Showing posts with label Firstfruits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Firstfruits. Show all posts

Thursday, February 1, 2024

Firstfruits and the Beauty of God's Timing

Herbert Armstrong was absolutely right when he said,

"Few professing Christians have ever thought to question or to prove this "Good-Friday-Easter" tradition. Yet the Bible tells us to prove (test) all things."
-Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p3

He lived in a time when average people generally did not have access to information. They didn't know anyone who questioned or proved, and didn't think to question or prove. When I tried to question Easter, I got garbage answers from people who were completely unprepared. I took their lack of ability to explain as evidence there was no good answer. For that mistake, I served a 26-year stint in Armstrongism.

These people had answers. I asked, and they PROVED! (Armstrong would always capitalize for emphasis.) But did they? Armstrongism was feeding me completely one-sided answers; the same few points over and over, which I was not allowed to question. I went from not knowing I should question, to knowing I should not question. I thought we were supposed to question and prove! No. Only enough to get you in the door. After that, it just gets you back out the door again.

Is confirmation bias and beating up on straw men really the same thing as proving? Was it really any different than when I questioned Easter at the outset? There are two sides to every story, but after all those years it dawned on me I had still only heard the testimony from one side. But if that was so, then I had never really PROVED either side of this. All this time I had been hearing only what I wanted to hear. This made me no different than the Easter-keepers who only heard what they wanted to hear. I didn't need to be coddled, I needed proof! But I didn't know Easter from Adam. Who was going to give me the answers I still needed? No one. I was going to have to get the answers myself. Thus began a 16-year journey here at As Bereans Did.

I made life-altering choices based on the information I had at the time. Now, dear reader, we have access to better information. Now we can finally PROVE as we should. As Bereans Did has several articles on Easter. Those articles do the heavy lifting on topics like "three days and three nights", the two Sabbaths of Matthew 28, the Quartodeciman Controversy, Constantine the Great, Eostra, Old Covenant vs New Covenant, and all the rest. See our Categories page for a list.

In my last post I promised another article. I did this because I have stumbled across something that I want to share with you. I was reading through the article "History of Easter - part I" when I was sidetracked reading about the Feast of Firstfruits. That led me to a little detail I thought was interesting enough to warrant its own article.

Today's post is going to be about the beauty and intricacy of God's timing. Specifically, the timing of Good Friday and Easter Sunday (the timing everybody loves to hate) and how it fits with the Feast of Firstfruits. But to get to that point, we need to learn about the Feast of Firstfruits.


FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS

Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim = Day of Firsfruits) was an important ceremony within the timing of the Days of Unleavened Bread. We can read about it in Leviticus 23.

(LEV. 23: 9-11) 9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted on your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And you shall offer on that day, when you wave the sheaf, a male lamb of the first year, without blemish, as a burnt offering to the Lord. 13 Its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire to the Lord, for a sweet aroma; and its drink offering shall be of wine, one-fourth of a hin. 14 You shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

The Day of Firstfruits was the very day when the Wave Sheaf Offering was performed.
The Days of Unleavened Bread, which the Jews call Passover, was a harvest festival. Actually, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were all harvest festivals. Passover was the festival of the first harvest of the year - the barley harvest. Since the first and best of everything is dedicated to God, the barley harvest couldn't begin in earnest until after the Wave Sheaf Offering. And the Wave Sheaf Offering couldn't happen until the barley was ready to harvest. The ripening of the barley and the Spring Equinox keep Passover tied to its particular time of the year. The Day of Firstfruits also helped to tie Passover to Pentecost. The 50-day count to Pentecost starts on Firstfruits.
The Day of Firstfruits was actually pretty important.

Firstfruits wasn't emphasized by Herbert Armstrong, therefore it is mostly overlooked by the Church of God splinter groups. Oh, you'll get mention of it here and there from detail-oriented ministers, but most people glossed right over it. Here is where I would usually give my catch phrase "The law! The law! Just not THAT law!" and where Armstrongists would object that this was ceremonial so it was done away, then I would respond that if you keep Pentecost then it isn't ceremonial and keeping 2% of the law is not keeping the law. Yada yada. Round and round it goes. Today's article isn't meant to be so polemic as that.

There is a fairly interesting detail hidden in here which you probably glossed right over. I'll put it here again for you -
     "On the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it." (v.11)

Why is that important, you ask? Because, as fate would have it, that little word right there - Sabbath - caused issues that I think display the beauty and intricacy of God's timing.


WHICH SABBATH?

That's the big money question right there. Which Sabbath is verse 11 referring to? In my last article, I shared this quote from the UCG, "Two kinds of 'Sabbaths' leads to confusion." Not in Matthew 28, no, but in Leviticus 23 it really does. 

If you're here reading this blog, you already know there are two kinds of Sabbaths: weekly Sabbaths (Saturday) and annual holy days. In a multi-day festival like the Days of Unleavened Bread, you will always have at least one weekly Sabbath. By the nature of the DOUB, you will also have two annual Sabbaths - the first day and the last day. One feast, two kinds of Sabbaths.

When you have a thousand years to think on things, details like the word Sabbath can cause big disputes. By the time Jesus was born, that Sabbath in v.11 was interpreted in two very different ways. The Sadducees decided the regular weekly Sabbath was the one being spoken of. For them, the date didn't matter, only the day of the week - Sunday. The Pharisees, on the other hand, tied it to the annual Sabbath. Why tie the Wave Sheaf to a regular weekly Sabbath when you're reading a section of Torah detailing annual Sabbaths? For them, the day of the week didn't matter, only the date - the 16th. In any given year, there were two completely incompatible interpretations of the timing of the Day of Firstfruits.

You can read about this topic on any number of Jewish sources (e.g., Chabad).

Harder to find is information on when other Jewish sects observed the Wave Sheaf. From what I can find, Kenneth Strand (at the time of Andrews University) claims the Essenes sided with the Sadducees and observed after the weekly Sabbath.

We have mentioned in other articles the Church of God splinter groups disagree on when to keep Pentecost in years where the first day of Unleavened Bread falls on a Saturday. The nature of this debate is is why.

Which side was in the right? The Bible doesn't clarify elsewhere. If it were clear, there wouldn't be a debate. I am not going to attempt an answer. That is not the point of this article. I wish to show something quite different. I for one am amazed at something good that comes from these debates. I see God glorifying Himself in them.

I'll explain how in a bit! Don't rush me!


JESUS - FIRST OF THE FIRSTFRUITS

I said earlier that the Wave Sheaf is mentioned by the more detail-oriented ministers in Armstrongism. Some use it to dispute over the timing of Pentecost. The better sermons would explain how Jesus fulfills the symbolism of the Wave Sheaf offering. I like to give credit where credit is due - and these ministers deserve credit for being correct.
See? We at ABD always admit where people are right.

Christ is called Firstfruits in I Corinthians 15: 20 & 23. Christ is also indirectly called the Firstfruits in Romans 11: 16. The idea of associating Jesus with the firstfruits is an old one. Granted, Jesus isn't the only one associated with it. All Christians will eventually be associated. But that's for another article. Suffice it to say it is possible to demonstrate a tie between Jesus and Firstfruits.

Know that when Christ is called Firstfruits in I Corinthians, this is in reference to resurrection from the dead. The entire chapter is, overall, about resurrection.

(I COR. 20: 20-23) 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

God isn't interested in harvesting barley. Ultimately, we are the harvest God has planted. Jesus is the very first of the harvest. "The firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." Firstfruits and resurrection are linked so closely that, at least in Corinthians, Jesus' resurrection is the fulfillment of the Day of Firstfruits.

Taking what we've seen about Firstfruits, let's put that together with Passover.

Passover is fulfilled by Jesus' crucifixion, as He is our Passover lamb. The first day of Unleavened Bread is fulfilled by Jesus' death taking away our sin, as the leaven in the bread is representative of sin. And the Firstfruits is fulfilled by Jesus' resurrection, as He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Three days that point directly to Christ.

Now that we've talked about imagery, let's talk about the beauty of how that played out.


GOD FULFILLS EVERYTHING

Remember how the Sadducees always put Firstfruits on a Sunday while the Pharisees always put it after the holy day? Imagine what a mess that must have been. The powerful and wealthy yet less numerous Sadducees, in control of the Temple, performing rituals according to their own views, versus the numerous and fastidious Pharisees, tithing to the last seed, wanting everything done according to their views. It had to have been a frustrating dynamic even on normal days. Yet, as providence would have it, in a Friday-Sunday scenario, both systems snap into alignment. But only in a Friday-Sunday crucifixion scenario.

I want to put a chart up for you so you can visualize what I just said:

Nissan 13
Thursday

Nissan 13/14
Thu/Fri

Nissan 14
Friday

Nissan 14/15
Fri/Sat

Nissan 15
Saturday

Nissan 15/16
Sat/Sun

Nissan 16
Sunday

Day Night Day Night Day Night Day
Traditional Passover Passover First Day UB First Day UB Firstfruits Wave Sheaf
Pharisees Passover Passover First Day UB First Day UB Firstfruits Wave Sheaf
Sadducees Passover Passover First Day UB First Day UB Firstfruits Wave Sheaf

The "Traditional" row shows how the traditional Good Friday-Easter Sunday scenario fits. For the Pharisees (and modern Jews), Firstfruits could be on any day of the week but it was always on the 16th. For the Sadducees, it was always on the same day of the week, Sunday, but it could be on any date.

See how that lines up? Only in a Friday-Sunday scenario is everything aligned. I find this to be an absolutely wonderful testament to the intricacy and beaty of God's timing. When our God says "fullness of time" He really means it!

What would this look like in the Thursday-Sunday and Wednesday-Saturday timelines?

Thursday-Sunday

Nissan 14
Thursday

Nissan 14/15
Thu/Fri

Nissan 15
Friday

Nissan 15/16
Fri/Sat

Nissan 16
Saturday

Nissan 16/17
Sat/Sun

Nissan 17
Sunday

Day Night Day Night Day Night Day
Thu-Sun Passover First Day UB First Day UB Sabbath /
Firstfruits?
Sabbath /
Wave Sheaf?  
Firstfruits? Wave Sheaf?
Pharisees Passover First Day UB First Day UB Sabbath /
Firstfruits
Sabbath /
Firstfruits

Wave Sheaf?
Sadducees Passover First Day UB First Day UB Sabbath Sabbath Firstfruits Wave Sheaf

For the Thursday-Sunday scenario, you now have a choice for Firstfruits. Which will it be, the Saturday or the Sunday? That all depends on who is writing the article you read. For the Pharisees, Firstfruits moves to Saturday because it is the 16th and comes after the annual holy day on Friday. But now there is a problem. Usually, an homer of barley was cut immediately after sundown at the start of the Firstfruits, then the Wave Sheaf happened the next morning. With Firstfruits on a double-Sabbath, neither of those can happen. The Wave Sheaf would have to be postponed. Except, Exodus says not to delay this kind of ceremony.

(EXO. 22: 29a) You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices.

Whether they delayed or not is beside the point. The point here is, the perfect alignment is ruined. Look at the chaos in that chart.

Wednesday-Saturday

Nissan 15
Thursday

Nissan 15/16
Thu/Fri

Nissan 16
Friday

Nissan 16/17
Fri/Sat

Nissan 17
Saturday

Nissan 17/18
Sat/Sun

Nissan 18
Sunday

Day Night Day Night Day Night Day
Wed-Sat First Day UB Firstfruits? Wave Sheaf?  Sabbath Sabbath Firstfruits? Wave Sheaf?
Pharisees First Day UB Firstfruits Wave Sheaf Sabbath Sabbath
                         
Sadducees First Day UB
                            Sabbath Sabbath Firstfruits Wave Sheaf

For the Wednesday-Saturday scenario, you again have a choice for Firstfruits. With whom will you side, the Pharisees or the Sadducees? Again, that depends on the opinion of who is writing what you are reading. For the Pharisees, Firstfruits moves to Friday, while nothing at all happens on Friday for the Sadducees. (Why didn't the women go to the tomb on Friday?) As you can see, this scenario completely ruins the beauty of the alignment.

A Friday Firstfruits complicates the symbolism of Jesus' resurrection fulfilling Firstfruits. Pharisees would never agree that He did. He was resurrected two days afterward. Alignment obliterated!

If you know what Armstrongism teaches about the Last Supper, then you know they claim Jesus was correcting the timing of the Jews. That means the slaughter of the lambs should be moved to Tuesday and Jesus was crucified a day later than He should have been. That wreaks havoc on the imagery of Jesus as our Passover Lamb. 
This time scenario ruins the imagery of Passover and Firstfruits. How does that fix the timing exactly?

Read our article "History of Easter - part I". In it we talk about whether Jesus was correcting the timing of Passover when He ate the Lord's Supper a day early.

Notice how the alignment gets uglier and more chaotic the farther away you go from the Traditional timing. Contrast that with the beauty of the traditional timing and the intricacy of the planning that must have gone into it on God's part. The alignment only happens in the traditional Friday-Sunday scenario. What a little detail, and easy to miss. Yet God did not miss it.

You will never see a chart like this in any Church of God splinter group's material. It would never occur to them to make one in the first place. The information is just as much in front of them as it is you, yet they cherry pick right past it. They don't concern themselves with things that don't support their desired outcomes. And they most definitely do not make charts that show there could be issues with their predetermined conclusions. Too much money is at stake.

It's about time we took Herbert Armstrong's advice to "prove (test) all things".


CONCLUSION

At the start of this article, I said, "I for one am utterly amazed at something good that comes from these debates. I see God glorifying Himself in them." I hope now you understand what I meant.

Is this some slam dunk of a point I'm making today? Standing on its own, no. But it is interesting! Good thing this point doesn't stand by itself. Taken with the evidence in our other articles we have written for you, it builds a decent case.

When we genuinely prove something, we look at all of the evidence, both for and against. Not like our friends in the Church of God splinter groups who only look at evidence for their claims, and hide everything else. If we refuse to accept any contrary evidence even exists, how are we proving? We here at As Bereans Did spent most of our lives in Armstrongism. We know what is said and what evidence is given. We don't deny it. What we realized we hadn't done was exactly what Herbert Armstrong said to do in the first place - really prove out the Friday-Sunday scenario. Well, against all expectations, turns out there is quite a bit to it when we let the Bible interpret the Bible, use the right definitions of words, count like a Hebrew, take into account extra-Biblical evidence, and genuinely try to poke holes in our own understanding in order to let the truth just be what it is.

God is a God of order, not chaos. He defeats chaos. Because of some points in the law that were not clarified, such as which Sabbath should mark the start of the Day of Firstfruits, the Jews fell into disagreement. The Jews debated timing and ended up with two incompatible timing scenarios. God, being wiser and more capable than all our greatest faults, found a way to satisfy everything. He patiently waited, and when the fullness of time had come, He acted. Truly, He was up to the challenge of whatever our confusion threw at Him. He practically wraps it all up in a pretty bow. Praise the Lord! Glory and laud and honor to the One who sits on the throne, surrounded by beauty and power, and who humbled Himself for us so we could be with Him.

And this alignment only happens in the traditional Friday-Sunday scenario.


God bless you, dear reader! You are why ABD exists. Thanks for reading.

If you have more questions about Easter and timing, please read our "Easter FAQ". I update it from time to time.






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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Easter History - part I

I am curious about people who say Easter is pagan. I wonder how they came to their conclusions. What started them on this road? What study did they do? What information did they consider and what did they leave out? Did they genuinely try to understand the matter before they reached a conclusion?

I can tell you what led me there back when I was much younger. My situation is rather unique, however. I'm not interested in telling about me. I want to know about how other people got there.

Some people are so militantly against Easter that I wonder if they thoughtfully considered the matter at all. Goodness knows that fairly well describes me while I was a true Armstrong believer. I only wanted to find what I already believed. I was thoroughly biased. I wanted to hate Easter. I didn't understand it, I never really liked it, and I was told a lot about it so I thought I understood it. I did not.

As it turns out, a lot of people observe Easter. So, I figure I’d better find out all I can about it if I’m going to condemn people as unsaved pagans for keeping it. But what happens when you find out something you have so much invested in is not true? Well, read on and find out.

This will be part one of a two-part study into Easter. In this part, we will investigate the details of Passover and Jesus’ death. Most of this will be about Passover and timing. We definitely will compare and contrast what Herbert Armstrong taught, therefore what the Church of God groups continue to teach, seeing as this entire blog is about those sorts of things, with what the Jews do and what the Bible actually says. We need to look at this first because in part two we will investigate how these things tie in to Easter.


WHAT IS EASTER ANYWAY?

Easter is the day on which most Christians celebrate the death and resurrection, but mostly the resurrection, of our Lord Jesus Christ. Easter is the culmination of two different times: the Holy Week, which commemorates the events of the week in which Jesus was crucified, and the season of Lent, where people fast and pray for a period of time, usually 40 days, until Easter day.

Easter day, also called Resurrection Sunday, is considered by most to be the New Covenant Passover because of how it originated in a remembrance of the Last Supper, which was (so it seems to us here anyway) a Passover Seder. There is some debate whether the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. Most say yes, and not just based on when it was but also based on hints of symbolism found in the Gospels.

The earliest Christians, including the Apostles themselves, remembered the Last Supper annually. We go into this in far greater depth in the Easter FAQ. Some observed it every year on the 14th of Nissan according to the Hebrew calendar, and some observed it every year on the first Sunday after the 14th of Nissan. The earliest name given to the remembrance was Pascha, that is, Passover. That name is still used in most countries. Only Germanic languages call it something different. When the early church discussed this day, they used the same word as they did for Passover. In Latin, that is Pascha. When Christianity came to Germany, they did what Germans do and renamed it after the month in which it fell.

In the old Catholic traditions, the traditions that spread through Europe, Easter is more than just a day, it is a season (in old English the word for season is “tide”; eg. “Easter tide”) that continues 50 days until Pentecost. This is a continuation from the ancient Israelites. Pentecost has always been inseparably linked to Passover.


WHAT IS PASSOVER?

To find the origins of Easter, we need to look first at the Jewish Passover.

The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were foretold to be in captivity in Egypt 400 years. No, they didn’t build the pyramids in Giza. That’s all legends and Hollywood. When that time was up, God worked ten miraculous plagues to convince the Egyptians to let the Israelites go. We can read in Exodus about the very first Passover, where the Israelites were spared by God from the 10th Plague on Egypt. The Israelites had to sacrifice a lamb or a kid goat then put its blood on their doorways. God would see the blood then skip that house, sparing it from the plague.

This from a Judaism 101 article on “Pesach: Passover”:

“The name ‘Pesach’ (PAY-sahch, with a ‘ch’ as in the Scottish ‘loch’) comes from the Hebrew root Pei-Samekh-Cheit , meaning to pass through, to pass over, to exempt or to spare. It refers to the fact that G-d ‘passed over’ the houses of the Jews when he was slaying the firstborn of Egypt. In English, the holiday is known as Passover. ‘Pesach’ is also the name of the sacrificial offering (a lamb) that was made in the Temple on this holiday.”
-Judaism 101, Pesach

It should be obvious to Christians that the lamb and its blood represented the body and blood of Jesus, who is our Passover Lamb (I COR. 5: 7).

The sacrifice had to be roasted in fire, whole, and eaten with bitter herbs which symbolize the bitter oppression of slavery. The bread for the meal had to be unleavened, to symbolize the haste of the event. The Israelites had to eat in haste because they were leaving Egypt that very night.
Israel was commanded to repeat this meal every year at a specific time in honor of that event, so they would always remember it was God who saved them. This meal is now called the Seder. This is the meal Jesus, as a Jew in the Old Covenant period, was eating on the night He was betrayed.
Passover, as we can see in Leviticus 23: 5, is a single day that leads into a seven-day festival. Passover begins on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan/Abib.


PASSOVER TRADITIONS

Everyone should know this blog is dedicated to an inspection of the doctrines and practices of Herbert W Armstrong and the Church of God groups that descend from his theology. We call this movement “Armstrongism” for lack of a better term.

In Armstrongism, Passover has been separated into its own isolated day, solitary as an oyster, contained solely within the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan, with a ceremonial meal of unleavened bread and wine at the start, and another observance called "Night to be Much Observed" at the end which carries over well into the 15th. Then comes a seven-day celebration called “Days of Unleavened Bread”, which we often abbreviate as “DOUB”. The DOUB has a holy day at the start and a holy day at the finish, where no work may be done. During the DOUB, no leavening may be eaten at all. It isn't just that no leavened bread may be eaten. No leavening may exist in your home at all. Not even crumbs. People start days ahead of time, vacuuming out their cars and toasters (and yet still managing to miss places every year).

That's not exactly how the Jews do things.

Jews call the whole thing “Passover” or “Matzot” after the unleavened matzo bread. Passover starts on the 14th, but the Seder is at the end and goes well into the 15th. The Seder is eaten with unleavened bread because the original was, and because it flows straight into the annual holy day that starts the period where no leavening may be present. It is on the day of Passover, on the 14th, when the Jews put away leavening from their houses. The Seder is not just a simple matzo and wine, but a highly stylized meal with various items and rituals, each conveying its own particular meaning to the event.

Up until the time when the second temple was destroyed, there was another day in there called the Day/Feast of Firstfruits. The wording of Leviticus 23: 9-14 puts it on the morning after the Sabbath during the Passover week. The Pharisees, as they seem to do, thought about it and concluded the Sabbath referred to is not a weekly Sabbath but the annual Sabbath at the start of the Feast, regardless of the weekday. It was on that Day of Firstfruits when the Wave Sheaf was cut and offered. It was the year's first harvest. This act tied Passover to the ripening barley harvest. Oddly, Firstfruits is practically ignored in Armstrongism. Some even teach Pentecost is the Feast of Firstfruits.

Armstrongism does focus quite a bit on Jesus during the Passover meal, but then this focus drops off precipitously. You may think this odd, but both the Judaism and Armstrongism remember the first Passover and the Exodus at the Passover meal. Why would Herbert Armstrong teach that, you ask? Because he believed a certain 18th century conspiracy theory called British-Israelism (aka Anglo-Israelism), which says the ten northern tribes of Israel migrated north into Europe after they were taken into captivity by the Assyrians, and certain European nations are modern Israelites without knowing it. It was considered a great proof of Herbert Armstrong’s authority and key to understanding prophecy. Archaeology, liknguistics, and DNA have proven this theory false, and it is falling out of favor in Armstrongism recently. But the Passover traditions are solidified.

The point of this section is to compare and contrast the practices of Armstrongism and Judaism to demonstrate they are not the same. I thought this was important for two reasons. First, when I was an Armstrongist, I did not understand these differences. Turns out they get important as the discussion goes on. Second, so readers would understand Herbert Armstrong did not just copy Judaism. They have similarities but are not interchangeable. If you are here reading but are not from an Armstrongist background, you might want to know this.


TIMING OF PASSOVER

If there is a debate over whether the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, it pales in comparison to the debate on when the Seder should be eaten. The law is clear that it should be on the 14th day of the month of Nissan, but the law says “at evening”. Understand that in Hebrew tradition, days begin at sundown. That detail right there is the crux of the entire Passover debate. When is evening? If the days end and start at sundown, each day has two possible evenings. Well, which was it, the first or the second?

Some people are adamant that it must be the first evening, at the very beginning of the day. The Jews do not see it that way. At least since the second temple period, the Pharisees have interpreted the law as referring to the second evening, at the very end of the day. Which is right? That’s what the debate is all about! Both sides have their evidence.

I am not going to try to solve that debate today. I have an opinion which I will not state directly but if you are clever, you will recognize it. That really is outside the scope of this article (this article is about Easter, not Passover). I just want to point out the fact that there is an unsettled debate and give a few points from each side to illustrate something.

(LEV. 23: 4-8) 4 These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. 5 On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the LORD’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. 8 But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD for seven days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.

Verse 5 says the Passover is on the 14th day of the first month - which is the month of Nissan/Abib. Armstrongism stops here, focuses on the word twilight / evening, and concludes the Passover meal is eaten at the very start of the 14th. If you ask a Jew when the Passover Seder is, they will say the Passover starts on the 14th, but the Seder meal is early on the 15th, not early on the 14th. The Seder meal would have been eaten well into the 15th. Why? Because the Jews have a different definition of evening.


DID THE JEWS GET THE TIMING RIGHT?

I will not give a definite yes or no answer here. I only want to briefly explain why the Jews do what they do. I mean, aside from the fact it’s their language, history, religion, scriptures, and culture, and they feel they should be the ones to set the tone.

The Passover lamb was chosen late on the 10th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan/Abib (EXO. 12: 3). The lamb is tested for blemishes and declared spotless (EXO. 12: 6), just as Jesus was questioned by the leaders of the Jews and declared without fault by Pilot (LUK. 23 4). Then, lambs were killed on the 14th (EXO. 12: 6).

Some people treat it as if you can go back to the very first command to Israel in Egypt and focus on those directions as if they were the only directions on the subject, and all the directions anyone would ever need. That is not so! The entire viewpoint rests on one underlying premise: the law does not change. But is that really the case? Did the law of Passover change at any point? Let's investigate that briefly.

In Exodus 12, the Israelites were killing, cooking, and eating the Passover at home. How else could they mark the doorposts and lintels? They were home. Now, fast forward in time to when Israel is a nation in the wilderness, anticipating a time when they are millions settled in cities across their own land. We come to Deuteronomy 16, where we read:

(DEO. 16: 5-7) "5 You may not offer the Passover sacrifice within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, 6 but at the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell in it, there you shall offer the Passover sacrifice, in the evening at sunset, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall cook it and eat it at the place that the Lord your God will choose. And in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents."

Anyone from an Armstrongist background will know that phrase "where the Lord God will choose". That is for another post.
The part that interests us today is the obvious change in the Passover instructions regarding where Israel could kill and roast the lamb. No longer could they do that at home. Now, it was to be done outside the camp, which anticipates the day when it would be done in Jerusalem. This is a change in the law. What's more, it's one with a definite effect on when to eat the Seder.

If millions needed to go to Jerusalem for the Passover, as the law required, where each would have their lamb killed and roasted by the priests, as the law required, there is absolutely no way that many people with that many lambs could eat it at the start of the day. Perhaps that was possible in Exodus 12, but it certainly isn't the case in Deuteronomy 16. Josephus tells is this happened between the ninth hour and the eleventh (3PM to 5 PM). Some estimates say it took much longer than that. At any rate, it took hours just to kill the lambs. That isn’t including roasting them and preparing the rest of the Seder. That is why the law changed. An unchanging, inflexible law is an untenable premise.

Perhaps people look at the Jews today and think the Seder they eat at home isn’t so bad and there is no reason why that can’t be done quickly at the very start of the 14th. That misses the point entirely. The Jews today didn’t just recently settle in directly from the Exodus. Jewish customs today descend from the second temple period. There was nothing easy about killing and roasting a million lambs at the Temple. That absolutely cannot be done quickly. And that cannot just be ignored when considering what is done today.

It is grossly oversimplistic to claim Jews are just following some manmade tradition. They eat it when they do because they know their history and the nuances of their own language a lot better than some group of Sabbatarians in the United States fumbling through the Strong's Concordance trying to figure out what the word evening means.

Now we must ask, what of the Jews outside of Judea? There were Jews outside of Judea, called the Diaspora, which means "dispersion" because they were scattered. History shows they changed the timing of Passover. Why? Because they had to.

The Jews in the Diaspora keep an eight-day Passover. They added a day. But this is no change from careless flippancy. This is a change made from necessity and careful consideration. This is not how things were originally, and everyone admits that. The story behind it is quite interesting. Have you ever watched or read Lord of the Rings? Remember the part where Gondor calls for aid and they light the bonfires across the mountain tops to signal the call? That is the same way Passover was announced. Clever as that system was, you can imagine that wasn't effective when you live farther away than those signal fires reached. They were also prone to being messed with, especially by them pesky Samaritans. When the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, the system was abandoned. Now how do you know what day it is?

Maybe it would help you to see the gravity of this if you are reminded of how the calendar worked at the Temple in Israel. Two male witnesses in Jerusalem would go out and observe the moon. If they both agreed they saw the new moon, the Sanhedrin would confirm this. Next, the Sanhedrin would figure out how long the previous month was. Then they would send the signal of the new month. This was not calendar-based. To be a Jew in the Diaspora was to be practically cut off from the calendar. They weren’t authorized to do their own calendar observations. They couldn’t plan but a few weeks in advance. They had to do something. The answer is quite simple – keep an additional day just to be safe.
That is one day in advance, by the way. For example, Diaspora Jews would be eating a Seder at the same time Jesus did.

I hope we can sympathize with the Diaspora Jews for adding a day just to make sure that at some point they would be observing at the right time. The extra day is insurance so to speak. It wasn’t just Passover, either. This same thing went for other holy days. The practice continues to this very day.

There is no law for this situation. No guidance from Moses. God predicted the scattering from the start, but the law was silent. Seems to me as if God was saying, look, once the scattering happens, you’re on your own. It isn’t that there was a slack opinion, and everyone just did what was right in their own eyes. They seriously tried their best! There was no law but there was a precedent: Passover was always flexible. Fun fact: Numbers 9: 9-13 has a second Passover, in case something happened to prevent people from observing it the first time around. Do you see how the law is actually quite flexible after all? Why, it’s almost as if the law was made for man, not man for the law.


DID HERBERT ARMSTRONG GET THE TIMING RIGHT?

And what of those who say the Jews got it wrong? How do they tally up? I have heard so very many and complicated explanations in Armstrongism for why the Jews do not keep their own celebrations correctly. "Jews follow the traditions of men rather than God," is written in official church publications. (For more on that, see our article “My Opinions Are God’s Opinions”.) As we saw earlier, the reality is not so simple.

Armstrongists argue this timing strenuously, as they do with all calendar issues. But this “14th/15th controversy” is particularly potent and divisive among them. Few things cause church splits like a calendar controversy. Some go off on multi-part sermons with vivid scenarios and deep studies into the “real” meaning of the Hebrew word “evenings” and et cetera (I sat through my share of those from Ron Weinland). I don't fault anyone for trying to solve what is obviously a puzzle, but Armstrong’s solution is not without its own issues.

I’ve made a handy little chart to highlight some of the differences.

Jesus' timeline of events:

Nissan 13

Nissan 13/14

Nissan 14

Nissan 14/15

Day Night Day Night
Prepare upper
room.
                             
Last Supper and arrest.
Jews start
de-leavening.
Trial, crucifixion, burial.
Slaughter lambs
Finish de-leavening.
Jews eat Seder.

Armstrongism's view of events:

Nissan 13
Thursday

Nissan 13/14
Thu/Fri

Nissan 14
Friday

Nissan 14/15
Fri/Sat

Day Night Day Night
Jews should be
de-leavening.
                           
Last Supper and arrest.
Jews should be killing
lambs and eating
Seder.
Trial, crucifixion, burial.
Slaughter lambs
Jews not required to
do anything.
Night to be Much
Observed.
Start of Unleavened
Bread.

Church of God splinter groups observe Passover one day sooner than the Jews, at the beginning of the 14th - or in other words, immediately after the 13th of Nisan becomes the 14th. Look at any Holy Day calendar from any Church of God splinter group and compare that timing of Passover to any Jewish website. See the difference?

Right now, someone out there is saying, "When Jesus ate the Last Supper on the 14th, He was restoring the correct timing of Passover, which had erred over the years. We should be obeying God rather than man!" Based on what proof? Did Jesus say that is what He was doing? No. Is that mentioned earlier in His ministry? No. That wasn't His first Passover, you know. Do the Apostles clarify that later? No. Does anyone anywhere in the New Testament say that? No. So, this is just an opinion, an assumption, based on a heavy dose of black or white thinking and striving over the words evening and twilight.

Did we not just read in Exodus 12 how the lambs were selected on the 10th and killed on the 14th? When we look closely at Exodus 12, verse 6 says 'twilight' in English, which is translated from the Hebrew word haarbayim. The -yim suffix indicates the word is plural. More specifically, it is dual. That's dual, as in two evenings. Being dual, it is transliterated as "between the evenings" or “between the two evenings”.
Now, find a solid definition of that phrase and you'll have solved one of the greatest debates there is. Do you know why it’s debated? Because there is no clear definition. So, the Pharisees took it upon themselves to define it. Ever since then, people have been complaining.

Well, well. It’s not as simple as “evening is at the start of the day” after all. People tend to grossly oversimplify the issue by saying things like, "Genesis 1: 13 says 'and the evening and the morning were the third day' so evening comes before morning." Can you see how that doesn't even begin to answer what "between the two evenings" means?

Let's assume for a moment that Herbert Armstrong was on to something and evening is correctly defined as a period after the very start of the day. Let's take that definition and apply it to Exodus 12: 18 so we can see something.

(EXO. 12: 18) "In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening."

I will translate that into Armstrong for you. "From early on the Passover, to early on the Last Day of Unleavened Bread, you will eat unleavened bread."

This is problematic for Armstrong for four reasons at least.
First, in their view, the seven-day feast of Unleavened Bread starts on the day after Passover, not on Passover. The First Day of Unleavened Bread is the 15th. Here, the time for unleavened bread starts on the 14th. With their commitment to evening being at the start of a day, this cannot mean the end of the 14th. Ask yourself this question - if Passover is truly a separate thing from the Days of Unleavened Bread, then why observe the Passover without leaven when it simply isn’t time yet? Either the 14th is time for unleavened bread, or the Seder should be on the 15th.
Second, in their view, Passover is separate from the feast of Unleavened Bread. Passover, being separate, doesn’t count as a day for eating unleavened bread. It’s Passover plus seven days of unleavened bread. Here it is eight days.
Third, the time for eating unleavened bread ends early on the Last Day of Unleavened Bread. Why would that be? Why not end at the end of that day?
Fourth, given that definition of evening, why would you start the period of unleavened bread after the start of a day rather than immediately at the very start of the day? In other words, why at evening specifically and not at sunset?
My point here is everybody who strives for a rigid, inflexible, either/or, one size fits all definition of evening has issues in this debate. Since the Armstrong interpretation does that, it has issues too. They thought they solved the issue, only to create others.

In fact, here is another issue.
If Jesus ate the Seder on the “correct” time and the Jews did not, then that would also mean that Jesus died a day after the “correct” slaughtering of the Passover lambs. The symbolism of Jesus being our Passover Lamb is wrecked! The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

The unavoidable fact is Jesus ate the Lord’s Supper on the 14th, one day before his fellow countrymen. That’s the fact. What’s the explanation? For me, the simplest and least destructive explanation is He did it because He had to, not because He was correcting the timing. He wanted to eat it, He couldn't eat it if He was dead, so He ate it a day early, as was His right, and it did technically fit the law. This afforded His crucifixion to be at the time of the lambs were being slaughtered thus preserving the symbolism of Him being our Passover lamb.

Think of it this way - by the greatness of God, the order of events of the crucifixion week worked in the only way possible to perfectly satisfy Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy 16, plus the timing of the Jews, satisfying the law and preserving the symbolism. God was equal to the challenge. Why, it’s almost as if it was prearranged this way. Praise the Lord


WHAT ABOUT THE NIGHT TO BE MUCH OBSERVED?

I briefly mentioned this earlier. You might have missed it. It bears more investigation.

In the middle of a chapter dedicated entirely to Passover, somehow Herbert Armstrong found another event entirely. Armstrong cited Exodus 12: 42 and created another special observance called the “Night to Be Much Observed” (aka. Night to be Much Remembered) at the beginning of the15th of Nissan. After the 14th ends at sundown and the 15th has begun, when the Jews are eating the Passover Seder, Armstrongists are eating another meal entirely. Yes, two meals, one an evening after the other.

Originally, the Night to be Much Observed was called the Night to be Much Remembered. That was changed in the 1990s. Why the two names? Because it's made up! When the preferred Bible translation changed, the name changed. Perhaps, soon it will be "Night of Solemn Observance" [NKJV] or even "Night of Vigil" [CSB].

Let's think about the timing in Exodus 12.
The ancient Israelites slaughtered the lambs, marked their doorposts at dusk, ate the Passover after dark, and were kicked out of Egypt that same night (EXO. 12: 31-39). The next evening, they were at Succoth. There wasn't time for another ritual meal. There wasn’t reason for another ritual meal. There wasn’t symbolism for another ritual meal. What about Succoth deserved much remembering?

The Bible is not always in strict chronological order. Just because Exo. 12: 42 appears in the text after the story about the day Israel left Egypt doesn’t mean the night to be observed comes chronologically after Israel left Egypt. Exodus 12: 40-42 is an inset. It refers back to the Passover again, since the entire chapter is about the Passover. The next verses have clearly returned to the Passover. Armstrong simply missed the boat on this one.

The Night to be Much Observed is the kind of anomaly that happens when you have your equation wrong. It's a glitch indicating an error in the system. The error is that Exodus 12: 42 is speaking about the Passover night being a night of vigil to be much remembered. Correct that improper reading, and the glitch goes away.

We cannot agree with Armstrong’s view of timing. There is only one meal, the Seder, not two. There is no separate Night to be Much Observed, only Passover. Are the Jews just “following a man”? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. But there's plenty of that accusation to go around. These same Church of God splinters rely on the authority one man, Herbert Armstrong, for the Night to be Much Observed. Then they turn right around and rely on the authority of the 'worldly' Jews to declare the correct timing of the months, weekly Sabbaths, and other annual holy days. So, the Jews are wrong (when they contradict Herbert Armstrong) and the Jews are right (when they agree with Herbert Armstrong). How convenient!

For more, see our article "Should Christians Celebrate the 'Night to be Much Observed'?"


PASCHA VS PASSOVER?

Jesus ate the Last Supper as a Passover Seder. (I already admitted this is debated. I said what I said.)
(LUK. 22: 8) And He sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.”

The Last Supper was a Seder. Christians observe the Last Supper. But does this mean Christians should be observing Passover just like the Jews? Should our meal be a Seder and our thoughts be on the Exodus?
The Passover is a very specific event with very specific rituals and imagery for a very specific people during a very specific time. Just look at this regulation regarding the Passover:

(EXO. 12: 43-49) 43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. 46 In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.

If we are concerned about the Old Covenant law, then Gentiles are forbidden from participating in Passover, unless they are circumcised and become Proselytes. That's the law. Gentiles are excluded!

“The law! The law! Just not THAT law.” Oh, how very many times I have heard, “The law is eternal,” and, “Not one jot or one tittle!” Yet, the law is not being kept, is it? Certainly not! “God gave us His holy days!” Did He? Looks to me like the law says God gave the Jews holy days. If you are a Gentile keeping Passover, then you are breaking the law. Undeterred, they insist, “Jesus didn’t change the law!” Anyone who thinks He didn't must put that lamb down and stop keeping Passover.
Wait, what? You didn’t have a lamb? You only had matzo and wine? What law are you observing exactly??

In the New Covenant, we know that Gentiles most certainly are allowed to take part in the Lord's Supper. We also know circumcision and the law of Moses are not requirements for participation (ACT 15: 1-29). For this and many other reasons, we know the Old Covenant law is not a factor in the New Covenant.

Jesus a Jew in the Old Covenant period, so He ate the Passover because at that time and in that place those things applied to Him. The Gospels might be in the New Testament, but almost every word in them pictures the Old Covenant period. Then He died, ending the Old Covenant. But even as He ate, He instituted a new event with new rituals and new imagery for a New Covenant for all people for all time.

Jesus emphasized the bread and the wine, which are not the main part of the Passover Seder. He became our lamb. He said that the bread was His flesh, and the wine His blood. This certainly is not part of Seder. Then there was the concentration on service, illustrated by the foot washing. There is no precedent for that in Seder. And then there is the New Covenant. That’s absolutely not pictured in the Seder.

Finally, we have these words:

(LUK. 22: 19) …do this in remembrance of Me.

Not in remembrance of Moses, nor of slavery in Egypt, nor the 10th plague, nor of the Exodus, nor the law, nor in the night to be much remembered, but in remembrance of Him (I COR. 11: 24-26). That makes the biggest difference of all. There is no mention of the Exodus from Egypt, but an exodus from slavery to sin and slavery to death. There is no mention of a Red Sea crossing, but a baptism into the community of Life.

For all the people who demand that what we are to do is to continue in the Old Covenant observance of Passover, this is simply not accurate. Jesus fulfilled the law (MAT. 3: 15; 5: 17; LUK. 22: 44). He has made the Old obsolete (HEB. 8: 13); behold all things are new (II COR. 5: 17)! All of these things point to Him (COL. 2: 17). This is the New Covenant. A New Covenant in His blood.

(MAT. 26: 28) For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(MAR. 14: 24) And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
(LUK. 22: 20) Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

So, what do we see here? The Last Supper was a Seder, and we have a remembrance of the Last Supper, but our remembrance is not a Passover Seder. The name is the same, but everything else is changed. The New Covenant Pascha is not a continuation of the Old Covenant Passover.


CONCLUSION

In part one, we have seen that the Jews do observe Passover on the 15th of Nisan, but Jesus made the decision to eat the Last Supper a day earlier, on the 14th. We have seen the issue isn’t nearly so simple as, “Evenings are at the start of the day.” We have seen how Passover was somewhat flexible, not utterly rigid. We have seen how Passover laws changed slightly over time. We have seen that the New Covenant Pascha is not the same thing as the Old Covenant Passover. And we have seen Herbert Armstrong’s view of the timing of these things is not representative of the whole picture and causes its own issues.

Passover is not a wholly separate event from the Days of Unleavened Bread. They blend together. The Night to Be Much Remembered/Observed is not a separate day from Passover. It is the Passover. And the Days of Unleavened Bread are not wholly separate from Pentecost. Pentecost depends on the Day of Firstfruits with its wave sheaf offering. It all flows together beautifully.

The history of Easter depends on the history of Passover.
The timing of Passover starts with the sundown which ends the 13th and begins the 14th of Nisan. This is when the Jews began to remove the leaven from their homes. This is the night of the original Passover. This is the night on which Jesus ate the Last Supper and was arrested. Night comes and Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot. He spends the night in trials and in jail. Mark goes out of his way to tell us this was a Friday. At about the time of the daily sacrifice, 9 AM, Jesus was scourged. Then He was declared blameless by Pilot – just like a Passover lamb - and sent to die. He was hung on the cross around noon. After noon was the slaughter of the Passover lambs. Josephus tells us that was from about 3 PM to 5 PM. During that very procedure, our Lord died to fulfill the symbolism and He became our Passover Lamb. No doubt the priests were still slaughtering lambs when the earthquake hit and the veil was torn in two. The lambs were being roasted with bitter herbs while Jesus’ body was being prepared with oils and spices to go into the tomb by certain woman of Galilee, along with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. All of this happened “between the two evenings”. He was laid into the tomb before sundown. Sundown is roughly 6 PM, so at this point He was already dead for about three hours. As sundown came, the 15th of Nisan began, and the Jews began to eat the Seder. Now it was the first day of Unleavened Bread, an annual holy day and a weekly Sabbath both, and everyone rested from their regular work while Jesus’ body rested in the tomb. After sundown, the women of Galilee prepared more spices and the Pharisees went to Pilate to ask for a guard to be placed at the tomb. On Sunday, the first day of the week, with inclusive counting this is the third day from His death, our Lord was found risen from the tomb, the First of the Firstfruits. In the morning, before it was light, the ladies left home with their spices to visit the tomb, only to find it empty. Shortly thereafter, He fulfilled the symbolism of the Wave Sheaf offering which was performed on the Day of Firstfruits. He fulfilled it according to the day after the weekly Sabbath, which the Sadducees followed, and the day after the annual Sabbath, as the Pharisees followed.

Only a Friday-Sunday crucifixion scenario can do this. Only in a Friday-Sunday crucifixion scenario do all of these things line up together. No other timing scenario can complete all of this so perfectly. For all its confusion and all its debates and all its changes over time, God played the Passover timeline like a harp.

(I COR. 11: 23-26) 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

In Part II of this series, we will talk more about Easter.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28

Are there two Sabbaths hidden in Matthew 28? Are most Bibles wrong? This deep-dive examines the text to see whether it supports a Wednesday crucifixion.
"A vital text proving that there were two Sabbaths in that week has been obscured by almost every translation into English." -Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not on Sunday", 1972, p.13
I think Herbert Armstrong had a fine little thing going with the "two Sabbaths" argument. It was quite convincing. One of his premier arguments! It certainly convinced me for a number of years. But can it hold up to our intense scrutiny here at ABD?

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

What Armstrong did was to make a huge deal about the Greek word “sabbaton” in Matthew 28: 1. He assigned an unconventional explanation to the verse, and with that wedge he attempted to split apart almost 2,000 years of Christian tradition. Before we start, I need to fill in a small background detail regarding how Armstrong viewed the timing of the death and resurrection of our Lord:
"Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, the middle day of the week. He died shortly after 3 p.m. that afternoon; was buried before sunset Wednesday evening. Now count three days and three nights. His body was Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday nights in the grave - three nights. It also was there through the daylight part of Thursday, Friday and Saturday - three days. He rose Saturday - the Sabbath - late afternoon, shortly before sunset, at the same time of day that He was buried!"
-Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not on Sunday", 1972, p.12
Anyone who has spent any time in Adventism knows this depiction. I would presume anyone who has tried to look up Good Friday on the internet knows this depiction. But there are two main issues here.

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

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

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


SABBATON

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

According to the New Testament Greek Lexicon, the second definition of this word is thus:
"2. seven days, a week"
-New Testament Greek Lexicon, Copyright © 2001-2010, Heartlight, Inc.
Seven days? A week? What is that supposed to mean?

Turns out it means the word translated as "Sabbath" can represent all seven days of the week, as well as just the seventh day, depending on context. It's a Jewish idiom. The plural of sabbaton can refer to the entire week by only mentioning the Sabbaths on either end of the week. This is the same thing as calling your car your “wheels.” Wheels are only part of a car, but they represent the whole thing. It's a synecdoche.
This from a Wikipedia article on the Sabbath:
"By synecdoche (naming a part for the whole), the term "Sabbath" also came to mean simply a seven-day week in Jewish sources by the time of the Septuagint, namely, the interval between two Sabbaths. Jesus's parable of the Pharisee and the Publican describes the Pharisee as fasting "twice a week" (Greek dis tou sabbatou, literally, "twice of the Sabbath")."
-"Sabbath". WikiPedia. 3-20-2010 at 12:35 PM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath
If you've read my articles, you know I quote Wikipedia when I want to make a point about information being readily available.

This is entirely consistent with the Strong's Concordance definition of the word. It can be singular or plural, one Sabbath or … a whole week.
4521 Sabbaton: the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.
Now that you understand what we’re dealing with here (that 'sabbaton' can mean 'week'), can we be confident that it affects Matthew 28: 1? The answer to that is, yes! Adam Clarke’s Commentary can help us here.
"In the end of the Sabbath - Οψε δε σαββατων. After the end of the week: this is the translation given by several eminent critics; and in this way the word οψε is used by the most eminent Greek writers."
-Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, chapter XXVIII, Commentary on Matthew 28
Adam Clarke tells us it is the scholarly consensus that sabbaton is to be translated week. Bible translators are not obscuring anything, as Armstrong asserts. They are properly translating.

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

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

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

(MAT. 28: 1) Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn...
(MAR. 16: 1) Now when the Sabbath was past...
(MAR. 16: 2) Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week...
(LUK. 24: 1) Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning...
(JOH. 20: 1) Now the first day of the week... 
*All of these are from the NKJV.

All of these verses tell us about Sunday morning in the hours right before sunrise - the timing of when Jesus was first known to have been resurrected. None of them are telling us what happened earlier in the week. Timing is key! All of these verses are telling us about the same time for the same reason. The weekly Sabbath came and went, and now, early on Sunday morning we focus. That is the time context. Because the entire point is to explain when they first knew Jesus Christ had risen.

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

There are some who claim that Matthew 28: 1 supports a Saturday resurrection. This is simply not possible. It neither supports nor precludes it. It only deals with the time He was first found alive. The phrase "in the end" literally means "after" not "during" and most certainly not "several hours before" (which Armstrong prefers, because in his scenario Jesus would have been resurrected at the same hour He died.)
I have read people who assert "began to dawn" is a forgery added later. Based on what scholarly evidence? None. In their minds, if the Bible does not support their belief, then the Bible is wrong. But for us who take a less ideologically fundamentalist approach to the pursuit of truth, Matthew 28: 1 does nothing to support a Saturday resurrection. Neither do the other Gospels.

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

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

A SECOND SABBATON

Let's look at the beginning of Matthew 28: 1 in Greek:
"Opse de sabbaton te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton..."
Notice anything odd in there? That's right! "Sabbaton" appears twice! And they are both plural. What this means is astoundingly bad for Armstrong.
Four Sabbaths that week? No. Not because of that.

Look at the very same phrase once again in NKJV English:
"Now after the Sabbath [sabbaton], as the first day of the week [sabbaton] began to dawn..."
So, sabbaton can be "week" after all, and it is… in this very verse!
Let's put this into my own personal translation. Hopefully this will show you my meaning here. Not four Sabbaths in one week, but:

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

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


LOST IN MISTRANSLATION

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

Let us now transliterate this into Armstrong's thinking in order to illustrate something:
"Now after the two Sabbaths, as the first of the weekS began..."
That is how Armstrong sees things. Notice he didn’t just redefine the first instance, he redefined them both.

The first sabbaton -

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

Look at the definition of sabbaton. Do you see that possibility in there? Did you see "Sabbath [singular], Sabbaths [plural], a week, and a combination of whatever type of Sabbath we like"? No. You do not because it's not there. That is not a proper definition of sabbaton. Sabbaton does not refer to a combination of different types of Sabbaths, like a Holy Day and a weekly Sabbath. Sabbaton is never translated 'holy day'. Holy days have their own word: heorte.

In Colossians 2: 16, Paul separates "Sabbath day" (sabbaton) from "holy day" (heorte) in the same sentence. They are separate. In the New Testament, no annual high day is ever referred to as sabbaton. Not one! Therefore, Armstrong has insurmountable problems with his translation.
So, the way Matthew is telling us it was Sunday morning is by telling us the week had ended, not by telling us a combination of weekly and annual Sabbaths had ended.

I propose "week" is the best translation for the first sabbaton.

The second sabbaton -

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

But there is no such thing as a double plural. Neither of those are valid translations. How can he do this? The answer is simple and straightforward - he cannot.

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

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

The phrase is literally "one of the Sabbaths". Not as in any one, but first one. In other words, "day one of the week". This is a normal and recognized way to say "Sunday". We all know and accept that it was Sunday. So, what need is there to redefine it at all? Armstrong simply made a mess when he didn't really need to do anything at all.

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


FEAST OF FIRSTFUITS AND PENTECOST

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

According to Leviticus 23: 9-16, Deuteronomy 16: 9, and Armstrong’s own understanding, the 50-day count to Pentecost is initiated by the Wave Sheaf offering. The day of the Wave Sheaf is called the Day of Firstfruits. The count to Pentecost starts here.

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

Still with me? The 50-day count to Pentecost begins on Firstfruits, but when Firstfruits happens depends on which Sabbath you think the law refers to. Why mention that?

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

In a Wednesday scenario, if you're a Pharisee or a modern Jew (because modern Judaism descends from the Pharisaical tradition), Friday is the Day of Firstfruits. That makes Saturday the first Sabbath in the count to Pentecost, and thus the day of the Wave Sheaf. Do you see what this means? If we go with the Pharisees' timing, then both sabbaton refer to the same Saturday. This cannot be. If the first says it's over, the second cannot say it just began.
That changes Herbert Armstrong's version of Matthew 28: 1 to this:
"Now after the Sabbaths, and after the first day of the weeks ..."
Oh! That is terrible news for Mr. Armstrong. It can't be the start of the count if you're past the start already.
Quick! Side with the Sadducees! (And he does. I don't think he realized it.)

In a Wednesday scenario, if you're a Sadducee, Sunday is the Day of Firstfruits. Sunday starts the 50-day count to Pentecost. This means the first Sabbath in the count to Pentecost is a week away. This cannot be. It cannot be dawning and a week away. Matthew 28: 1 is talking about that very morning, the day that was dawning, not some other day a week off. Pointing to a day a week off is not an option. Siding with the Sadducees will not help him.
That changes Herbert Armstrong's version of Matthew 28: 1 to this:
"Now after the Sabbaths, and a week before the first Sabbath in the count to Pentecost ..."
That is also terrible news for Mr. Armstrong.
Notice this is what he actually believed. What he believed has been this wrong the entire time.

Let's review:
  • Any Sabbath prior to Sunday can't be the first in the count. They would be covered in the first sabbaton.
  • Sunday cannot be the first Sabbath in the count, because Sunday isn't the Sabbath.
  • The Sabbath a week away would have to be the first Sabbath in the count, but it's a week off, therefore it couldn't have been dawning as Matthew 28: 1 said.
  • And we cannot punt to translating Sabbaton as weekS in the first place because we cannot pluralize an already plural form.
Nor is there any tradition, at that time or any other, of using the word sabbaton in reference to the count to Pentecost. The count to Pentecost is not an option here. 

What this proves is that sabbaton cannot be translated Herbert Armstrong desired. None of that fits in grammatically or chronologically. Therefore it cannot mean what Herbert Armstrong tries to force it to mean. There is no conspiracy among Bible translators to obscure anything. What Armstrong did to work around his dilemma is wholly improper! Therefore it absolutely, positively cannot mean what he says it means. His explanation cannot stand.

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


BY ANY OTHER NAME


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

Add to that the testimony of Mark who says:
(MAR. 15: 42) "Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath."

There are two more important Greek words we need to know. The phrase "Preparation Day" here is from the Greek word 'paraskeue', and the entire phrase "the day before the Sabbath" is from one Greek word: 'prosabbaton'. What can we know about these words?

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

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

We can know from other documents that paraskeue and prosabbaton refer to Friday, not the least of which is a decree from Caesar Augustus declaring that no Jew could be compelled to go to court past the 9th hour on Friday 
"Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims... that they [Jews] shall not give sureties for appearance in court on the Sabbath or on the day of preparation [paraskeue] before it after the ninth hour."
-Augustus Caesar, Edict on Jewish Rights, on Fordham.edu  https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/roman-jews.asp 
You could also see the deuterocanonical book of Judith, chapter 8 verse 6:
"And she fasted all the days of her widowhood, except for the eves of the sabbaths [prosabbaton] and the sabbaths [sabbaton], and the eves of the new moons and the new moons, and the feasts and solemn days of the house of Israel.
We can see plainly that prosabbaton is Friday. This is also a fine example where we can see the weekly Sabbath again distinct from annual holy days. Sabbaths and 'feasts and solemn days' are not lumped together.

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

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

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

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


THE SPICE GIRLS

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

Mark 16: 1 says after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less, and Salome the mother of James and John purchased spices to anoint Jesus with.
Luke 23: 56 says before the Sabbath, the women from Galilee (presumably these same women mentioned above, possibly plus Martha) prepared spices.

A contradiction? No.

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

This definitely fits the description! There is no logical or grammatical reason why this explanation cannot work.

The issue I have with this is the eagerness of the women to go see the tomb. One wonders why the women did not visit the tomb on Friday since they had an entire free day. They could have prepared their spices on Thursday after sunset when the holy day was concluded, then they would have had all day Friday to visit the tomb. Clearly, they did not. Why not? They were so eager to go that they went on Sunday before it was even light, but they didn't go on Friday?

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

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

This also definitely fits the description! There is no logical or grammatical reason why this explanation cannot work.

And in this scenario, there is a very good reason for why the women were so anxious to get to the tomb on Sunday morning - this was their first opportunity.

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

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


HISTORICAL RECORD

I can present additional supporting evidence from the earliest Christian writings:
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" 
-Epistle of Barnabas, 15: 9 (70-130 A.D.)
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."
-Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter LXVII [67] (130-165 A.D.)
"On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathæa had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection."
-Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians (98-117 A.D.)
"But when it drew on (towards day) on the Friday, they accused him much [Mk 15.3] before Pilate; and they could show nothing that was true, but gave false witness against Him. And they asked Him of Pilate to be put to death; and they crucified Him on the same Friday."
-Unknown author, Didascalia Apostolorum, chapter XXI (200-250 AD)
Some people say Ignatius should be discounted because it is contested. (What ancient document isn't contested? Remember how I mentioned some people contest Matthew 28: 1?) I've actually thought about taking it out. But I realized it's contested for its age. Some of the content looks too Catholic, and that makes people uncomfortable, so they say it has to have been written later. Older or younger, we have no recorded dissenters from what is written therein. All of the oldest historical record agrees as one.

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

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


WRAPPING UP

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

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

MKJV gives you a good feel for what the Greek means. I would object that the first part should not be “late in the week” because the Greek and the context both indicate the week had ended. How can it be “late in the week” if the week is over? It cannot. But anywho….
The second part is properly translated "first day of the week" since "one of the sabbaton" was a standard way to say first day of the week (Sunday).

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

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

However if I am right, and it does mean “week” singular, then there should be some kind of evidence somewhere. And there is!
So far I have shown:
  • Sabbaton cannot be translated as a combination of a holy day and a weekly Sabbath.
  • There are not two Sabbaths (one weekly and one annual) hidden here.
  • The seven sabbath count to Pentecost is not an option.
  • Armstrong's timing is all wrong because the context is all wrong.
  • The word prosabbaton specifically refers to Friday.
  • The three other Gospels agree against Armstrong.
  • Every instance of "week" in the New Testament is sabbaton.
  • All professional Greek translators agree against Armstrong.
  • Respected commentaries align against Armstrong.
  • All early accounts outside the Bible witness against Armstrong.
The two Sabbaths hidden in Matthew 28 claim turns out to be circular reasoning.
How do you know there were two Sabbaths that week? Because Matthew 28 says so! How do you know Matthew 28 says so? Because there were two Sabbaths that week!

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

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

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


CONCLUSION

People say, "look in your Bible and you'll see a Wednesday crucifixion because there are two Sabbaths in Matthew 28," but I did look in my Bible, to the best of my ability, and I see the opposite. In all of the years we have been looking earnestly, and in all the many articles on ABD we have written, we cannot find two sabbaths in Matthew 28.
Did it come from the Bible, then? It couldn't have. So, where did it come from?
The next thing people say is, "Your eyes are blinded." Are they? I've done my level best to pull the truth from the Bible. I've shown you my work. If you can refute it, then by all means please do. When I ask people to show me from the Bible, all I get are claims which As Bereans Did has refuted conclusively. Or, I get ad hominem attacks, straw men, and empty statements like, "It's just logical." Is it just logical? If you have to change the words of the Bible, change the way language works, and change the historical record, is that truly logical? More importantly, is it truth? God's truth?

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

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

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

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

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



************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.
Acts 17:11
************