday. Jesus joins them, hiding His identity. Cleopas talks about the events of the past few days. Jesus asks, "What things?" Cleopas responds about the trial and crucifixion, then in verse 21 he says, "Today is the third day since these things happened."

There's that "third day" phrase again. Since we know this is Sunday, we must assign that day 1. Day 2 would be Saturday. Day 3 would be Friday. Friday is the third day before the road to Emmaus discussion. Third day here means "day before yesterday".
A Friday crucifixion scenario works naturally with inclusive reckoning.

Herbert Armstrong was a staunch proponent of the Wednesday crucifixion scenario. He said Jesus died on a Wednesday, on Thursday they set the Roman guards to watch the tomb, on Friday the women of Galilee bought spices, on Saturday Jesus rose from the dead, then on Sunday they found Him alive. He tried to prove this out by counting the wrong way. Let's count the biblical way and see how inclusive reckoning works in this scenario.
Day 1 = Wednesday, day 2 = Thursday, day 3 = Friday. So Friday is the third day from Wednesday. A Wednesday scenario cannot work if we count days as the Bible counts. Saturday is the fourth day from Wednesday. Armstrong also said Cleopas was referring to the setting of the guard. Cleopas never said that. Even so, according to Armstrong, the setting of the guard happened on Thursday. Thursday is the fourth day before Sunday.

None of this works!

For yet another fine example of inclusive reckoning, please see our post "Wednesday Crucifixion? Not Likely".

I was unable to find an example where counting days was clearly done without using inclusive reckoning.

A DISSENT

Now, let's look at an example of someone who disagrees with my conclusions, provided by Herman Hoeh, chief historian of Armstrongism; a man Herbert Armstrong called, "the most accurately informed man in the world."

In his booklet titled "The Crucifixion Was Not On Friday", Hoeh goes to II Chronicles 10, with its parallel in 1 Kings 12. Hoeh then gives us this:

"The people left 'for three days' and did not return until 'after three days' - 'as the king had appointed.' Let us suppose they had first met the king sometime on Friday. As they were ordered to return at the end of three days, they could not have returned before the same time of day the following Monday. Now was Monday “the third day” from the day they had originally met with the King? The first day from that Friday was Saturday; the second day from that Friday was Sunday; and the third day was Monday - exactly the time the king expected them to return."

-Herman Hoeh, "The Crucifixion Was Not On Friday", 1968, pp. 9-10.

Pay very close attention to what Hoeh just did. He makes two unfortunate errors.

1) Hoeh said, "The people left 'for three days' and did not return until 'after three days'." That order is backwards! What Rehoboam told the people to return 'after three days' (v. 5) and they returned on 'the third day' (v.12). You should also know verse 12 is actually a quote of verse 5. Verse 5 doesn't say "after" at all. All this fuss over the word "after" is really making a big deal out of nothing.

2) Hoeh counts incorrectly, using modern counting styles rather than the appropriate inclusive reckoning. We learn elsewhere that Hoeh was fully aware of the onah and inclusive reckoning, he just dismissed it as Pharisaical. But it is not an invention of the Pharisees. The Pharisees coined the phrase "onah" to describe what we call inclusive reckoning, yes, but as we clearly saw in today's post, the counting style is entirely biblical and must not be simply dismissed.

So, not only does Hoeh misquote the selection, he misunderstands the passage entirely. In the end, the best thing we get from Herman Hoeh is a lesson on why paying attention to the details is valuable.

Hoeh's entire point is the people returned precisely when Rehoboam expected them to. With that I agree! If the king asks you to return after the third day but you return on the third day, and everyone is fine with that, then that is a good indicator that everyone understood it the same way and all happened as expected.

I am taking so much time on this for a good reason. It displays something very important. That being, we should accept the phrases "third day", "after three days", and "within three days" all mean exactly the same thing to these people. They were not as chronologically exact as we are. Why is this so important? Because these are the same phrases used to describe Jesus' entombment:

• "The third day" 11 times.
• "In three days" 5 times.
• "After three days" 2 times.
• "On the third day" 1 time.
• "Within three days" 1 time.

Twenty different verses describing one event that happened in one way. They all mean the same thing!

CONCLUSION

Today, we had important questions to answer.

• Does the phrase "three days" mean exactly 72 hours? No.
• Were partial days counted as whole days? Yes.
• How did ancient Israel count days? Inclusively.
• Can Sunday morning be three days from Friday evening? By counting days as the people in the Bible did, yes, it can.

"Three days" means three consecutive days, whether they are full or partial. "Third day" means either "day after tomorrow" or "day before yesterday". The third day from Friday is Sunday. The third day from Wednesday is Friday. The Wednesday crucifixion timeline does not work because it relies on counting the wrong way.

A literalist will insist on 72-hours, but they base that on what, exactly? I find no evidence in the text to support this. My disagreement is based on what, exactly? Multiple verses and cultural context.

We cannot simply take everything literally. If we must take everything Jesus said literally, then we must believe that for 72 hours Jesus was literally in the beating heart, the cardio-vascular system, of the planet. He did say "heart of the earth" after all. No one has a problem with that part of His statement being idiomatic. Yes, dear reader, God sometimes uses colloquialisms and slang terms to communicate with us.

For more, read our post "Three Days and Three Nights".

In the next post, we will see the twenty-first verse where the Bible describes Jesus' entombment.

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

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

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

When Did The Women of Galilee Buy Spices?

Comparing Wednesday and Friday crucifixion timelines to see which best fits the Gospel narrative and first-century customs.

---

Sixteen years ago, I did a post called "Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28" where we investigated Herbert Armstrong's Wednesday crucifixion timeline and his claim there were two Sabbaths in that week. We saw several things, one of which was the timing of when the women from Galilee purchased and prepared spices to anoint Jesus' corpse. It recently dawned on me there is no article on As Bereans Did dedicated specifically to this topic. We do go over it in the article I mentioned, but you wouldn't know it was there unless you stumbled over it. I want to correct that. This article is only going to focus on this topic - the women of Galilee and their spices - with no side quests.

To understand this article, you must be familiar with the Wednesday crucifixion scenario. I am going to assume you know it already. In summary, it claims Jesus died on a Wednesday, Thursday was an annual holy day, Friday was a normal week day, and Saturday was the weekly Sabbath. Clearly different from the traditional Friday crucifixion timeline.

Time to dust off the old As Bereans Did patented gauntlet! Will Armstrong's version survive or come out a wreck?

THE SPICE MUST FLOW

For the "final clinching proof" of his Wednesday timeline, Armstrong said this:

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

Is it the only possible explanation, though? Let's find out.
But first, just to be thorough, let's put up the two verses we need.

(MAR 16: 1) Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.

(LUK 23: 55-56) 55 And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.

The women from Galilee are usually recognized as Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna the wife of Chuza, and Susanna. There may have been others besides these who went unnamed in the Gospels.
Now, notice Mark says "bought" and Luke says "prepared". They did not have to buy spices twice. Nothing precludes it, but it isn't necessary.
Also notice Mark says after the Sabbath and Luke says before the Sabbath. That's the key here. A contradiction? No. There are explanations. Armstrong says his explanation is the only one and it clinches the debate. Other authors from the Armstrong tradition copy and reprint his booklet almost verbatim, so they must agree. I used to agree, but no longer.

Let's put this into a chart to help you visualize when the women could buy and prepare spices.
The following chart compares the Wednesday and Friday crucifixion scenarios. It gives the date in half days, then shows when the ladies could work versus when they had to rest for religious reasons. The chart starts on the day Jesus was crucified. The chart stops before the Sunday morning when they found Jesus alive.

	Nissan 12 Wednesday	Nissan 12/13 Wed/Thu	Nissan 12/13 Thursday	Nissan 13/14 Thu/Fri	Nissan 14 Friday	Nissan 14/15 Fri/Sat	Nissan 15 Saturday	Nissan 15/16 Sat/Sun
	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night
Wednesday	Work	Rest	Rest	Work	Work	Rest	Rest	Work
Friday	----	----	----	----	Work	Rest	Rest	Work

All the green cells in that chart are opportunities for the ladies to purchase/prepare spices.

In the Friday scenario, the events before Friday are not relevant to the spice purchase. In this scenario, the women inventoried and began preparation of spices and oils on the Friday on which Jesus was crucified, rested as commanded, then bought more spices on Saturday evening after the Sabbath ended.

In the Wednesday scenario, Herbert Armstrong tells us the only possibility was that the women purchased and prepared spices on Friday. But you can see for yourself Friday was not the only opportunity. Remember, Jewish days begin and end at sundown, not midnight. Their options were Wednesday evening before sundown, Thursday evening after sundown, all Friday until sundown, and Saturday evening after sundown.

I want you to consider something ---  a Friday spice purchase is not necessary at all in the Wednesday scenario.

Armstrong prefers a one-time purchase and preparation - his entire case stands on it - but nothing in the Gospel narrative demands this. If all we care about is a one-time event, Thursday evening would have worked just as well as Friday.
Or, the women could have done it in the same way as the Friday scenario - meaning, on two different days. But look at the chart. They could have prepared on any of three other opportunities besides Friday (I grant Wednesday would have been of little use for anything more than getting started). He never explains why he ignores those opportunities. He simply concludes one purchase on Friday and that is that. But if nothing in the language demands it, and there are clearly other options, then why should we insist on it?

We know that Nicodemus brought 100 pounds of myrrh and spices to anoint Jesus before His entombment (JON. 19: 39). Apparently this was something one could do rather quickly. So, there is no good reason to exclude the evening after the crucifixion.
Also, we know from historical sources that shops would be open to the last possible moment before Sabbath began, then they would reopen as soon as possible in the evening after sundown when Sabbath ended, especially at this very busy time of year (for example, read Nehemiah 13: 19). So, there is no good reason to exclude Thursday evening after the annual holy day or Saturday evening after the weekly Sabbath.
These three opportunities are legitimate opportunities.

In case someone from the Armstrong camp wishes to eliminate Saturday evening as an option because Jesus was resurrected on Saturday in their scenario, I remind you this is not about when Jesus was resurrected. This is only about when the ladies bought spices. They didn't know a thing about the resurrection yet. Whether Jesus was resurrected on Saturday evening or Sunday morning is neither here nor there to either scenario.

The Wednesday crucifixion scenario has all the time the Friday crucifixion scenario has plus an entire free day. So, already we have proven Armstrong's version of events is not the "only possible explanation". He simply declares it so.

ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD

Herbert Armstrong ignored another important point. The biggest issue I have with his explanation is the eagerness of the women to go to the tomb.

One must ask why did they not visit the tomb on Thursday evening or Friday or Saturday evening?

As I said, the Wednesday crucifixion scenario has all the time the Friday crucifixion scenario has plus an entire free day. This is very bad for Armstrong's explanation. If Nicodemus can obtain what he did in such short order, then these women couldn't possibly need all that time. They weren't afraid to travel in the dark, which only adds more time. They could have visited Him at any time on Friday. Why didn't they go? If they were so eager, then why wait until Sunday morning?
In Armstrong's timeline, we must conclude the women were not actually eager at all ...except, inexplicably at 4 AM on Sunday. They sat around for days until they took off like a shot in the dark. This requires some explanation, because the Bible narrative here is about how eager the women were and Armstrong contradicts this. But no explanation is given.

Here's the catch -- they didn't have all the time in the world. There is a hard stop in there.

If we take a note from John 11: 39, they knew the body would stink by day 4. No point in anointing at that stage. The attempt itself would not just be in vain but potentially dangerous. But there is more to it than just this. Jewish writings, such as the Mishnah, tell us more:

"We go out to the cemetery and examine the dead within three days and do not fear [being suspected of] superstitious practices. It once happened that [a man who was buried] was examined [and found to be living], and he lived for twenty-five years and then died."
-Mishnah, Semachot, chapter 8 (from Sefaria.org)

The Jews had a deep respect for the dead. They would want the body cared for quickly and properly. One was even allowed to do certain preparations on the Sabbath (see Mishnah 'Shabbat' 23:4-5), which the women could not do because of the stone. Taken together, we can see the women likely felt pressured to inspect the body and anoint the body on or before day 3.

In the Wednesday scenario, according to how Armstrong counted days, day 4 would be Sunday. That's too late. But if we use inclusive reckoning and count days like ancient Israel did, Saturday is day 4 and Sunday would be day 5 in a Wednesday timeline. From bad to worse. Why would the women waste good time then rush to the tomb when it was far too late?

In the Friday crucifixion scenario, there is a very good reason for why the women were so anxious to get to the tomb on Sunday morning - this was their first real opportunity. And, by inclusive reckoning, Sunday was only day 3.

Does the Wednesday scenario provide the better explanation versus the Friday scenario? I cannot agree that it does. It makes the ladies seem rather aloof and lazy, like the lazy grasshopper who sat around while he should have been working then had to rush, versus the industrious ant who worked hard the entire time.

EASTER SEAL

I ask you to consider another point which greatly complicates Armstrong's timing. The Romans sealed the tomb on the Sabbath after the crucifixion.
Let that idea roll around in your head a bit.

In Armstrong's Wednesday crucifixion scenario, LUK 23: 56 must happen on Friday. Allow me to quote Armstrong again: "After the annual high-day Sabbath, the feast day of the days of Unleavened Bread - which was Thursday - these women purchased and prepared their spices on Friday."
But have you read verse 55? It says, "...they observed the tomb and how His body was laid..."
It is quite clear, they saw the body.

Now, let's consult Matthew's rendition.

(MAT. 27: 62-66) 62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, 63 saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ 64 Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard.

On the Sabbath which began after the crucifixion - Thursday, according to Armstrong - during the daylight hours, the Romans sealed the tomb.
How, pray tell, could the women go to the tomb on Friday and see the body if the tomb was sealed on Thursday? They could not.

To fix this, we might imagine a day-long gap between Luke 23 verses 55 and 56. The women went to the tomb and saw the body on Wednesday evening - insert gap here - then, on Friday they prepared spices. That seems like the only way to solve this. But it also seems like convenient excuse making. There is nothing in the original Greek which precludes this, but nothing to support it either. In fact, verses 55 and 56 read strongly like one continuous action. Luke is the most chronological of the Gospel writers, after all.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that gap. Now, let's see the issues it has caused.

The ladies took their spices on Sunday morning before sunrise, expecting to have the stone rolled away so they could anoint the body. But no one could roll the stone away because the tomb was sealed on Thursday. The women obviously were not yet aware of this seal and guard.
This causes us to ask - why didn't the women know this?

The sealing was quite public, after all. This was not done in a corner. The chief priests and Pharisees all went in a cluster to the Romans, risking ceremonial uncleanliness on a high holy day. It is a hard sell indeed to claim three full days had passed but word hadn't yet gotten around.

Now, which makes more sense regarding the women on Sunday morning:
A) The tomb had been sealed since Thursday, four days ago by their reckoning, but the women had not heard about it yet, or
B) The tomb was sealed Saturday, a half day ago at this point, but the women had not heard about it yet?

I am going with option B!
Considering the amount of interest these ladies had in the death, and the amount of time they would have had in a Wednesday scenario, it makes practically no sense at all to go with option A.

Not only that, but there is a second issue.

Pay attention to the wording in Matthew 27: 64 above "Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day". This does not work cleanly in a Wednesday crucifixion.

Armstrong said the guard was set on Thursday. What is the third day from Thursday when we count as the Bible does? Saturday. The guards passed out when the tomb was opened. That happened, according to Armstrong's timeline, at very the end of day 3, as day 3 was about to turn to day 4. What would the guard be doing there heading into day 4 when they were only supposed to be there until day 3?

So, insert the gap between verses 55 and 56 of Luke 23 to save the Wednesday timeline and you only cause an issue with Sunday morning which harms the Wednesday timeline. The Friday timeline, however, fits naturally.

CONCLUSION

Did Armstrong really deliver the crushing blow of arguments? Does the timing of spice preparation clinch the victory and demonstrably prove there were two Sabbaths? I have no choice but to conclude no.

Wednesday scenario is indeed the only possibility if we insist on one spice preparation. However, there is no good reason to insist on this. Also, in a Wednesday scenario, Sunday is two days past the three-day limit. I think that, when we look at all the details critically, the Wednesday scenario is not a clincher at all but is quite weak because there is more to it than just spice preparations. If we only read Herbert Armstrong's material, the explanation he offers will seem to work. It is only when we question it critically that the issues arise. Armstrong simply ignored the problems his scenario created and hoped we wouldn't notice.

Decide for yourself which scenario best explains the behavior of the women of Galilee. Did they buy and prepare spices during the limited time available then rush to the tomb at the first opportunity, or did they lazily take their time over multiple opportunities, avoiding gossip about Roman guards, then inexplicably decide they needed to rush to the tomb on Sunday morning after the corpse should already have started to stink?

I prefer the Friday timeline for these and many other reasons, and here is how I propose things went:

The timing of Luke 23: 55-56 is one continuous thought with no gap, taking place immediately after Jesus was taken down from the cross on Friday. The ladies observed the way He was buried and considered the burial incomplete. They returned to inventory and begin preparation of spices in the very limited time they had that same evening, concluding they did not have enough material on hand to complete the burial to their preference. I do not think they bought anything this night, only "prepared". They rested on the weekly Sabbath, unable to do anything more or even discuss it - because even discussing what to do after Sabbath would be considered participating in work - while the Pharisees plotted further. At sundown Saturday, they busied themselves with purchasing more spices and finishing the preparation. Then, at the first opportunity early on Sunday - roughly between 4:30-5:00 AM on day 3 by their count - they hurried out, not yet aware the tomb was sealed and under guard.

Rather than clinching the argument, we are left clenching two logical fallacies in the Wednesday scenario:

Circular Reasoning (using something as evidence for itself)
How do we know the crucifixion was on Wednesday? Because the ladies bought spices on Friday. How do we know the ladies bought spices on Friday? Because the crucifixion was on Wednesday.

Begging the Question (assuming the truth of the conclusion without supporting it)
Armstrong concludes the ladies bought spices on Friday, but ignores the opportunities on Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday. He offers no other support for this. He just declares Friday the only option, when it was not.

The flaws in logic we see here are not unique for Armstrong. They are less a one-off mistake and more a way of life.

I know many will punt to "three days and three nights" (we have an article for that), or argue for there being two Sabbaths in Matthew 28 (we have an article for that, too). Today's post is not about those things, so we did not get into them here. I invite you to read our other material on the Categories page which address any additional concerns you may have.

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

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

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

The Road To Sabbatarianism - Part III

Part 3 of 3, where we review some of the chief things that lead a person into Sabbatarianism.

---

Today we conclude talking about what, in my experience, are the top things which I've seen over the years that lead a person into Sabbatarianism.

In the previous posts, we saw the road to Sabbatarianism includes:

• Insufficient information,
• Misunderstanding who Jesus is,
• Misunderstanding the two Covenants,
• Misunderstanding the singular nature of the body of laws,
• Not Properly Understanding To Whom The Bible Was Written, and
• Not Properly Understanding the Sabbath itself.

Today's post is going to require everything we've reviewed up to this point. That's why I've saved it for last. (See if you can spot where the points above fit into the scenario below.) Today, we will see two critical errors in understanding, and then we'll see what to do about it.

Please understand that this is a much bigger topic than I can do justice to here. This is merely a surface overview, not a manifesto. I am only touching on things relevant to the topic at hand, and my hope is you will take it from here on your own. I will put some resources at the end to help you further. First, let's see how far you can make it through this post before walking away.

Thinking Laws Define Sin and Righteousness

Sabbatarianism is a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding about sin and righteousness. 

The base assumption is that law - Old Covenant laws, Ten Commandments especially - defines sin itself, and therefore righteousness. It does not.
And therefore sin is breaking those laws, and righteousness is "keeping" those laws. (Partially keeping, that is.) It is not.
Now that I've lost most of my audience....
Refer back to our very first point in this series. In that post, I said the claim "the Sabbath is necessary for righteousness" is based on a false premise about the law. Let's see why.

Sin Without Law

The first critical error is thinking sin needs a law to exist. This is one side of the coin.

We all know there is such a thing as sin. The legalist mindset equates sin with law-breaking. Sin apart from law doesn't compute. They conclude the Old Covenant law is the only law, and so they imagine the Old law is everywhere - for Cain and Abel, for Gentiles in the New Covenant, and even for the angels. This definition causes other things to make no sense, like "sin nature", the weakness we all have to sin. (If a law isn't written, are we weak to it, or is there more to sin than written laws?) This can be taken to an extreme. "A Christ without law is a false Christ," I've heard it said. As if to say Christ must perpetually be subject to the law, even after His death. Which, of course, is contrary to the law.

If law defines sin, then there cannot be sin without law. Yet, the Bible tells us sin does not need a written law to exist.

(ROM. 2: 12a) For as many as have sinned without law...
(ROM. 5: 13) For until the law sin was in the world...
(GAL. 3: 17a) And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later...
(GAL. 3: 19) What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions...

Therefore, the claim must be false.

And before the KJV fans get angry with me, no, I am not ignoring I John 3: 4. (For more, see "Without the Law There Is No Sin".) I want to clarify that I am talking more about sin itself in the larger sense. If there is a Covenant which applies to you and a law is in that Covenant, then yes, breaking that law is a sin (the Old Covenant does not apply to you). I am not saying rules have no part to play at all. But sin in and of itself does not require a law to exist.

Righteousness Without Law

The second critical error is assuming righteousness needs a law to exist. This is the other side of the coin.

Once we equate sin with law-breaking, it seems natural to equate righteousness to law-keeping. What else could it be? Yet, the Bible tells us righteousness does not require a law to keep.

(ROM. 2: 14-15) 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness...
(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.
(GAL. 3: 21) For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

God is righteous, but not because of keeping laws.

Neither sin nor righteousness require a law. If not by law, then what and how are these things?

Sin

Here is a glimpse into the Sabbatarian thinking:
Murder is wrong? Yes. Adultery is wrong? Yes. Theft is wrong? Yes. Idolatry is wrong? Yes. Then, this means the Ten Commandments are still valid, and therefore Sabbath-breaking is wrong, too. False!

How??

Murder, adultery, idolatry, and etc are sins, it's true, but not because of the Old Covenant law. There is a greater principle at work, which has always been and always will be.

Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love (MAT. 22: 34-40). Everything else hangs on these (even the Sabbath). Everything in the Old Covenant law is summed up in these two. "Hangs on" indicates dependence; because of; lower than. But above these two is love itself. And God is love (I JON. 4: 7-8). It is the nature of God which is highest. So, any violation of love is a violation of His nature. And therefore, at its very core, sin is a violation of God. David understood this about sin (PSA. 51: 4).

And that extends to us, His images. When we violate (or bless) each other, we violate (or bless) Him (MAT. 25: 40). When Saul persecuted the church, what did Jesus say (ACT. 9: 3-6)?

Sin is not just a violation of God's loving nature, but any aspect of God. His reason, justice, truth, etc. In the Old Covenant period, we see this expressed in laws, laws, laws. Like a nanny guiding Israel (GAL. 3: 23-25). But if laws, laws, laws were all we needed, Jesus never would have arrived in the first place. Now, Jesus has come and that Covenant has gone. Replaced by the very One who built it. In the New Covenant period, things have matured quite a bit. So, sin and righteousness are much more than just lists of laws. Sin and righteousness are distilled to their essence. The law described many good things. Those things do continue, but not because of the law. They continue because of God Himself. This is not a distinction without a difference.

Righteousness

When I was an Armstrongist, we would often say, "Sin is missing the mark." That is a good way to understand it! But what mark? Our answer was the law, of course (the ones we picked). Ironically, that answer misses the mark. If law-keeping were the answer, then the Pharisees would be kings! Yet, Jesus called them lawless (MAT. 23: 28). (You can see "lawless" does not mean "without law".) But if not law-keeping, then what is the standard? Isn't it obvious? If sin is violating God, then righteousness is...

(MAT. 5: 48) Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
(I JON. 3: 3) And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
(I PET. 1: 15) but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct

...mirroring Him. God Himself is the target and the standard, and God's holy, righteous perfection is expected of us. Anything less is sin.

Still think you're basically a "good person"?

Wait, what?! I can handle not murdering, but this is too much for me! Woe is me! How do we, mere sinners, ever achieve such a lofty thing??
We cannot. It's impossible.
The law was intended to help Israel realize this. Poorly keeping a handful of laws was never the solution. The law is good, but law-keeping fails because it relies on us. We are the issue.

So, I am offering you impossibility?? No.
But I just said it was impossible! Yes.  ...for us.

Look. Our own righteousness is not what God wants. It's filthy. It's incomplete. It's sporadic. It's imperfect. It's barely better than sin. (ISA. 64: 6; ROM. 3: 10.) The law is great for showing us this wretched condition of ours (and condemning us for it), but it does little at all for fixing it. Remember, it was the people who were the most fanatic about the law that killed the very Law Giver.
Begrudgingly - or worse, self-righteously - doing our law-keeping rituals and thinking it earns something from God is so far from the mark I cannot find a good word for it. Sitting idle for 1/7th of your life certainly is not going to make you more like God. Using the law as a weapon to beat others with, like Satan, when we are supposed to understand our own guilt and therefore act as attorneys for the defense, is among the worst things we can do.

Promising God that this time you're going to try even harder is not the solution. (You know you do it.) The solution to our weakness is His strength. What God wants is His own perfect righteousness within us. That is what righteousness is. His righteousness. Remember MAT. 5: 48.
Not to try harder, but to surrender.

Faith

How can anyone achieve this? Not by law. The law is all or nothing. Sabbatarians are fond of saying, "Jesus did not die so we could continue to sin." Well said! But He also didn't die so we could continue failing to achieve righteousness via the Old Covenant. There is but one way for us: faith!

(ROM. 3: 21-22a) But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
(PHP. 3: 9) ...and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith...

This grace comes only by being one with Him through faith, He solves the problem as we are credited His righteousness and covered by His grace. This is about so much more than just forgiveness! In this life and in our present condition, the path to achieving real, biblical righteousness is not to look to ourselves but to Him. His efforts, not ours. His righteousness, not ours. Not to the law, which is beneath, but to faith and love, which is above.

Do me this favor - read the book of Romans again with this in mind. I know you don't agree with me yet, but try anyway. Especially chapters 3 and 4. See for yourself if it fits. But here is one good selection for you:

(ROM. 9: 30-32) 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Once you see it, you'll see it all over in the New Testament.

(GAL. 5: 5-6) 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision [being a Jew with the law] nor uncircumcision [being a Gentile with no law] avails anything, but faith working through love.

Remember this phrase: Jesus is the law-keeper.
(ROM. 5: 19) For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
He is the only one who ever truly kept it. He is the only one who could. The law is one indivisible body. Break one and you're broken them all. In over a thousand years of law-keeping, Israel never once achieved the goal. Only Jesus, the True Israel, did. And the Sabbatarian conclusion is even more of the same frustrated failure? No! Jesus Himself tore down that system. And He replaced it with Himself (ROM. 10: 4).

When you conclude righteousness comes from laws, you stumble over Jesus, the source and goal of righteousness. But when you conclude righteousness comes from God to us through faith, you fulfill the goal of the law.

Get this in place first. Then, let our lives be an expression of this truth; of His love. It is the only way.

And that should lead you to realize this: Works are not a cause of righteousness, they are a result.

Righteousness is a proper relationship with God, and works should be an expression of the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. For sake of time, I am not going to get into works today. But understand that "works" does not equal law-keeping. It equals love. Faith expressed in works of love. James and Paul, Peter and John all speak the same thing on this. And that is why Paul can say, "for whatever is not from faith is sin," (ROM. 14: 23b), and "love fulfills the law" (ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 14; JAS. 2: 8).

Murder is wrong? Correct. Adultery is wrong? Correct. Theft is wrong? Correct. Then we must keep a seventh-day Sabbath, too. False!
How??
The nature of God, and faith working through love! A well-formed conscience that follows the Holy Spirit is not going to be doing evil things. They will be enjoying a Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ.
The Old Covenant and its laws is gone. A direct connection to God is brought in. Faith and love - that is the law in the New Covenant. (It has always been the law. I JON. 2: 7; II JON. 1: 5-6.)

(I JON. 3: 23) And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

The road to Sabbatarianism is paved with a fundamental misunderstandings of law, faith, love, sin, and righteousness. Sabbatarianism is not necessarily a detour away from these things, but it very easily can be.

CONCLUSION

I think that's enough. Those are the most important points, in my experience, that lead to Sabbatarianism. These are things I wish I'd known before I "studied" myself into the system. I hope they help you. There are definitely more things that could have been on the list, but I needed to choose only so many or risk dragging this out far too long.

In this series, we saw how the road to Sabbatarianism always involves:

• Insufficient information - The road to Sabbatarianism always involves not having enough accurate information which one needs to truly understand the issue and make truly informed decisions. Hopefully these articles help with this.
• Misunderstanding who Jesus is - This is the most important point in this list. Understanding who Jesus is and what He did, and following that through to its conclusion, is key not just to this but to everything.
• Misunderstanding the two Covenants - We must, must, must comprehend what a covenant is and which Covenant we belong in. Truly understanding this point alone would solve most issues.
• Misunderstanding the singular nature of the law - There are not 10 laws, nor 20, nor 500, but 613, in the Old Covenant. Do not add to nor take away from them. Keep all the law, or you're not keeping the law at all. Jesus is the only one who ever has, or could.
• Misunderstanding to whom the Bible was directly written - It wasn't to "us". But it was for us.
• Misunderstanding the Sabbath in the New Covenant - Going to church on Sabbath is never commanded anywhere in the Bible. Not once. Rest is, though. But the Sabbath day never gave rest. A new rest was promised and now it is delivered. The rest is by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. The rest is for our very souls.
• Misunderstanding sin and righteousness - Both sin and righteousness exist apart from laws. Laws only put sin on display and condemn us. Righteousness and sin are not in laws, but in our proper relationship with God. A rightly ordered relationship with God is bounded by the New Covenant. Believe, have faith, and stay true to the Covenant God made with you, and you will be counted as righteous by faith. Same as Abraham. Then, go, love God and one another.

If you spend just a little of your precious time to study these things before you rush off to a Sabbatarian church, you may just save yourself quite a bit of headache later on down the road.

Most of my target audience will never read this far. It is simply too much for the legalist mindset to accept. You, dear reader, are to be commended for making it to this point. Have these been difficult things? I do apologize. I honestly feel like this is a Christianity 101 series. The basics. At least they ought to be basics. If modern church leaders would do their jobs properly, they would be. I know this can be a very difficult topic until it "clicks" (sometimes, even afterward). There is a lot more to this topic than I can get to here. So, to help you further, I suggest a few articles:
"Without the Law There Is No Sin"
"Sin And The Law"
"Covenant Loyalty, Righteousness In Faith"
"Are The Ten Commandments Removed?"
"Works, Faith and Salvation - or Faith and Parachutes, Part 2"
"Faith, What It Aint"
"What Use Is The Old Law?"
"Common Legalist Arguments part VI"

Our Categories page has quite a few more articles to help you now that you have the basics.

Our friends over at the "God Cannot Be Contained" blog also have some very helpful material for you. They would love to help you along your journey to understanding.
Also, Rescue Ministries International has a fabulous article on the Sabbath which I highly recommend, titled "The Sabbath, the Patriarchs, and the Sinai Covenant".

I leave you with a prayer, dear reader, beloved by God. I pray the Holy Spirit fill you and guide you to a fuller, deeper faith and love in and through Jesus Christ to the glory of the Father. I pray you will be led by the Holy Spirit to a truer understanding and a more meaningful walk with Him in the New Covenant.

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

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

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